Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The case of the petitioner as given in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is as follows:

The petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. It is a leading Financial Technology Company with a comprehensive portfolio of products, services and consulting. The petitioner, in the course of their business has been providing I.T. Services to the respondent for over twenty five years starting from 1987 till date. This has given the petitioner a rich experience in the respondent's Core Banking Solutions (CBS) product. The respondent's existing C.B.S. has been built with the petitioner's CBS product as a Core which co-exists with other vendor's products and solutions. It is also their case that 65% of the respondent's C.B.S. runs on the petitioner's intellect product. The constant follow up by the petitioner with the adequate number of supporting staff in all the branches in Bangalore, Mumbai, Chennai, etc., has ensured no system failure for the past 25 years with the Core EOD running time kept to the minimum of 90 to 105 minutes. This backup of the petitioner has helped the respondent to win several awards. Over the last 36 months alone, the petitioner has delivered over 32 different products and several of these are in the C.B.S. itself. The C.B.S. provided by the petitioner has about 108 modules, all served from one platform with delivery channels and the several third parties system integrated. The petitioner has invested by up-grading the existing Intellect Software to R12 version. This will be a single integrated CBS solution. In December, 2010, the petitioner proposed a gradual migration of their single integrated CBS Solution which would be smooth co-existent with the current CBS. The respondent had already invested in most of the necessary Hardware and the Environment Software and the upgrade to the R12 version would be not only cost effective, but also, would lead to minimal issues around migration and training. This would reduce the changed process for employees seamlessly. While so, the respondent by proceedings dated 12.12.2012 request for proposal for Core Banking Solution and other application implementation dated 12.01.2013 together with the RFP issued by the Information Technology Division of the respondent. The RFP was made available publicly on the respondent's website. The respondent appears to have blindly followed the recommendations of the technology and project management consultant in relation to the RFP without any independent application of mind. According to the RFP, the respondent is using COBOL (RM-COBOL) based Core Banking Application since 2003. The respondent migrated from COBOL based TBA to CBS from this petitioner's group company called Laser Soft Infosystems Limited. The RFP was for Supply, Designing, Procuring, Installation and Commissioning, Testing, Implementing, Integration and Maintaining an End to End Applications in business solutions, other business applications and other solutions, as detailed in the affidavit, including interfaces adequately sized Hardware, Software Applications, Tools, Utilities and facilities management as per the terms and conditions of RFP. According to the RFP, the existing CBS has been highly customized to the respondent's accounting procedures systems, processes and conventions. The existing CBS is as acceptable level of functionality and is user-friendly. The existing CBS has all modules relating to Domestic and Forex covering various Deposits, Loans, Remittances, Bills and Utility Services. The existing CBS system is an integrated system for Domestic, Forex and Service Branch function and having STP with delivery channels like ATM, Internet Banking, SMS/Mobile Banking, NEFT, RTGS, Financial Inclusion and AML/KYC, etc. The respondent has floated this RFP with a view to bring out an envisioned Core Banking Solution and other applications implementation and transformation through major transformation of their existing information technologies. In such circumstances, the petitioner as the existing vendor providing I.T. Services is better placed to bring to fruition such vision for a comprehensive CBS by the respondent. But, denial of such an opportunity to the petitioner as an incumbent vendor to participate in the RFP is arbitrary and discriminatory. Moreso when the petitioner's solutions are far less expensive and whose current solutions are admittedly user-friendly and accepted by the respondents. Thus, the RFP issued by the respondent is exfacie discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the unilateral decision in proceeding with the RFP instead of using the petitioner's services for the CBS is totally arbitrary and discriminatory. This migration and the interpolation of a new vendor for managing the CBS would result in enormous difficulties to public customers. Encouraging a new vendor would also result in substantial expenditure and would result in duplication of several items of work. The new vendor will require re-doing many items of work such as Software Interfaces, employee training, functional requirements, specifications study, business process definitions and customization etc. about which, the petitioner is already familiar with. The respondent being a State ought not to indulge in causing loss to public exchequer, investors and shareholders, as it would certainly result in wasteful expenditure by the respondent.

2.The eligibility criteria for the bidders in the RFP are also equally arbitrary and discriminatory. The respondent relied on irrelevant criteria which are no longer material in the present stage of technology. Furthermore, the eligibility criteria have also been framed to prevent the petitioner from participation in the bidding process. For example Section II(5) of the eligibility criteria provides that the vendor should have had end to end system integration experience in having implemented the proposed CBS comprising of atleast supply, commissioning, implementation and maintenance of Hardware, Software and storage in atleast 1000 branches of one Public Sector Bank in India. However, while the petitioner has implemented the proposed CBS for the respondent itself for more than 1000 branches, it has not partnered with any system integrated for such implementation. Therefore this criteria is discriminatory of the petitioner who is the incumbent vendor.

16.After going through the relevant clauses, I am unable to find how this clause is discriminatory and arbitrary as contended by the writ petitioner.

17.It is settled law that it is for the person who is inviting the Bid to include the clauses as per their requirements and when a State or a Public Sector Undertaking are inviting tenders with clauses and eligibility criteria concerning their requirements, the court should be very slow in overthrowing them as such clauses are incorporated on the basis of the recommendations of the experts in the filed. No doubt, this Court can interfere when there are clauses which are discriminatory, arbitrary or if the same has been made to avoid level playing field. Further, malafide is yet another ground for interfering with tender process. However, though in the affidavit, the petitioner states that the clauses are arbitrary and discriminatory and the same have been included for the sole purpose of keeping them out of the process, I am not able to find those grounds and the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate their allegations.

19.Even a cursory glance of these clauses also, they do not show that they are arbitrary and discriminatory as contended by the writ petitioner. Here is a public sector bank which has floated a request for proposal (RFP) keeping in mind its own requirements and also further development and improvement of its existing system. While doing so, the public sector bank should be keen on a larger leeway to satisfy their requirements and also to make invitations from eligible persons to suit their needs and also to improve and expand the present system which includes planning and budgeting Therefore, unless a person shows concrete evidence as to how these clauses are discriminatory and arbitrary with the sole intention of excluding or keeping that person out of the bidding, it is not open to this Court to interfere with those clauses especially when the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that Court should be very slow in interfering with the tender conditions and the matters which are lying in the realm of contract.