Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel who had appeared on behalf of Tata Motors, had brought to the attention of the Court that despite a caveat having been duly lodged at its instance, the same was neither noticed nor reported. However, bearing in mind the nature of the interest which Tata Motors claimed in the instant litigation, it was accorded permission to address submissions on the writ petition as well as on its application for impleadment being CM APPL. 20975/2022. That application has since been allowed. The matter was thereafter listed on 04 and 05 May 2022. The Court had heard Mr.Dushyant Dave and Mr.Rajiv Nayyar, learned senior counsels on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.Chetan Sharma, the learned ASG who has appeared on behalf of MHI, Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned senior counsel, who appeared for respondent No.2 and Dr. Singhvi for the newly impleaded respondent. The respondent No.2 has placed a compilation of documents, a convenience compilation as well as a limited reply which has been duly circulated amongst respective parties.

34. Learned ASG further submitted that admittedly no challenge was ever laid or raised by the petitioner with respect to either paragraph G4 of the tender document or the Guidelines framed by the Department of Expenditure which clearly applied. In view of the aforesaid, the learned Solicitor would contend that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

35. Mr. Parag Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the second respondent, has taken the Court in great detail through the limited reply which was filed in the writ petition and has made the following submissions. It is firstly disclosed that the petitioner submitted its bid on 15 March 2022. Upon being found to be technically responsive, the petitioner was invited to participate in the process of submission of financial bids. Mr. Tripathi, has referred to an e-mail of 21 March 2022 received from the MHI apprising the second respondent of the fact that the proposal submitted by JBM Electric under the PLI Scheme was being examined by IFCI based on information that incorrect particulars had been submitted in order to obtain benefits under that Scheme. That e-mail, Mr. Tripathi points out, had requested the second respondent to consequently defer the opening of financial bids by a few days. According to learned Senior Counsel acting on the basis of that e-mail, the opening of financial bids on 21 March 2022 was postponed. The attention of the Court was then drawn to the e-mail of 18 April 2022 addressed by the second respondent to the MHI. The second respondent while highlighting the prejudice being caused on account of the delays in finalization of the present tendering process, had sought guidance from the MHI. It transpires from the record that in response to the aforesaid e-mail, MHI on 25 April 2022 addressed a letter to the second respondent apprising it of the debarment of JBM Electric and the decision of the concerned Ministry to debar not only JBM Electric but also all its group companies from future schemes and tenders published by MHI. That communication requested the second respondent to consequently debar JBM Electric as well as its group companies from the tender for e-buses. Mr. Tripathi apprises the Court that acting upon the aforesaid communication, on 26 April 2022 a decision was taken by the second respondent to hold the petitioner disqualified from proceeding further in the tendering process.