Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

wpl8205-23.docx

4. Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodg.)No. 8205/2023 has been adjudged H-1 in the bidding process and its bid is accordingly rejected by e-mail dated 21.03.2023, which is challenged by it. For the sake of convenience, petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 8205/2023 is referred in the judgment as Petitioner-NCR.

5. Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 8490/2023, is found L-1 amongst Class-II Suppliers, and has been granted an opportunity to match the L-1 price for the purposes of being awarded 50% of the order. Though it has been permitted to participate in the Reverse Auction Process, it is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank in permitting non-local suppliers to participate in the bidding process. In short, it desires ousting of non-local suppliers from the bidding process, so that it does not have to match the L-1 price for securing 50% of the order. It has accordingly set up a challenge to the Reverse Auction Process conducted by respondent no.1 and has sought a relief for invitation of price negotiation as per Clause-47.1 of the RAP. Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 8490/2023 is referred in the judgment as Petitioner-Hitachi.

13. Dr. Saraf would contend that the RAP is in consonance with the "Make In India" Order and the Manual for Procurement of Goods. That preference is being given to Class-I and Class-II local suppliers, who can match L-1 price and bag 50% of the Order. That the RFP is a GTE with purchase value of over Rs.200 crores and that as per the "Make In India" Order, non-local suppliers are also eligible to bid. He would submit that what is issued by DPIIT in meeting held on 22.2.2023 are merely guidelines, which are required to be contextually read as the meeting was convened essentially to clarify the concept of 'local content'. That the guideline for prohibition on wpl8205-23.docx non-local bidders can to participate, at the highest, would apply to subsequent tender processes. That the DPIIT was aware of the impugned RFP and despite grievances being raised by petitioners, DPIIT did not direct respondent-Bank to exclude non-local suppliers. That the entire tender process is virtually complete as the reverse auction has been conducted and concluded. That Petitioner-Hitachi has been given an offer to match L-1 price in reverse auction upto 30.03.2023 for award of 50% of the order. Lastly, Dr. Saraf would contend that on account of inclusion of non-local suppliers, respondent-Bank would be in a position to procure CRMs at Rs.43 crores cheaper than petitioners' quoted prices. In support of his contentions, Dr. Saraf would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha6.

18. On 20.03.2020, respondent-Bank opened technical bids. It appears that four bidders were technically found qualified. Those included petitioners, who are local suppliers and CMS Info System wpl8205-23.docx Ltd and Oki India Private Limited, which are non-local suppliers. It appears that the financial bids were also opened and Petitioner-NCR was found to be H-1 and in accordance with the tender conditions, was held ineligible to participate in the RAP. The email to that effect was addressed by the respondent-Bank to Petitioner-NCR on 21.03.2020. It appears that the two non-local suppliers are found L- 1 and L-2. Petitioner-Hitachi is found L-1 amongst local suppliers and has been provided with an opportunity to participate in the Reverse Auction Process to match the L-1 price for the purpose of securing 50% of the order. By its communication dated 25.03.2023, Petitioner-Hitachi however expressed its disinclination to participate in the Reverse Auction. Petitioners have therefore filed present petitions challenging the RFP conditions permitting participation by non-local suppliers, as well as the entire bidding process.

39. Even otherwise, the Petitioner Hitachi Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. have got right to participate in the reverse auction process and it can participate in the reverse auction process. If it matches the rate quoted by L1 it will be entitled for 50% of the order.

40. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petitions deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. However, no orders as to costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

41. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the judgment of this court be stayed for a period of two weeks.