SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, CJI, UJJAL BHUYAN, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another – Appellants
Versus
M/s OASYS Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14199 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 6531 of 2025]
Decided On : 24-11-2025
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal, emanating from a dispute concerning government tenders, brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between considerations of public interest and the constitutional prohibition on arbitrariness in State action.
3. To briefly explicate, the State of Himachal Pradesh (Appellant-State) is in appeal against a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (High Court) dated 30.05.2024 (Impugned Judgment), whereby the cancellation of a Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to M/s OASYS Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent-company) in connection with a tender for the supply, installation, and maintenance of electronic Point-of-Sale (ePOS) devices for use in the Appellant-State’s Fair Price Shops, has been set aside with consequential restoration of contractual obligations.
A. FACTS
4. Prior to proceeding with charting out the competing submissions and the questions of law that arise for determination, it is necessary to first demarcate the relevant facts in some detail, as they form the quintessential setting against which the present controversy must be considered.
5. The dispute essentially emanates from the endeavour of the Appellant-State to modernise the functioning of its Public Distribution System (PDS). To that end, in 2017, the Appellant-State’s Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (the Department)-which is the second Appellant before us-had engaged the Respondent-company for the supply and maintenance of ePoS devices at Fair Price Shops across the State. The said arrangement, being a rental model, continued in operation for several years and formed the technological base for the State’s PDS till its expiry.
5.1. In the financial year 2021-22, the State Government resolved to upgrade this ostensibly obsolete system by introducing enhanced ePoS devices equipped with biometric and IRIS-scanning facilities, making them inter alia capable of integration with electronic weighing scales. The reform was intended to allow an Aadhaar-enabled Public Distribution System (AePDS) to ensure transparency and better service to the beneficiaries. Pursuant thereto, the Department on 23.04.2021 invited an Expression of Interest from eligible manufacturers and system integrators to supply and maintain such upgraded devices. Several agencies participated in that process, one of which was the Respondent- company itself.
5.2. The Department thereafter initiated a series of tendering exercises throughout 2021 and 2022. Although the first tender was floated on 20.12.2021 and bids were opened on 21.01.2022, none of the bidders, including the Respondent-company, were deemed technically qualified. As a result, the process was cancelled.
5.3. A second tender was published on 28.01.2022, wherein five companies participated, but a technical evaluation again revealed deficiencies in documentation and non-conformity with the requisite specifications. This tender, too, was cancelled on 22.02.2022.
5.4. The process for the third tender commenced on 23.02.2022. Once again, the same set of five companies, including the Respondent-company and one M/s Linkwell Telesystems Pvt. Ltd. (brand name Visiontek) (Linkwell Telesystems), participated in the process. Upon evaluation, only the Respondent-company was found to have satisfied the technical criteria. The Department nonetheless elected to scrap the process yet again in order to afford equal opportunity to all bidders and to avoid a single-vendor situation. The tender accordingly stood cancelled on 24.03.2022.
5.5. The Department consequently notified a fourth tender on 25.03.2022. Four conglomerates, including the Respondent-company and Linkwell Telesystems, again participated; and on evaluation, the Respondent-company was yet again the sole technical qualifier. However, on this occasion, in view of the pressing need to maintain continuity in ration distribution and given the repeated failure of earlier rounds, the Depar
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
Dresser Rand S.A. vs. Bindal Agro Chem Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 751 [Para 13]
Level 9 Biz Pvt. Ltd. vs. HP Housing & Urban Development Authority
Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa
Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour vs. Chief Executive Officer
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India
M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd. vs. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.