SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 1004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, M. S. Karnik, JJ.
Rosmerta Technologies Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6750 of 2022
Decided On : 20-09-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam with Mr. Ramdas Hakke Patil
For the Respondent:Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate General with Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader, Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP and Ms. Sneha Bhanage

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appeal against discriminatory tender conditions - Clauses 2.15 and 2.16 of the RFP found to disproportionately favor certain bidders, causing exclusion of others from competition. (Para 4)

(B) Tender Process - Judicial review must maintain restraint to avoid interference unless terms are proven arbitrary or discriminatory - Scope for flexibility allowed to authorities in selecting competent bidders. (Paras 26, 32)

(C) Standards for eligibility and competition - Government's prerogative to set criteria for tender; the court should not micro-manage terms. (Para 22)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges tender eligibility requirements as discriminatory, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Specifically, he contests financial criteria restrictively tailored to favor few bidders. Presence of only 2 valid bids sparks concern over competitiveness. (Paras 7, 34)

Findings of Court:
The clauses in question have been tailored to maintain a balance in favor of competent manufacturers and the process aligns with statutory guidelines. The limited number of competitors warrants procedural extensions to ensure fair competition. (Paras 10, 36)

Issues: The court addressed whether the tender clauses violate constitutional rights and whether the terms unreasonably restrict competition. (Para 26)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that tender terms must serve public interest; judiciary should respect procedural discretion unless clear evidence of malice or arbitrariness exists. Judicial intervention is limited where the issuing authority demonstrates reasonable justification for the criteria set forth. (Paras 26, 32)

Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions for procedural compliance, and no costs imposed.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. Motor Vehicles Department, Government of Maharashtra (hereafter “GoM”, for short) issued Tender Notification No. TCO/Comp/RCDLTender/2021/On4180 dated 25th March 2021 in the form of a REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (hereafter “RFP”, for short) for Selection of a Service Provider for Centralized Printing of Registration Certificates and Driving Licenses for a period of five (5) years.

2. In this writ petition dated 6th June 2022, the petitioner has questioned clauses 2.15 and 2.16 of the RFP on grounds as urged therein and has prayed for, inter alia, the following relief :

    “(A) Pass a direction/order in the nature of Mandamus or Certiorari or any other writ thereby quashing or setting aside the referred RFP dated 25.03.2021, thereby quashing the impugned discriminatory, arbitrary and tailor-made eligibility condition as embodied under Clause 2.16, Sr. No. 1 (Turnover), Clause 2.16, Sr. No. 2 (Net-worth), Clause 2.16, Sr. No. 5 (experience), Clause 2.15 of the impugned RFP issued for “Section of a Service Provider for Centralized Printing of Registration Certificates and Driving License for Motor Vehicles Department in the State of Maharashtra for a period of 5 years for the same being violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g).

    (B) Pass an order, directing Respondent no. 2 to issue a fresh RFP for selection of service provider for issuance of DL/RC Smart Cards by replacing the pre-qualification conditions as embodied in Clause 2.16, Sr. No.1 (Turnover), Clause 2.16, Sr. No. 2 (Net-worth), Clause 2.16, Sr. No. 5 (experience), Clause 2.15; of the afore-mentioned RFP, with modified terms which are fair and competitive.”

3. Since clauses 2.15 and 2.16 (partly) are under challenge, we consider it appropriate to extract the same in its entirety below for facility of appreciation. The said clauses read thus:

    “2.15 Pre-Qualification Criteria This invitation for bids is open to bidders who are eligible to do business in India under relevant Indian laws as is in force at the time of bidding as per the criteria mentioned in the RFP. The bidder shall submit all the documents as mentioned below and additionally other documents as necessary. Only bids qualifying the criteria below would be eligible for further technical evaluation.

Sr. No.

Criteria

Documents Required

1.

Legal Entity:

The bidder should be a company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956/ 2013 as amended from time to time.

- Copy of Certificates of incorporation.

- Articles of Association (AOA) or Memorandum of Association (MoA)

2.

Financial: Average Turnover – similar work

The average annual turnover of the bidder should be at least Rs. 100 crore from manufacturing / supplying, and printing PC/PVC/PetG/ ABS cards in India in the last three financial years.

- Certificate from Statutory Auditors.

- Copy of Audited Financial Statements.

- Details mentioned in format as mentioned in Annexure 24

3.

Financial: Net Worth

The bidder shall have Positive Net Worth in the last three financial years

Net Worth to be calculated as per Companies Act 1956/ 2013, as amended from time to time.

- Certificate from Statutory Auditors.

- Copy of Audited Financial Statements.

- Details mentioned in format as mentioned in Annexure 24

4.

Technical Capability:

The bidder should have an experience of manufacturing/ supplying, and printing of at least 1 crore PC/PVC/PetG/ ABS cards, during the last 3 financial years in Government (State/Central)/ Semi Government/ Corporation/PSU/PSU Banks in India.

- Copy of the work order along with copy of the contract agreement mentioning the relevant Scope of Work and Project value.

- Completion Certificate

OR

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top