IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.V.Gangapurwala, Sandeep V.Marne, JJ.
NCR Corporation India Pvt. Limited & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Union Bank Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (LODG.) No. 8205, 8490 of 2023
Decided On : 06-04-2023
Make In India - Eligibility of non-local suppliers to participate in the Request for Proposal (RFP) - General Financial Rules, 2017, Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2022 - The court discussed the 'Make In India' Order, General Financial Rules, 2017, and Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2022. It highlighted the eligibility criteria for suppliers, the distinction between local and non-local suppliers, and the conditions for Global Tender Enquiry (GTE). The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the 'Make In India' policy and the impact of violating it on the tender process.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petitions challenged the eligibility of non-local suppliers to participate in the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the respondent-Bank for supply, installation, and maintenance of Cash Recycler Machines. The petitioners, Indian manufacturers, objected to the tender condition permitting non-local manufacturers and suppliers to participate, citing violation of the 'Make In India' Order, General Financial Rules, 2017, and Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2022.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tender was not violative of the 'Make In India' policy as the estimated cost of the tender was assessed at Rs.208 crores, justifying the inclusion of non-local suppliers. It dismissed the Writ Petitions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the 'Make In India' policy and the impact of violating it on the tender process.
Issues: Eligibility of non-local suppliers, compliance with 'Make In India' policy, violation of tender conditions, and the impact of the 'Make In India' policy on the tender process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the 'Make In India' policy and the impact of violating it on the tender process. It held that the estimated cost of the tender justified the inclusion of non-local suppliers, and the tender was not violative of the 'Make In India' policy.
Final Decision: The Writ Petitions challenging the eligibility of non-local suppliers were dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
JUDGMENT
S.V.Gangapurwala, J. - Both these Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and involve common issues, to avoid rigmarole are decided by common judgment.
2. The eligibility of non-local suppliers to participate in the Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the respondent-Bank for supply, installation and maintenance of 1900 Cash Recycler Machines is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.
3. Petitioners are Indian manufacturers and suppliers of Cash Recycler Machines (CRMs) and have raised objection to the tender condition permitting non-local manufacturers and suppliers to participate in the tender process. Eligibility of non-local suppliers is essentially challenged on the ground that the same is in contravention of the 'Make In India' Order dated 16.09.2020, General Financial Rules, 2017 and Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2022. Petitioners have therefore challenged the RFP, as well as, the entire bidding process conducted by respondent no.1.
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.
6. Appearing for Petitioner-NCR, Mr. Kambhatta the learned senior advocate would submit that, 'Make In India' order is mandatory and binding on the respondent-Bank. That under the 'Make In India' Order, only Class-I and Class-II local suppliers are eligible to bid in the procurement undertaken by procuring agencies, except where GTE is issued. That the present RFP is not a GTE, as its value is less than Rs.200 crores. That the reference price shown in the bidding portal is Rs.174,92,47,369/- which demonstrates that the RFP is not a GTE. Even if estimated cost is assumed to be over Rs.200 crores, the RFP still does not qualify as GTE as it does not comply with the mandatory requirements in the Manual for Procurement of Goods, 2012 since (i) RFP was not published on Central Public Procurement Portal, (ii) RFP mandates only Indian Rupee bids, whereas GTE permits price quotation in foreign currency as well, (iii) RFP is a mandatory 'e-procurement' tender, which is not mandatorily insisted upon in a GTE and (iv) RFP does not contain any condition for INCOTERMS, which is a mandatory requirement for GTE.
7. Mr. Kambhatta, the learned Senior Advocate would further submit that mere participation by Petitioner-Hitachi in the bidding process cannot be construed as an acquiescence, as it objected to the illegality. That since bidding condition violates 'Make In India' Order, the same is null and void. He makes an alternative submission that upon petitioner's objections, DPIIT directed respondent-Bank as late as on 27.02.2023 to procure CRMs only from local suppliers and therefore petitioner had a legitimate expectation of the respondent-Bank complying to the DPIIT's directives. He would refer to several correspondence which Petitioner-NCR made with the respondent-Bank repeatedly objecting to the tender condition permitting participati
Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha (2020) 16 SCC 759
Public Interest Litigation Versus. Union of India and Others (2016) 6 SCC 408
Adherence to the 'Make In India' policy and the impact of violating it on the tender process.
Arbitrary limitation of approved makes/brands in a tender process can be deemed discriminatory and in violation of government orders, leading to the quashing of the tender process.
Point of law: powers of judicial review are limited and while exercising such power the Court has to see whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafideor is intended to fav....
Point of Law : Court would not sit in the arm chair of experts or the Tender Scrutiny Committee, which has scrutinized and found the 3rd respondent to be responsive and had to be awarded the contract....
Judicial review of tender conditions is limited; courts should not interfere unless actions are arbitrary, discriminatory, or mala fide, ensuring public interest is prioritized.
Tender conditions permitting out-of-state participation enhance competition and do not violate constitutional provisions regarding fairness and freedom of trade.
Judicial review in tenders limited to mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality impacting public interest; courts defer to authority's interpretation of eligibility unless perverse.
The court upheld that 100% reservation for MSEs in public procurement is valid under the MSE Policy, rejecting claims of arbitrariness towards tender selection processes.
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.