IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that disclosure of past corruption cases is limited to three years prior to the tender process, affirming the integrity of the tendering authority's decision.

JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. This writ petition arises out of award of license for Commissioning and Operation of Base Kitchens at several locations, and onboard catering services in all trains of cluster no. SER/CLT-A-2, for a period of 5 years with a condition of the same being extendable up to 2 more years.

2. The tendering process started with an open E-tender bearing reference no. 2024/IRCTC/P&T/CLUSTER/FEB/SER/CLT-A-2. The tender was floated nationwide. The same was opened on March 3, 2024. Respondent no.2 was the successful bidder and was granted Letter of Award (LOA) on April 4, 2024. The tendering authority is the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘IRCTC’).

3. The petitioner approached the Group General Manager, IRCTC, on June 26, 2024, intimating the authority that the respondent no.2 was involved in the RAIL NEER Scam and the CBI had registered a case under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on October 14, 2015. The CBI had also filed a charge-sheet in the said matter and the competent court had taken cognizance. The ECIR had also registered an FIR on the issue.

4. The petitioner alleges that Section 7 of the Integrity Pact was violated as the bidder did not disclose such transgression before the railway authorities/IRCTC, which impinged on the anti-corruption principle.

5. According to Mr. Basu, learned Senior Advocate, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, non-disclosure of the past criminal case was a transgression of the integrity pact. Such transgression directly affects the credibility of the bidder, who was involved in the scam of procurement and supply of packaged drinking water to the passengers, other than RAIL NEER. The bid of such a participant should have been rejected and the bidder should have been debarred from participating in the tender, not only because of the nondisclosure, but also because the continuation of such a bidder in the entire bidding process would be a transgression and violation of the mandatory conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT). Credibility of the bidder includes past performance, experience, and honesty. Supply of food to the passengers, and at the stations, demands a high standard of integrity. The norms and specifications of the food and water to be served were to be strictly adhered to. The public element involved would require the highest form of reliability. A bidder who was facing a criminal case should not have been selected, especially when such fact was brought to the notice of the IRCTC by a letter dated June 26, 2024.

6. Relying on Section 7 of the Integrity Pact, Mr. Basu contends that if the IRCTC obtains knowledge that a bidder/contractor or sub-contractor or any employee or representative of the bidder, contractor or sub-contractor indulges in acts of corruption or if IRCTC has substantive suspicion in that regard, the IRCTC is required to inform the fact to the chief vigilance officer.

7. Mr. Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondent no.1/IRCTC submits that the letter of award was granted on April 4, 2024. The petitioner filed the objection after more than two months. This was an afterthought.

8. The standard bid documents provide a jurisdiction clause. Courts at New Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain any objection arising out of award of the contract.

9. It is next submitted that Section 2(g) of the Integrity Pact talks about the disclosure of any transgression with other companies that impinges on the anti-corruption principle. Section 2(g) read with Section 5(1) indicates that the bidder had to disclose that no transgression had occurred in the past 3 years with any other company in the country or with any other public sector enterprise in India.

10. According to Mr. Mehta, a combined reading of Section 2(g) and Section 5(1) do not require discl