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

2021 Supreme(Del) 687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, JASMEET SINGH, JJ.
VF Worldwide Holdings Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Ministry Of External Affairs, Government Of India & Ors - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7980 of 2021 and CM APPLs. 24815 of 2021, 31817 of 2021
Decided on : 23-11-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Rohit Kochhar, Mr. Nishant Menon, Mr. Manish Dembla, Mr. Deepesh and Mr. Nachiketa Goyal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Chetan Sharma, Learned ASG, Mr. Apoorva Kurup, Ms. Akshata Singh, Mr. Vinay Yadav, Mr. Akhshya Gadeock, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Mishika Bajpai, Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Naman Joshi, Mr. Guneet Sidhu and Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocates

Point of Law: It is mandatory to give information for being “facial biometric capture” and being “Optional Services (OSs) for specified services”], a bidder could not have quoted “zero” for specific service.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12 - Tender - Bidder - Operation of Consular/ Passport/ Visa service centres - Outsourcing Committee - Viability of Service Fee for Service Provider - Opening of Financial Bids - Seeking quash and setting aside impugned communication issued by Respondent No.2 thereby declaring Respondent No.3 as successful bidder pursuant to Request for Proposal - Whether quoting “zero” against providing certain biometric services was impermissible for bidders, and makes bid unworkable and commercially/economically unviable and calls for judicial interference - Whether acceptance of bid of Respondent no. 3 amounts to an unreasonable, arbitrary, malafide and illegal act, contrary to terms of RFP and calls for a judicial review.

Finding of the Court :

As ‘zero’ is a value that has been accepted as economically and commercially viable for certain heads - for this and similar tenders, and has been quoted by various successful bidders, we see no room for interference. Even more pertinently, Petitioner itself has participated in past tender while quoting “zero” for certain services. Therefore, the Petitioner can’t blow hot and cold - Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice ordecision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in min - Contract awarded in favour of Respondent no. 3 does not amount to an arbitrary, illegal, or malafide act, and it is not hit by Wednesbury’s Principle of Unreasonableness. The Respondent no. 3 has duly complied with the terms of the RFP and we find no reason to interfere with the award of tender to Respondent No.3.

Result: Petition dismissed

JUDGMENT :

JASMEET SINGH, J.

1. The present petition has been filed seeking the following substantial prayers:

“(a) call the entire records of the subject tender/Request for Proposal dated 18.01.2021 published on 29.01.2021 having tender ID 2021_MEA_586356_1 from the offices of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2;

(b) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned communication no. Kuw/Cons/415/09/2020 dated 04.08.2021 issued by Respondent No.2 thereby declaring Respondent No.3 as the successful bidder pursuant to the Request for Proposal dated 18.01.2021;

(c) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside any other action of Respondent No.2 which may have already been taken, or may be taken during the pendency of the present writ petition, pursuant to the declaration of Respondent No.3 as the successful bidder by way of the impugned communication no. Kuw/Cons/415/09/2020 dated 04.08.2021;

(d) issue a writ of declaration or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby declaring the financial bid submitted by Respondent No.3 in response to the Request for Proposal dated 18.01.2021 as unresponsive;

(e) issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to consider the financial bid submitted by the Petitioner in response to the Request for Proposal dated 18.01.2021;”

2. The following are the brief facts of the case:

3. As per the Petitioner:

a) The Petitioner was incorporated under the laws of DMCC, United Arab Emirates (UAE) and has its registered office at Unit No: 3205, JBC1, Plot No: JLT-PH1-G2A, Jumeirah Lakes Towers, Dubai, UAE. The Petitioner is a subsidiary of VFS Global Services PLC incorporated in the United Kingdom, and ultimately owned by EQT AB Group, headquartered in Switzerland. The Petitioner along with its group companies is the world's largest outsourcing and technology services specialist for governments and diplomatic missions worldwide. With 3523 application centres, and operations in 143 countries across five continents, the Petitioner along with its group companies serves the interests of 62 client governments.

b) The Petitioner has embedded best practices in its operations and is currently providing similar services as sought in the RFP for various Indian Embassies in 12 countries.

4. Respondent No.1 is the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India. Indian Embassies in various countries work under the administrative control and supervision of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the Indian Embassy in Kuwait. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and are therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Respondent No.3 is a company incorporated in India who has been declared the successful bidder by Respondent No.2 pursuant to the RFP.

6. Respondent No. 2 issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 27.03.2020, inviting bids from interested bidders for establishing three Consular/Visa/Passport centres in Kuwait City, i.e. at Sharq locality, Fahaheel and Jleeb Al Shuwaikh, and providing consular, passport, and visa services at the said centres. On 19.06.2020, Respondent No. 2 decided to cancel the tender due to technical anomalies in the bids received.

7. Respondent No. 2 again floated a tender dated 20.06.2020 for the above said services. The tender was cancelled vide a notification dated 02.10.2020.

8. The Respondent No.2 again issued a fresh Request for Proposal dated 18.01.2021 which was released on 29.01.2021. As per the schedule contained in the said RFP, the bids were to be submitted by 20.02.2021, and contract was to be awarded by 31.03.2021. The last date for submission of bids was first extended up to 06.03.2021 and thereafter up to 16.03.2021.

9. It is the Petitioner’s subm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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