IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Ms Mi2c Security Facilities Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 4101 of 2021; C.M. Appl No. 12496 of 2021, 19475 of 2021, 19476 of 2021
Decided On : 06-07-2021
Blacklisting - Tender Disqualification - 13, 14, 28.2 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to blacklisting and its duration, emphasizing that blacklisting cannot be indefinite and should be for a reasonable period. The court highlighted the need for objectivity and transparency in formulating guidelines for the duration of blacklisting, and the potential consequences of blacklisting on the organization. The court also emphasized that the negative consequences of blacklisting cannot continue beyond the period of blacklisting itself, and that the authority blacklisting the petitioner had restricted the blacklisting up to a certain date. The court concluded that the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid was completely erroneous and quashed the disqualification, directing the respondent to treat the petitioner's technical bid as qualified.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondent corporation disqualifying the petitioner for a bid due to blacklisting by the DDA, despite the blacklisting period having ended before the bid submission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid to be completely erroneous and quashed the disqualification, directing the respondent to treat the petitioner's technical bid as qualified.
Issues: The main issue was the disqualification of the petitioner's bid based on blacklisting by the DDA, despite the blacklisting period having ended before the bid submission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that blacklisting cannot be indefinite and should be for a reasonable period, and that the negative consequences of blacklisting cannot continue beyond the period of blacklisting itself.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondent to treat the petitioner's technical bid as qualified, quashing the disqualification and instructing the opening of the petitioner's financial bid.
JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, J. - The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition aggrieved by the decision taken by the respondent corporation holding the petitioner to be technically disqualified in respect of the bid submitted by the petitioner for providing security services in response to the tender floated by the respondent corporation. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent initially floated a tender bearing Tender ID No. D/PM(C)/CC/2020- 21/TC/03/1 for security of SPM Civic Centre, Minto Road, Delhi under two bid systems on 27.07.2020. However, the said tender was postponed on several occasions and the last communication whereby fresh schedule was fixed stipulated the last date for submission of bids as 08.02.2021. The petitioner submitted its bid, in response to the said tender, on 06.02.2021. The petitioner, it appears was black listed by the DDA for a period of two years from 10.02.2020. However, upon the petitioner making a representation, the tenure of black listing was reduced up to 31.12.2020. Thus, as on the date of submission of the petitioner's bid on 06.02.2021, the petitioner no longer had the stigma of black listing attached to it any further. The Technical Evaluation Committee of the respondent corporation considered the bid submitted by the petitioner and the other bidders in its meeting held on 18.03.2021. So far as the petitioner is concerned the petitioner was held to be technically disqualified on the ground "Member Secretary further informed the committee that as per DDA blacklisting letter dated 20.10.2020, the prospective bidders, M/s. MI2C Security & Facilities Pvt. Ltd. is not eligible for consideration as the said firm was under blacklisting/debarred by DDA at the time of tendering." Consequently, the petitioner was communicated the disqualification in the tendering process on 22.03.2021. Petitioner was informed that its technical bid has not been recommended for acceptance due to non qualification of the eligibility criteria, based on the bid and subsequent clarification submitted by it.
2. The relevant terms and conditions contained in the tender document may now be taken note of:
WHO CAN PARTICIPATE?
1. .................
2. .................
"6. Should not have been blacklisted by the departments / Ministries of the Govt. of India, /PSUs/Autonomous Bodies. Declaration has to be given in the form of notarized affidavit."
2. ELIGIBLE BIDDERS: -
2.1 ........
"2.6 The bidder should have not been blacklisted by the Departments /Ministries of the Govt. of India,/PSUs/Private Organizations. Declaration has to be given in the- form of notarized affidavit. (Valid scanned copy certified by the Chartered Account has to be uploaded for proof)."
Submission of tender : Two Bid System
9.1.1 ...........
"9.1.12 Should have not been blacklisted by the Departments/Ministries of the Govt. of India,/PSUs/Autonomous Bodies. Declaration has to be given in the form of notarized affidavit."
BID OPENING AND EVALUATION:-
10.2 Right to accept any Bid and to reject any or all Bids:-
"10.2.2 The office of Project Manager, Dr. SPM Civic Centre/North Delhi Municipal Corporation, may terminate the contract, if it is found that the Bidder is black listed on previous occasions by the any of the Departments/Institutions/Local Bodies/Municipalities/Public Sector Undertakings, etc."
3. The submission of Mr.Makhija, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the black listing of the petitioner by the DDA having come to an end on 31.12.2020, there was no bar against the petitioner in participating in the tendering process conducted by the DDA, much less by any other authority on the premise that the petitioner had been black listed by the DDA. He submits that it is well settled in law that black listing cannot be for an indefinite period or open ended, and cannot adversely impact the entity black listed for all times to come. Otherwise, it would lead to financial death of the enterprise which is once black listed. Mr. Makhija
Blacklisting cannot be indefinite and should be for a reasonable period, and the negative consequences of blacklisting cannot continue beyond the period of blacklisting itself.
Blacklisting cannot have indefinite effects; once the period lapses, entities regain eligibility to bid, ensuring adherence to fair administrative principles.
A participant in a tender process must disclose any prior blacklisting, which renders them ineligible if concealed.
The court established that a previous blacklisting does not permanently hinder an entity's ability to participate in tenders once the stipulated period has ended.
Authority cannot perpetually debar an entity from participation in tenders post-blacklisting period.
A false statement which goes to the root of the tender, inasmuch as it hits the essential qualification requirements thereof, was rightly not pardoned by the respondent-Authorities in the present cas....
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.