The court emphasized the limited scope of interference in administrative decisions related to tender processes and upheld the rejection of bids for non-compliance with bid conditions and the CVC circular.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. By means of the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks to quash the decision taken by Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to disqualify the technical bid submitted by the Petitioner in respect of Bid No. GEM/2022/B0266024 dated 24.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as "the Impugned Bid") issued by Respondent No. 3.

2. The Petitioner states that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 which has been duly registered as a Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (MSME) and deals in the sale, service and supply of cyber security products.

3. Shorn of details, the facts in brief are as under:

a. It is stated that on 24.03.2022 Respondent No. 3 invited bids for the purchase of 24 Intrusion Prevention System (IPS), which is a cyber security product with technical specifications, features, configuration, technical service support and IPS Centralised Management Solution in order to protect Aadhaar data of citizens. The technical specifications for the IPS system have been defined in the Impugned Bid. It is pertinent to mention here that Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has issued a circular dated 13.01.2012 to reduce the possibility of collusion and cartelization amongst the bidders. Paragraph No.3 of the said circular reads as under:

"3. In supersession to the earlier OMs dated 7.01.2003 and 21.04.2004, Commission has decided that in all cases of procurement, the following guidelines may be followed:

a) In a tender, either the Indian agent on behalf of the Principal/OEM or Principal/OEM itself can bid but both cannot bid simultaneously for the same item/product in the same tender.

b) If an agent submits bid on behalf of the Principal/OEM, the same agent shall not submit a bid on behalf of another Principal/OEM in the same tender for the same item/product."

b. It is stated that the Respondent No. 4 is the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) of the IPS and the Petitioner herein has a franchise agreement to buy the said IPS product and supply/sell the same in the category of a local supplier/seller/re-seller by virtue of being registered as an MSME.

c. The Petitioner states that the Petitioner, Respondent No. 4 and three other parties offered the IPS Product in response to the Impugned Bid by submitting their respective bids through the GeM portal. It is stated that only Respondent No. 4 is the OEM of the IPS and the other 4 bidders, including the Petitioner are resellers of the said IPS.

d. It is stated that Respondent No. 3 made certain queries on the GeM portal on 13.05.2022 in respect of the bid made by the Petitioner. The queries raised by Respondent No 3 are reproduced as under:

"1. The model number (IPS-V20301) and description of the product mentioned in the submitted data sheet does not match with the product model number (V2000) and description available on the OEM website. Firm is requested to provide clarification in this regard and share OEM weblink for verifying the same.

2. As per clause 13, submit undertaking of soles service support of product in India.

3. As per clause past performance, Firm is requested to submit the past performance certificate of some product or similar category product for 50% of bid quantity, in at least one of the last three Financial years before the bid opening date to any Central/State Govt Organization/PSU/Public Listed Company.

4. As per MII clause of bid, Firm is requested to submit the MII certificate of declaration certified by statutory auditors or cost auditor.

5. As Firm is requested to submit EAL4, NDPP or NSS Lab Certificate for tech evaluation as per tech spec.

6. As per clause 18 submit Past Project Experience."

e. The Petitioner responded to the aforesaid clarifications sought by Respondent No. 3 vide a letter along with a self-declaration certificate regarding the local supplier from Respondent No. 4 in respect of the cyber security product. Both, the Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 stated that the offered IPS product is a dedicated IPS meeting the techn