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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vipin Sanghi, Jasmeet Singh, JJ.
Omega Elevators - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2060 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 4043 of 2021
Decided On : 04-06-2021




Tender restrictions favoring specific brands violate Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, resulting in discriminatory practices and lack of fair competition.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19 - Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order 2017 - Tender conditions restrict bidding to specific brands, challenging arbitrariness and discriminatory practices - Petitioner alleges deliberate exclusion from tender process by listing only selected brands - Court emphasizes that state actions must ensure fairness and equality in public contracts - Previous rulings clarify arbitrary tender specifications violate equal treatment principles - Court allows petitions, quashing improper tenders. (Paras 35, 41, 49, 60)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner, an original manufacturer of lifts, challenged e-tender notices that excluded its brand, asserting violations of constitutional rights and guidance issued by the Union of India, which prevent exclusion of local manufacturers. (Paras 2, 12, 58)

Findings of Court:
Restrictions in tender invites only selected brands, creating a syndicate that undermines competition and fairness, violating Articles 14 and 19, leading to detrimental public procurement practices. (Paras 47, 58)

Issues: Main questions involved whether the conditions imposed in the tenders unjustly excluded the petitioner and whether such exclusions violated principles of equality and fairness. (Paras 26, 48)

Ratio Decidendi: Court found that tender limitations lacked justifiable rationale, reinforcing that state actions must adhere to non-arbitrariness and equality principles, supporting fair treatment in public contracting and quashing identified tenders because of discrimination. (Paras 35, 59)

Result: Writ petitions allowed; specified tenders quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. background of the petitioner and grievances (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner’s arguments against brand restriction in tender (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. counterarguments by respondents regarding tender conditions (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. legal reasoning regarding claims of arbitrary action (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. observations on article 14 and fairness in public contracts (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
6. final ruling against limitation in tender invitations (Para 58 , 59 , 61)

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J.

CM APPL.16898/2021-(EXEMPTION) in W.P.(C) 4043/2021

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 2060/2021 & W.P.(C) 4043/2021 (COMMON GROUNDS)

1. The above two writ petitions raise similar issues and hence are being decided by this common order.

2. The petitioner in both the cases is M/s Omega Elevators, sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Kumarbhai Manharlal Desai having its registered office at 11, Sanjeev Baug Society, New Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380007.

3. The petitioner is an original manufacturer of lifts and does not operate through any other agency for the purpose of sale, marketing or after-sale maintenance and service of the lifts.

4. It is further stated that petitioner has been successfully executing several contracts/work orders for various State bodies and is also effectively maintaining all lifts/escalators commissioned by it as on today. The credentials of the petitioner are brilliant and impeccable and it is a 100% Indian company.

5. The petitioner is a "A-Class" Certified/Enlisted electrical Contractor with various State PWD Departments.

6. The petitioner in both cases is aggrieved by the tender issued by the respective respondents alleging violations of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as the notifications and guidelines issued by the Union of India (UOI). Briefly, stating the facts are as under:

W.P.(C) 2060/2021 & CM APPL. 6040/2021-(INTERIM ORDER)

7. The present writ petition is directed against E-Tender Notice/Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as DNIT) dated 08.02.2021 issued by respondent No.2 i.e. The Executive Engineer (Elect)-1 All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The substantive prayers are:

PRAYER

    It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

    i. Issue Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the E-Tender Notice/Detailed Notice Inviting Tender (Annexure P-1) issued by Respondent No.2 - i.e. Respondent No.2.The Executive Engineer (Elect)-1 All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) having Tender reference no: nit66/eee-i/aiims/2020-21 for UPGRADATION OF LIFT NO.11,15,16 & 17 in MAIN HOSPITAL AT AIIMS, as the same is arbitrary, illegal and not maintainable in the eyes of law, and

    ii. Be pleased to hold and declare that such insertion of list of makes is arbitrary as well as illegal as it seeks to make the tender manufacture specific and is per se illegal and without any application of mind.

    iii. Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus directing and/or commanding the Respondent, the Respondent No.2- i.e. The Executive Engineer (Elect)-1 All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), to withdraw the list of makes from the tender document or alternatively direct the respondent no.2 to incorporate name of the petitioner i.e. OMEGA Elevators as an eligible bidder to offer its bid for Tender Notice (NIT) for UPGRADATION OF LIFT NO. 11, 15, 16 & 17 IN MAIN HOSPITAL AT AIIMS; and

    iv. Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting aside condition in for Tender Notice for UPGRADATION OF LIFT NO. 11, 15, 16 & 17 IN MAIN HOSPITAL AT AIIMS, which entitles "Manufacturer's of only certain brands from participating in the tender process;

8. It is alleged by the petitioner that by way of the tender in question, the respondents have purposefully and intentionally omitted the name of the petitioner's brand from the l

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