Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Rosenbauer International AG - Appellant
Versus
Airports Authority of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10085 of 2022 & CM Appls. 29332 of 2022, 36311 of 2022 & 38684 of 2022
Decided On : 16-11-2022
ACFTs classified as specialized vehicles are exempt from BS-VI emission norms under the Motor Vehicles Act as they operate within enclosed premises; hence, the minimum BS-IV requirement is valid.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 2(28) - Emission standards in tenders - The condition for Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Vehicles (ACFTs) to comply with minimum Bharat Stage-IV emission norms is valid as ACFTs are classified as specialized vehicles used exclusively within enclosed premises, hence not subject to BS-VI norms as asserted in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India. The AAI was justified in the cancellation of an earlier tender due to the unnecessarily high emission standards which stifled competition and could raise procurement costs. Therefore, the condition set forth in the impugned tender was reasonable and not arbitrary. (Paras 49, 60, 74)
(B) Judicial review - Scope in procurement matters - Courts should exercise caution and restraint in interfering in administrative decisions related to tenders unless clearly arbitrary, mala fide, or irrational, keeping in view the expertise required for technical assessments. (Paras 58, 70)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the Airports Authority of India's tender condition for the supply of ACFTs requiring compliance with Bharat Stage-IV emissions despite a general move towards Bharat Stage-VI standards, citing previous judgments regarding emissions.
Findings of Court:
The court held that ACFTs, being specialized vehicles used primarily within airports, do not fall within the definition of 'motor vehicles' under the Motor Vehicles Act, and thus the emission requirements set were not in violation of applicable laws.
Issues: Whether the condition for minimum BS-IV emission compliance for ACFTs violated legal standards established in prior judgments; whether the tender condition created artificial barriers to competition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the distinction of ACFTs as specialized vehicles exempt from stringent road vehicle emissions requirements and ruled that the AAI's decisions were grounded in reasonable assessments of necessity and legality.
Result: The petition was dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenging tender cancellation and specifications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge based on prior judicial decisions and procedural irregularities. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. submission of pre-bid clarifications and responses from aai. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. discussion on operational scope and emergency use of acfts. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. arguments regarding the applicability of emission norms. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. counterarguments concerning vehicle classification and emission standards. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. discussion on the clarification response from morth. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. arguments presented on monopolistic tendencies in the bidding process. (Para 25 , 26) |
| 9. regulatory framework and vehicle categories under mv act. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. acquiring status of vehicles under mv act and operational requirements. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. analysis of judicial precedents affecting vehicle classification. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. definition and understanding of enclosure in the legal context. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 13. judicial restraint regarding technical specifications in tenders. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 14. judgment implications on emissions standards and tender regulations. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 15. consideration of previously adjudicated matters in legal proceedings. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 16. judicial limits on interference in administrative decisions on tenders. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 17. final synopsis on the court’s stance regarding tender conditions. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 18. establishment of emissions norms compliance framework. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 19. conclusion on the applicability of the legal framework. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 20. final decision on the appeal and its implications on statutory provisions. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 21. judgment dismissing the petition and explaining the outcome. (Para 73 , 74 , 75) |
JUDGMENT
Subramonium Prasad, J. The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging Condition No. 4.3.1.4 ("Impugned Condition") in NIT/Global E-Tender with Tender ID 2022_AAI_115244 ("Impugned Tender"), for supply of 42 Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting Vehicles ("ARFVs")/Airfield Crash Fire Tenders ("ACFTs") floated by the Airports Authority of India ("Respondent No. 1" or "AAI") and the decision dated 13.06.2022 of Respondent No. 1 in respect of the Impugned Condition, as being arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law including the judgments/directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Petitioner herein is a company incorporated under the laws of Austria and is a manufacturer and exporter of firefighting vehicles and equipment for fire and emergency services including ACFTs and ARFVs.
2. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the filing of the instant Writ Petition are as follows:
a. The AAI on 10.01.2020 floated a tender for supply of 33 ACFTs of 10,000 litres capacity, however the same was cancelled on 19.07.2020 due to poor response as there was only one bidder.
b. A subsequent tender dated 19.01.2021 was issued for the same quantity of ACFTs in which the engine emission norm specified was BS-VI or Euro-VI and in case of non-road engines it was equivalent to or below BS-VI or Euro-VI levels. This was amended on the basis of a representation made by the Petitioner herein to reflect that the engine emission norms be changed to BS-VI/Euro-VI.
c. Subsequently on 25.10.2021, it was proposed that this tender also be cancelled as the qualification criteria with regards to engine emission norms was too restrictive and only one technically qualified bidder remained in the race. The cancellation of this tender was approved on 29.11.2021 by the competent authority of Respondent No. 1.
d. The Petitioner herein challenged the cancellation of the Tender dated 19.01.2021 before this Court by way of W.P.(C) 14608/2021.
e. This Court dismissed the aforesaid challenge vide judgment dated 20.04.2022 holding that ACFTs belong to a category of special vehicles
