Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDER KUMAR UPADHYAY, CJ, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Rotoffset Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India Ltd. and Others - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 11016 of 2025, C.M. No. APPL. No. 45377 of 2025
Decided On : 19-08-2025
For the Appellants : G.V. Rao, A.K. Upadhyay, G. Arudhra Rao, Mohit Phulera
For the Respondents: Rukmini Bobde, Kapil Dev Yadav, Jatin, Vinayak Aren, Amlaan Kumar, Anupam Lal Das, Anirudh Singh, Bijender Singh, Rakesh Kumar Gogia, Karan Malik, Deeksha Sharma
The petitioner could not challenge the tender process due to lack of participation and unreasonable delay, affirming the necessity for timely grievance redressal by participants in procurement procedures.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Quashing of Proprietary Article Certificates (PACs) - Petition filed by Rotoffset Corporation challenging the issuance of PACs to a foreign entity lacking OEM credentials - Court held that the petitioner lacked locus to maintain the writ petition as it did not participate in the tender process and could not substantiate claims of fraud or fabrication by the awarded bidder. (Paras 1, 19, 20)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Discretion of the court in entertaining writ petitions against tender processes - Clarified that only those who participate in tender can raise grievances, reinforcing requirements to challenge terms and conditions timely. (Paras 14-18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an MSME involved in printing technology, contested the cancellation of a contract and subsequent PAC-based tenders issued to a non-compliant foreign entity, claiming unfair advantage and violation of procurement norms. (Paras 2-4)
Findings of Court:
Writ petition dismissed on grounds of lack of locus and unreasonable delay in challenging the tender process, emphasizing the need for timely participation in competitive bidding. (Paras 19-21)
Issues: Main questions included the petitioner's standing to challenge the tender process and claims of procurement irregularities by a non-compliant entity. (Para 19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that entities failing to participate in a tender process do not possess the standing to challenge its outcomes; claims of misconduct must be substantiated, and timely objections necessary to prevent hindrance in public procurement. (Paras 14-18)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to pac and procurement process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against the tender process (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. respondents' defense of the tender process (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. court's analysis on maintainability and locus standi (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition (Para 21) |
JUDGMENT :
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking quashing of the Proprietary Article Certificates (PACs) issued in favour of respondent no.3 or any affiliated entity lacking verifiable Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) succession or manufacturing credentials. The petitioner further seeks a stay on the proceedings and execution of tender nos.24/SY-15-13(07)/2025 and 23/SY-15-13(08)/2025, both dated 07.03.2025 or any procurement process favouring the said entity, during the pendency of the present proceedings. The petitioner also prays for directions to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or any other investigating authority, to conduct a thorough investigation into procurement transaction involving ROTATEK-branded entities from 2012 onwards.
BRIEF FACTS:-
2. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm - Rotoffset Corporation, a Micro Small Medium Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as “MSME”) with over 30 years of expertise in printing technology. The petitioner states that in 2022 he was awarded a contract by respondent no.1 through a transparent bidding process, for the design and supply of a customized Excise Adhesive Label Printing Machine worth Rs. 17.5 crores. The petitioner submits that he began execution of the contract, complied with tender’s enhanced technical specifications, and substantially completed the machine by January 2025. The petitioner claims that despite respondent no.1 extending the delivery deadline to March 2025, the contract was abruptly cancelled in January 2025 citing non-performance, without granting a hearing or issuing a reasoned order.
3. The petitioner states that soon after the cancellation, respondent no.1issued PAC-based tenders in favour of a newly incorporated foreign company (respondent No. 3) which lacked legitimate OEM credentials. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3 is a shell company with no manufacturing history, misleadingly projected as an OEM for servicing obsolete Rotatek machines. The petitioner claims that this procurement violates the General Financial Rules (hereinafter referred to as “GFR”), bypasses competitive bidding, excludes capable Indian MSMEs, and undermines the “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar Bharat” policies.
4. The petitioner states that the cancellation and subsequent tenders were a colourable exercise of power to wrongfully favour respondent No. 3. The petitioner prays for quashing of the PAC-based tenders, a restraint on future procurement from respondent No. 3 without valid OEM credentials and an independent inquiry into the procurement irregularities. Hence, the present petition.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:-
5. Mr. G.V. Rao, learned senior counsel briefly adumbrated the background facts giving rise to the present lis.
6. The entire thrust of Mr. Rao was predicated on the claim that the respondent no.3, i.e., the bidder who has been held to be successful in the tender dated 07.03.2025, was not only ineligible but the declaration as L-1 by the respondent no.1 was actuated on fraud and fabricated documents furnished by respondent no.3. He submitted that though the petitioner was successfully executing the previous contract and had the opportunity of extension of time till March, 2025 for the very same work, yet, the respondent no.1 unilaterally and arbitrarily cancelled the previous contract causing detriment to the interest of the petitioner. He also submitted that the said cancellation and its repercussions are now subject matter of arbitra
