The court ruled that the integrity and reliability of bidders must be evaluated, requiring disclosure of any transgressions that impact anti-corruption principles, regardless of the timing of such actions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Tender process - The petitioner challenged the validity of the Letter of Award dated 17.04.2024 issued by IRCTC in favor of a competitor claiming violations of tender terms and conditions, specifically regarding the submission of a signed Integrity Pact and disclosure of prior transgressions. The petitioner contended that the awarding company acted illegally in permitting the competitor to rectify deficiencies in their bid documentation. (Paras 1-15, 52-80)

(B) Integrity Pact - Requirements and implications - The court found that the signatures of witnesses on the Integrity Pact were not a mandatory criterion during the initial submission, thus allowing rectification post-bid opening. (Paras 27, 53-55)

(C) Disclosure obligations - The court held that non-disclosure of significant criminal charges against a bidder created doubts on their reliability, interpreting sections of the Integrity Pact to necessitate disclosure of any transgressions, regardless of timing, to ensure fairness in the tender process. (Paras 60-79)

(D) Final Decision - The court quashed the Letter of Award and directed fresh tendering procedures due to the competitor’s failure to disclose pertinent criminal history. (Paras 79-80)

Table of Content
1. factual background of a tender process. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. contentions regarding technical disqualification of a bidder. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. failure to disclose criminal antecedents leads to disqualification. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
4. arguments opposing the petitioner's claims. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35)
5. court's conclusion on compliance with tender requirements. (Para 52 , 53 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 66 , 70 , 72 , 78 , 79)

JUDGMENT :

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

CHALLENGE

1. The petitioner, which is a partnership firm duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, and is engaged in and carrying on the business of operation and management of catering services and other on board services being rendered in various trains, has instituted the proceedings of instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity of the Letter of Award dated 17.04.2024 (hereinafter referred to as 'LoA') issued by the respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.2 for commissioning and operation of base kitchens at pre-notified locations along with provision of on board catering services for a period of five years, which is further extendable up to two years.

2. The respondent no.1 issued a notice inviting e-open tender bearing no.2024/IRCTC/P & T/CLUSTER/FEB/NR/CLT/A-1 for providing on- board catering services in trains for a period of five years, which is further extendable up to two years, in the month of February 2024.

3. The last date of submissions of the bid was 22.02.2024 up to 12:00 Hrs., and the date of opening of the technical bid was 22.02.2024 at 12:15 Hrs. As per the tender notice, the date and time of opening of the financial bid were to be communicated later. The petitioner submitted its bid, which, as per the tender document, was in two parts: a techno-commercial bid (Packet 'A') and a financial bid (Packet 'B').

4. The techno-commercial bids of the tenderers were opened on 22.02.2024 at 01:05 p.m., wherein the techno-commercial bid submitted by the petitioner as also by the respondent no.1 were found to be in order and they were, accordingly, declared responsive. The financial bid was opened on 08.04.2024 at 11:15 a.m., wherein the respondent no.2 was found to be the highest bidder followed by the petitioner.

5. On 08.04.2024 at 01:11 p.m., the respondent no.1 sent an e-mail to respondent no.2 mentioning therein that though the respondent no.2 had submitted the Integrity Pact as per Annexure 'G' along with the bid, but the said annexure is without the signatures of the witnesses and, therefore, through the said e-mail the respondent no.2 was instructed to submit duly filled and signed Annexure 'G' by the authorized signatory of the company along with signatures of the witnesses immediately.

6. Once in response to the said e-mail dated 08.04.2024, the respondent no.2 submitted Annexure 'G' duly signed by the witnesses, the respondent no.1 issued the impugned LoA dated 17.04.2024. It is this LoA issued by the respondent no.1 in favour of the respondent no.2, that is under challenge herein.

CONTENTIONS IMPEACHING IMPUGNED LOA DATED 17.04.2024 RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

7. Impeaching the impugned LoA issued in favour of the respondent no.2 learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, Mr. Kirti Uppal has submitted that such an award is in clear violation of certain terms and conditions of the tender document.

8. Drawing our attention to clause 3.3 of the procedure for evaluation of bids as given in the tender document, which is available at page 106 of the writ petition, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that as per the said clause financial bids were to be opened only for techno-commercial qualified bids, however, in the instant case though the respondent no.2 was not technically qualified for reason that Annexure 'G', which is a format of Integrity Pact, did not admittedly bear the signatures of the witn