Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CJ., VINAY SARAF, J.
BVG India Limited Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr Nikhil Rajkumar Dhok - Appellant
Versus
Police Telecommunication Headquaters And Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 19948 of 2025
Decided On : 23-03-2026
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- scope of judicial review -- tender process -- Court may interfere to extent of examining decision-making process -- has complete jurisdiction to interfere if decision-making process is found to be vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness -- Courts ought to consider whether interference would be in public interest -- in absence whereof, even if there is an element of error, Courts would do well not to interdict tender process -- even when some defect is found in decision-making process, Court must exercise discretionary power under Art. 226 with great caution -- should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest -- not merely on making out of a legal point -- even if procedural error exists, Courts must prefer public interest over private grievances. (2023) 19 SCC 1, (2020) 16 SCC 489, (1994) 6 SCC 651, (2000) 2 SCC 617, (2007) 14 SCC 517 and (2018) 5 SCC 462 followed. [Paras 42 & 54
(2) Tender -- allegation of mala fides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness not made out -- only on account of some liberty extended to respondent No. 2 to submit Form-21 and Form-23 subsequently, bid submitted by respondent No. 2 could not be held non-responsive -- specially when products have already been supplied, bid submitted by respondent No. 2 was much lower than bid of petitioner, and discrepancy in documents was in relation to minor component of product -- even petitioner was given similar opportunity to submit ISO Certificate later, which enabled petitioner to qualify technical scrutiny -- the system is operational -- it is of extreme public importance -- no reason found to interfere in tender process -- petitioner failed to bring on record any material irregularity or illegality -- undue advantage not established -- respondent No. 1 has not committed any error in extending some time to respondent No. 2 to submit documents in respect of a minor component of tender -- petition dismissed. 2025 SCC Online SC 1959, (2016) 8 SCC 446, (1990) 1 SCC 731, (1974) 2 SCC 231, 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 487, (2021) 6 SCC 718, (2016) 16 SCC 818 and (2020) 16 SCC 759 referred to. [Paras 55 to 58
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226 & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr fufonk çfØ;k U;k;ky; fofu'p;u çfØ;k dk ijh{k.k djus dh lhek rd gLr{ksi dj ldrk gS & ;fn fofu'p;u çfØ;k vln~Hkko] v;qfä;qärk vkSj euekuh ls nwf"kr ikbZ tk, rks gLr{ksi djus dh iw.kZ vf/kdkfjrk gS & U;k;ky;ksa dks bl ij fopkj djuk pkfg, fd gLr{ksi yksd fgr esa gksxk ;k ugha & ftlds vHkko esa] =qfV dk rRo gksus ij Hkh] U;k;ky;ksa }kjk fufonk çfØ;k jksdh ugha tkuk gh Js"Brj gksxk & fofu'p;u çfØ;k esa dksbZ =qfV ik, tkus ij Hkh U;k;ky; dks vuq- 226 ds v/khu oSosfdd 'kfä vR;f/kd lko/kuh ls gh ç;qä djuk pkfg, & mldk ç;ksx yksd fgr vkxzlj djus ds fy, gh djuk pkfg, & dksbZ fof/kd fcanq fl) fd, tkus ek= ij ugha & çfØ;kRed =qfV gksus ij Hkh U;k;ky;ksa dks O;fäxr f'kdk;rksa ij yksd fgr dks vf/keku nsuk gh pkfg,A ¼2023½19 ,llhlh 1] ¼2020½16 ,llhlh 489] ¼1994½6 ,llhlh 651] ¼2000½2 ,llhlh 617] ¼2007½ 14 ,llhlh 517 rFkk ¼2018½5 ,llhlh 462 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 42 ,oa 54
¼2½ fufonk & vln~Hkko] euekuh ;k v;qfä;qärk dk vfHkdFku fl) ugha & çR;FkhZ Ø- 2 dks ç:i&21 vkSj ç:i&23 ckn esa çLrqr djus ds fy, nh xbZ Lora=rk ek= ds dkj.k] çR;FkhZ Ø- 2 }kjk yxkbZ xbZ cksyh dks vuuqfØ;k'khy vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & fo'ks"kr% tc mRikn çnk; fd, tk pqds gSa] çR;FkhZ Ø- 2 }kjk yxkbZ xbZ cksyh ;kph dh cksyh ls dgha vf/kd de Fkh] rFkk nLrkostksa esa QdZ mRikn ds xkS.k vo;o ls lacaf/kr Fkk & ;kph dks Hkh vkb,lvks çek.ki= ckn esa çLrqr djus dk blh çdkj dk volj fn;k x;k Fkk] ftlds dkj.k ;kph rduhdh laoh{kk esa vgZ gks ldk & ç.kkyh dk ifjpkyu vkjaHk gks x;k gS & mldk vfr'k; yksd egRo gS & fufonk çfØ;k esa gLr{ksi djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha ik;k x;k & ;kph dksbZ rkfRod vfu;ferrk ;k voS/krk vfHkys[k ij ykus esa vlQy jgk & vlE;d~ ykHk LFkkfir ugha & çR;FkhZ Ø- 2 dks fufonk ds ,d xkS.k vo;o ds laca/k esa nLrkost is'k djus ds fy, vkSj le; ns dj çR;FkhZ Ø- 1 us dksbZ xyrh ugha dh & ;kfpdk [kkfjtA 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 1959] ¼2016½ 8 ,llhlh 446] ¼1990½1 ,llhlh 731] ¼1974½2 ,llhlh 231] 1989 lIyh- ¼1½ ,llhlh 487] ¼2021½ 6 ,llhlh 718] ¼2016½ 16 ,llhlh 818 rFkk ¼2020½16 ,llhlh 759 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 55 ls 58
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of tender process and specific procedural allegations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner's contention: essential tender conditions require strict, mandatory compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 3. respondents' defense: scope for procedural flexibility and bona fide rectification. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 4. judicial restraint: courts should avoid interfering in tenders unless processes are arbitrary. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 5. court holds that curing minor deficiencies in non-essential components does not invalidate bids. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 6. public interest and lack of material irregularity warrant dismissal of the petition. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
JUDGMENT :
Per: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
1. Petitioner impugns the decision of Respondent no 1, the Tender Inviting Authority, declaring Respondent no. 2 as qualified and the successful bidder (L1) and also impugns the non consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner challenging the technical qualification of respondent no. 2.
2. Respondent no. 1, Police Telecommunication Headquarters issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) for selection of system integrator for implementation, maintenance and operations of M. P. Dial 112, Phase-II “On Turnkey Basis” vide Request For Proposal (RFP for short) dated 12.03.2025.
3. Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 (M/s EMRI Green Health Services) and M/s JAEPL submitted their bids, however, the bid of M/s JAEPL was rejected at the stage of technical evaluation and was declared non-responsive. The bids submitted by the petitioner as well as by the respondent no. 2 were declared responsive.
4. M.P. Police uploaded the bid documents of the bidders on portal and from examination of the bid documents submitted by respondent no. 2, petitioner was of the view that the respondent no. 2 ought to have been disqualified as respondent no. 2 had allegedly misrepresented the documents, which appear to be fake and fabricated.
5. Respondent no. 1 i.e. Tender Inviting Authority opened the financial bid of the petitioner and respondent no.2 and declared respondent no. 2 as the successful bidder (L1) with bid price at Rs. 972,24,78,854.95 against the price quoted by petitioner at Rs. 996,82,17,112.89. Petitioner was declared as the L2 bidder.
6. Petitioner submitted its objection inter alia that respondent no. 2 did not submit Form 21 which was required to be filled up by the Original Equipment Manufacturer and to enclose along with the technical bid as per Clause 114 of RFP and on failure to submit Form 21 would result in the bid being summarily rejected.
7. Petitioner raised an objection that respondent no. 2 had not furnished the latest certificate of ITIL 4 from PeopleCert Gold Certificate Processes and the certificate submitted by the respondent no. 2 was of ITILV4 from UsCert, which was not a valid certificate. Further objection was raised that the documents submitted in support of the minimum technical specification of Video Conferencing System was not issued by the OEM i.e. QSC India Private Limited as the same did not bear the signature of any official of OEM nor did it carry the seal of the OEM and the letterhead used for issuance of said document was different from the original letterhead of QSC India Private Limited.
8. It was contended that the certificate was issued in respect of the some products, which QSC India Private Limited does not manufacture. Petitioner raised the objections and stated that the bid submitted by the respondent no. 2 was not in compliance of Clause 114 of RFP and the bid of respondent no. 2 was liable to be rejected.
9. Upon the complaint submitted by petitioner on 28.05.2025 highlighting the alleged shortcomings and irregularities in the bid document submitted by respondent no. 2, no action was taken by the respondent no. 1 and on 3
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
