HSRP tender eligibility norms cannot be diluted, and a conformity of production certificate cannot be demanded at bidding stage.

In HSRP tendering, eligibility criteria tied to experience, technical competence and financial capacity were treated as integral to the statutory scheme under Rule 50 and the earlier Supreme Court ruling. The commentary states that the State cannot depart from those core requirements without cogent justification, and that a conformity of production certificate cannot realistically be demanded at the bidding stage because it arises only after production begins. Arguments based on wider competition and lower pricing were said not to override the mandatory character of the approved eligibility framework. The impugned corrigenda and bid process were therefore described as inconsistent with the binding HSRP framework and void.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned corrigenda and invitation for bids for manufacture and supply of High Security Registration Plates, by deleting the experience and turnover requirements and by introducing the conformity of production certificate requirement in the bidding framework, were contrary to the binding ratio on HSRP tenders and therefore illegal, unconstitutional and void.

Analysis: The tender was examined against the scheme under Rule 50 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the High Security Registration Plates framework, in the background of the earlier Supreme Court ruling on HSRP tenders. The Court held that the earlier ruling had conclusively treated experience, technical expertise and financial capacity in HSRP manufacture as essential to the scheme, and that the observations on greater latitude to the State did not permit departure from that core framework without cogent justification. It further found that insistence on a conformity of production certificate at the bidding stage was unrealistic because such certification arises only after commencement of production, while the deletion of experience and turnover criteria would dilute the safeguards intended to ensure competent, uninterrupted and secure implementation of the scheme. The Court rejected the defence of wider competition and competitive pricing as insufficient to override the mandatory character of the previously approved eligibility norms.

Conclusion: The corrigenda and the tender process were held to be inconsistent with the binding HSRP ruling and were struck down as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void.

Ratio Decidendi: In a tender for implementation of the HSRP scheme, the State cannot depart from the essential eligibility criteria of experience, technical competence and financial capacity earlier held to be integral to the scheme, nor can it insist on an unripe conformity of production certificate at the bidding stage.

---