TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2019; (iii) To seek a declaration that respondent no. 2's condition/undertaking in clause 7.2.19 of DRDO procurement manual, 2020 "and that there is no enquiry going on by CBI/ED/any other govt. agency against them" be quashed being arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950; (iv)To declare that, mere pendency of proceedings/enquiry against any Director in his individual capacity should / could not be an impediment in bidding for tenders/contracts by the company; (v) To declare that such enquiries pending against a company which merely got merged/amalgamated/taken over by a successor company cannot be an impediment or disqualification of successor company from doing Governmental business and bidding for tenders and contracts; (vi) To declare that such enquires / proceedings cannot be the basis of denying the Petitioner company from either participating or being considered and/or award of tenders/contracts, including as an interim measure during the pendency of the writ petition; (vii) Pass such other and or further ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 04.02.2021, 15.03.2021, and 03.05.2021. vii. Stating that the Petitioner had failed to comply with the Impugned Condition, the Respondent wrote to it vide letter dated 22.06.2021 seeking the said undertaking, as mandated in the Impugned Clause. viii. The Petitioner furnished the said undertaking placing on record the existence of the said ECIR against the Petitioner Company. ix. On 10.06.2021, the technical evaluation committee of Respondent No. 3 rejected the bid of the Petitioner in the following terms: "20. As the vendors had not submitted the undertaking on banning/debarring and enquiries by CBI/ED/other agencies as desired by Sl. No.15 and SI. No.17 respectively of parts-I& 2 of the RFP, a request was made to the vendors vide letter No. NPOL/HNG/GEN dated 22-6-202] to submit the same. All the vendors submitted the undertaking. Vide the undertaking by M/s. Trident Infosol Pvt. Ltd, submitted vide their letter reference DHBPB-220016/UL dated 23/6/202],1- was stated that one enquiry by ED under PMLA is on the firm. Therefore, the offer of the firm is rejected." x. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4 also rejected the bid of the Petitioner owing to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ench of this Court in M/s Good Year Security Services (Regd) v. Union of India & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9639 and submits that an entity cannot be debarred from participating in a tender process for an indefinite period of time. 5. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Apex Court in Kulja Industries Limited. v. Chief Gen. Manager W.T. Project BSNL &Ors., (2014) 14 SCC 731 to state that the Petitioner ought to have been given a fair hearing before being blacklisted. Further, reliance has been placed on Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. v. S. Sundaranayagam, CRL. M.C. No.5392/2005, to state that the entity which has evolved upon amalgamation cannot be prosecuted for an offence committed by the transferor company. 6. Per contra, the counsel for the Respondent has argued that cancelling the Petitioner's bid does not constitute discrimination, as the Respondent was merely following the DRDO Procurement Manual, 2020. It has further been argued by the counsel for the Respondent that the Impugned Condition has been incorporated to maintain high standards of integrity and is inconformity with public interest. 7. The counsel for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deals with technology for protecting the country's aircrafts from bird strikes and therefore, this Court ought to bear in mind the security implications involved. As regard the period of time specified in the DPP, 2011, this Court is of the opinion that while it would not be appropriate for it to comment on what would an adequate time window and whether extension of time was warranted in the circumstances, prima facie, the Court is of the view that what emerges from the above factual discussion and analysis of the judicial decisions is that the withdrawal of the RFP dated 30.04.2012 is based on justifiable grounds, inter alia, the terms of the RFP with respect to the commercial arrangements were not satisfied by the any of the vendors. Furthermore, the MoD's contentions that the Petitioner's bid, if allowed to stand would have resulted in unfairness to other Indian bidders, because all of them tendered in Indian currency, whereas the Petitioner tendered in a manner that allowed it to hedge in foreign currency. This, according to MoD resulted in an unequal playing field, which compelled it to cancel and withdraw the bid. 36. Given the facts and circumstances of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicial review is not entirely excluded, but very limited. It has also been said that powers conferred by the Royal Prerogative are inherently unreviewable but since the speeches of the House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service [Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, 1985 AC 374 : (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL)] this is doubtful. Lords Diplock, Scaman and Roskili (sic.) [To be read as "Roskill".] appeared to agree that there is no general distinction between powers, based upon whether their source is statutory or prerogative but that judicial review can be limited by the subjectmatter of a particular power, in that case national security. Many prerogative powers are in fact concerned with sensitive, non-justiciable areas, for example, foreign affairs, but some are reviewable in principle, including the prerogatives relating to the civil service where national security is not involved. Another non-justiciable power is the Attorney General's prerogative to decide whether to institute legal proceedings on behalf of the public interest." 11. It is our considered opinion/view that the extent of permissible judic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." 18. Similarly, in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012)....