Court affirms strict adherence to tender conditions, dismisses Velocis Systems' plea challenging disqualification over blacklisting declaration
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Velocis Systems Pvt. Ltd., challenging their disqualification from a tender process initiated by the National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated (NICSI). The court, comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, upheld the decision of NICSI to reject Velocis Systems' bid due to an ambiguous declaration regarding blacklisting.
The case revolved around the tender process for empanelment of agencies for deployment of resources, where Velocis Systems' bid was found non-compliant due to incorrect information about blacklisting status. Despite an interim court order staying the blacklisting by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), NICSI disqualified Velocis Systems, citing failure to disclose the blacklisting and subsequent judicial orders.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, stating that interference is warranted only when the decision is arbitrary, mala fide, or violates tender terms. Velocis Systems argued that their bid was submitted after obtaining interim protection against blacklisting, thus rendering the declaration correct. However, the court noted that the declaration was ambiguous and did not clearly conform to the tender requirements, justifying NICSI's rejection.
The judgment underlined the necessity for strict adherence to tender conditions to maintain transparency and uniformity in public procurement processes. It was noted that the tendering authority is entitled to insist on complete and candid disclosures, and the interim stay did not obliterate the fact of blacklisting.
The bench cited Clause 8.1(c) of the Request for Empanelment (RFE), which mandates rejection of bids with false or incorrect information. The court affirmed that the decision to disqualify Velocis Systems was neither arbitrary nor disproportionate, aligning with the principles set by the Gujarat High Court in a similar case.
Dismissing the petition, the court concluded that Velocis Systems failed to demonstrate any infirmity in NICSI's decision-making process. The ruling reinforces the importance of precise compliance with tender conditions and full disclosure in public procurement.
Bottom line:-
Furnishing an ambiguous or incorrect declaration regarding blacklisting in a tender process can lead to disqualification, even if an interim court order staying the blacklisting exists. Strict adherence to tender conditions is essential, and courts will not interfere with the tendering authority's decision unless it is arbitrary, perverse, or mala fide.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Clause 8.1(c) of the Request for Empanelment (RFE)
