Sandeep Kumar Prop Of Khaira Tourist Service vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court addressed the two main issues raised by the petitioners. Regarding Clause 9, concerning the garage/taxi stand requirement, the Court accepted the respondent's submission that the electricity bill need not be exclusively in the bidder's name, provided tangible proof of occupying the premises, such as a rent agreement, is submitted. This modification addresses the petitioners' concern about the strict ownership requirement. On the issue of electric vehicles, the Court found the respondent's justification for requiring operational capacity and documentary proof of availability of electric vehicles to be reasonable. The Court acknowledged that this requirement is to prepare for potential exigencies like peak pollution or other unforeseen circumstances, and that Clause 7 only mandates demonstrating operational capacity, not immediate deployment of all electric vehicles. The Court also noted that the respondent's counsel clarified that only documentary proof of availability is required. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if the respondent requires clarifications from any bidder during the technical bid evaluation, such clarifications should be sought in accordance with the NIT terms and the Manual for Procurement of Goods, if applicable. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, including Sandeep Kumar, M/S Indraprastha Services, Vinay Kumar, and City Tour and Travels, filed writ petitions challenging a tender document dated 21.11.2025 (Tender bearing no.GEM/2025/B/6917260) floated by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) for monthly basic cab and taxi hiring services. The petitioners argued that specific terms and conditions in the bid document were unfair, discriminatory, and restrictive, particularly towards Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs). They contended that a clause requiring a garage/taxi stand within a 7 km radius of MoHFW, with proof of ownership via GST registration or electricity bill in the bidder's name, was designed to exclude MSEs. Additionally, a requirement for bidders to have the operational capacity to deploy up to 100% electric vehicles and submit RCs for 50 electric vehicles, in addition to the tendered 50 vehicles, was deemed unreasonable and arbitrary. The petitioners' representation against these clauses was rejected by the respondent, leading to the filing of these petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 9 of the Buyer’s Added Bid ‘Specific Terms & Conditions’, requiring a garage/taxi stand within a 7 km radius of MoHFW and submission of GST registration/electricity bill in the bidder's name for the said premises, is arbitrary and discriminatory against Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs)? 2. Whether Clauses 7 and 8 of the Specific Terms & Conditions, mandating the operational capacity to deploy up to 100% electric vehicles and submission of RCs for 50 electric vehicles, in addition to the 50 vehicles tendered, are unfair, unreasonable, and arbitrary, and violate Clause 17 of the Disclaimer regarding the addition of items through Additional Terms & Conditions (ATC)? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that Clause 9 illegally ousts MSEs by requiring ownership of a garage/taxi stand and is intended to favour existing vendors. They contended that the requirement for RCs of 50 electric vehicles, when the tender is for only 50 vehicles in total, is unreasonable and arbitrary, and that adding such a requirement through ATC violates Clause 17 of the bid document's disclaimer, which states that such additions can render bids null and void. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, through its counsel, stated that the electricity bill for the garage/taxi stand need not be solely in the bidder's name, but tangible proof like a rent agreement should be provided. Regarding electric vehicles, the respondent argued that the requirement is justifiable due to potential exigencies like peak pollution in Delhi requiring preventive measures under GRAP, or other unforeseen circumstances, and that bidders only need to demonstrate documentary proof of availability of electric vehicles.