M/S Indraprastha Services vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court addressed two main issues. Regarding Clause 9, concerning the garage/taxi stand requirement, the Court noted the respondent's statement that the electricity bill need not be solely in the bidder's name, provided tangible proof of premises acquisition, such as a rent agreement, is submitted. This modification aimed to mitigate the discriminatory impact on MSEs. On the issue of electric vehicles (Clauses 7 & 8), the Court found the respondent's justification reasonable. The requirement for operational capacity to deploy electric vehicles was deemed justifiable due to potential exigencies like peak pollution in Delhi and the implementation of GRAP measures. The Court accepted that Clause 7 only mandates demonstrating the availability of electric vehicles for potential future needs, not immediate deployment. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that any clarifications required from bidders during technical bid evaluation should be sought in accordance with the NIT and the Manual for Procurement of Goods.

Facts

The petitioners, 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 no.GEM/2025/B/6917260) floated by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) for monthly cab and taxi hiring services. The petitioners had previously represented to the MoHFW regarding unfair and discriminatory clauses in the bid document, which was rejected on 05.12.2025. The tender was for the procurement of 50 vehicles, comprising 45 premium sedans and 5 premium SUVs. The petitioners contended that specific terms and conditions in the bid document were unreasonable, restrictive, and discriminatory towards Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs).

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 9 of the Buyer's Added Bid 'Specific Terms & Conditions', requiring bidders to have a garage/taxi stand within a 7 km radius of MoHFW and submit a GST registration certificate/electricity bill for the same in the name of the company/owner, is arbitrary and discriminatory against MSEs. 2. Whether Clauses 7 & 8 of the Specific Terms & Conditions, mandating the operational capacity to deploy up to 100% electric vehicles and requiring submission of RCs for 50 electric vehicles in addition to the tendered vehicles, are unfair, unreasonable, and arbitrary, potentially violating Clause 17 of the bid document's Disclaimer regarding additional scope of work. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argued that Clause 9 illegally ousts MSEs by requiring ownership of a garage/taxi stand and that the requirement for 50 electric vehicles and their RCs is contrary to the Bill of Quantities (BoQ) and falls under additional terms and conditions, violating Clause 17 of the Disclaimer. They contended these conditions favor existing vendors. 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 should be supported by tangible proof of premises acquisition, like a rent agreement. Regarding electric vehicles, the respondent argued that this requirement is justifiable for exigencies like peak pollution in Delhi and implementation of GRAP measures, and Clause 7 only requires demonstrating operational capacity for such an eventuality.