Vinay Kumar Prop Of Glorious INDIA Travels vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court addressed the issues raised by the petitioners. Regarding Clause 9, the Court noted the respondent's submission that the electricity bill for the garage requirement need not be exclusively in the bidder's name, provided tangible proof of occupying the premises, such as a rent agreement, is submitted. This statement by the respondent addressed the petitioners' concern about ownership. Concerning Clauses 7 & 8, the Court found the requirement for electric vehicles justifiable, citing the respondent's explanation that it is for exigencies like peak pollution in Delhi and GRAP implementation. The Court reasoned that Clause 7 only mandates demonstrating operational capacity for electric vehicles, preparing bidders for potential future requirements, and that documentary proof of availability is sufficient. The Court did not find the requirement of electric vehicles to be contrary to the Bill of Quantities (BoQ) or violative of Clause 17 of the Disclaimer, deeming the respondent's explanation reasonable. The Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction that if clarifications are needed from bidders during technical bid evaluation, they 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 (Tender bearing no.GEM/2025/B/6917260 dated 21.11.2025) floated by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) for hiring cab and taxi services. The petitioners, identified as Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs), argued that specific terms and conditions in the bid document were unfair, discriminatory, and restrictive. They specifically pointed to Clause 9, requiring a garage/taxi stand within 7 kms of MoHFW with proof of ownership (GST registration/electricity bill in the bidder's name), and Clauses 7 & 8, demanding RCs for 50 electric vehicles in addition to the 50 vehicles tendered, despite the tender being for a total of 50 vehicles. Their representation to the respondent was rejected, leading to the present petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether Clause 9 of the Buyer's Added Bid 'Specific Terms & Conditions', requiring bidders to own a garage/taxi stand within 7 kms of MoHFW and submit proof of ownership (GST registration/electricity bill in the company/owner's name), is discriminatory and illegally ousts Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) from participating in the tender process. 2. Whether Clauses 7 & 8 of the Specific Terms & Conditions, mandating bidders to have operational capacity for 100% electric vehicles and submit RCs for 50 electric vehicles in addition to the 50 tendered vehicles, are unreasonable, arbitrary, and violative of Clause 17 of the bid document's Disclaimer, which prohibits adding scope through Additional Terms & Conditions (ATC) or Scope of Work. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that Clause 9 unfairly targets MSEs by requiring ownership of a garage, favoring existing vendors. They argued that Clauses 7 & 8 are unreasonable and arbitrary, demanding RCs for 100 vehicles (50 electric) when only 50 are tendered, and that this addition through ATC violates Clause 17 of the Disclaimer. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, through its counsel, stated that the electricity bill for the garage requirement in Clause 9 need not be solely in the bidder's name, provided other tangible proof like a rent agreement is submitted. Regarding electric vehicles, the respondent argued that the requirement is justifiable due to potential pollution peaks in Delhi and GRAP implementation, and Clause 7 only requires demonstrating operational capacity for electric vehicles.