City Tour And Travels vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court addressed two primary issues. Regarding Clause 9, concerning the garage/taxi stand requirement, the Court accepted the respondent's submission that the electricity bill need not be solely in the bidder's name, provided tangible proof like a rent agreement is submitted to demonstrate the use of the premises. This modification aims to mitigate the discriminatory impact on MSEs. On the issue of electric vehicles (Clauses 7 and 8), the Court found the respondent's justification reasonable. The requirement for operational capacity to deploy electric vehicles was deemed necessary for potential exigencies such as pollution control measures or other emergencies. The Court noted that only documentary proof of availability of electric vehicles is required, not necessarily immediate deployment. 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 dated November 21, 2025, floated by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) for hiring premium sedan and SUV cabs. The petitioners, identified as Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs), argued that specific clauses in the bid document were unfair, restrictive, and discriminatory. They had previously submitted a representation on November 22, 2025, which was rejected by the respondent on December 5, 2025, leading them to approach the High Court. The dispute centers on the procurement of monthly basic cab and taxi hiring services through the GeM portal.

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 bidder's name, is arbitrary and discriminatory against MSEs, thereby violating principles of fair tender processes. 2. Whether Clauses 7 and 8 of the Specific Terms & Conditions, mandating the operational capacity to deploy up to 100% electric vehicles and requiring submission of Registration Certificates (RCs) for 50 electric vehicles in addition to the tendered vehicles, are unreasonable, restrictive, and contrary to the Bill of Quantities (BoQ), potentially rendering the bid void as per Clause 17 of the Disclaimer. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that Clause 9 illegally ousts MSEs and favors existing vendors by imposing ownership requirements for garages. They argued that the electric vehicle requirement is unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary, and violates Clause 17 of the Disclaimer, which prohibits adding scope through Additional Terms & Conditions (ATC). Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, through its counsel, stated that the electricity bill requirement in Clause 9 could be supported by tangible proof like a rent agreement if not in the bidder's name. Regarding electric vehicles, the respondent argued that this requirement is justifiable due to potential exigencies like peak pollution in Delhi or other emergencies, and Clause 7 only requires demonstrating operational capacity.