M/S Digitech Call System Private Limited vs. Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Digitech Call System Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the decision of Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. (UPCL) to open the price bid (Part-II) on February 11, 2025, declare M/s iLcad Auxilary Services Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 5) as the L-1 bidder, and subsequently award the contract on February 24, 2025. The petitioner contended that the award was contrary to tender conditions and applicable laws because respondent no. 5 did not meet the eligibility criteria outlined in Clauses 2 and 3 of Section III of the UPCL Tender. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that respondent no. 5's quoted price did not comply with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and other labour laws. The petitioner also claimed the award was not communicated to them nor uploaded on the department's website.

Held

The Court examined the original bid documents of respondent no. 5 submitted by UPCL. Regarding the eligibility criteria under Clauses 2 and 3 of Section III, the Court found that respondent no. 5 had provided Call Centre facilities and staff for projects with C-DAC, Mohali, Department of Electronic & Information Technology, Government of Uttarakhand, Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam, and the Chief Conservator of Forest (Wild Life) during the financial years 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024. These projects were deemed to fall within the scope of Government Utility Services. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the ineligibility of respondent no. 5 under these clauses lacked merit. Concerning the compliance with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Court noted that respondent no. 5 was registered with the Labour Department, EPF Organization, and ESIC, and had submitted GST registration and Certificate of Incorporation. The Court concluded that the petitioner failed to establish a clear case of arbitrariness, mala fide, bias, or irrationality against UPCL in awarding the contract to respondent no. 5. The Court found no scope for interference.

Key Issues

1. Whether respondent no. 5, M/s iLcad Auxilary Services Pvt. Ltd., meets the eligibility criteria stipulated in Clauses 2 and 3 of Section III of the UPCL Tender, concerning the experience in operating a minimum 50-seater Call Center in Government Utility Services and the number and value of Customer Care Projects executed in the last three financial years (2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024)? 2. Whether the price quoted by respondent no. 5 complies with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and other applicable labour laws? Petitioner's arguments: Respondent no. 5 is ineligible as it does not meet the experience requirements under Clauses 2 and 3 of Section III of the tender. The quoted price is non-compliant with the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, and other labour laws. The award was not communicated to the petitioner nor uploaded on the website. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's findings suggest that the respondents presented documents demonstrating compliance with the tender conditions and labour laws.