Disposed

Ibis Travels Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC18 Mar 2016W.P.(C)/2209/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the clarification issued by a Mission regarding its tender policy. The Court found that the clarifications on the two-service-provider model and work volume satisfied the petitioner, leaving no further issues for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as no further issues remain after the tender authority's clarifications.

Ibis Travels Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:01.10.2024 16:36 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

takes part in the tender process on the basis of a 'Two Service Provider Model' and refuses to honour the selection and award of contract, the

¶3

Mission reserves its right to debar such Company from future tenders and also to forfeit the bid securitydeposit of such Company. A clarificationwas sought by the intending bidders. Question No.22 pertains to this

¶4

clarification, which reads as under:-

¶5

Sl. No.	Question	Answer
	FEE/VAS:
22	In /'continuation to the above point and Page No.' 42 Pt/(i) where two Service Providers; are selected, both LI and;L2^injbe askedtooperateatjbe LLj^ As the prices submifted;by^dach company wilL off its p individuafscapacity,if^cduMbe possible tha,tL2 ihay not be able to affordto matchthe LI :price offer. In such a;case we: assume; that L2 will have the'fight to decline and opt out at the stage when the decision is being made without having any adverse effect on the future tenders with the government of India or the bid security. Kindly confirm our understanding.	As per Para Vi (9) (a) of d RFP. If a company which takes part in the tender process on the basis of a two Service Provider /f model, :refoses;tQ< honour the seieptionand awardof Contract, the Mission reserves the right to debar such a Company from future tenders. The Bid Security Deposit by the said Company will also be forfeited.

¶6

¶7

The answer given is also indicated above. Thereafter, inter alia, an

¶8

Page 2 of5

¶9

WP(C) 2209/2016

¶10

amendmenthas been introducedin paragraph VL9 to the followingeffect:-

¶11

"ii) Para VI.9 - AWARD OF CONTRACT TO MORE THAN ONE COMPANY

¶12

In sub-clause'a', the sentencebeginningwith, Tf a Company which may be replacedby the followingsentence:

¶13

If a company which takes part in the tender process on the basis of a two Service Provider model refuses to sign the Contract after confirming its willingness, the Mission has the rights to debar such a Coinpanyfroin foture tenders.'"

¶14

The amendment indicates'that if k Cbrh^ny tkkes part in the tender

¶15

processon the basikof a two ServiceProvidermodel, and if it refusesto sign the contractafter confirmingits wilimgness,the Missionlwouldhave a right to debar such a Company from futlire tenders. 5

¶16

The point of controversyis thatlifthe L2 bidder refuses to accept the LI price, would such bidder entail the'lia^^^ of debarmentand forfeitureof

¶17

the security deposit? It has beem ckri^ counsel for the respondent, on instructions, that once the L2 bidder is asked to match the LI price and the L2 bidder refuses to do so, there would be no liability of debarment or forfeiture. The said liability would only arise if the L2 bidder agrees to match the LI price and then backs out. The same would apply to the L3 bidder in case the L2 bidder does not match the LI price and so on. It is obvious that this clarification does not apply to the LI bidder who will be

¶18

Page 2of5

¶19

WPfCJ 2209/2016

¶20

bound by his offer. The learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with

¶21

this clarification on this aspect.

¶22

The other aspect on which there was some controversy was with regard to the volume of work for the 'Two Service Provider Model'. A query had been raised as to whetherthe volume of work would be divided amongstthe two serviceprovidersby the Mission. The exactpre-bid query that was raised was at Serial No.5 of the Tre-bid Q&A. The same reads as

¶23

under:-

¶24

SI. No.	Questibh '	Answer
	FEEA^AS
5	In the Introduction to the and Section VI, mission intends, to select ty/o spr<^icepfdviders: this makes it apparent •that' one service pfoyiderwill not receive the full volume ascgiven-in:'thd RFP. May we/request the, missionto specifythe volumes for which each service provider has to provide the pricing?	The volume of work for each vendor will depend oh the quality of service/ facilitiesjtq be provided bydqchofthe 2vendors.

¶25

¶26

The answergiven by the respondentswas that the volume ofwork for each vendor will dependupon the qualityofservice/facilitiesto be provided by each of the two vendors. This clearlyindicatesthat the volume of work

¶27

Page 4 of5

¶28

WP(C) 2209/2016

¶29

for each vendor shall not be determined by the Mission. It will be open to the applicants to choose either of the two vendors. This clarification also completely satisfies,the petitioner on this aspect of the matter.

¶30

In view of the above clarifications, nothing further survives in this writ

¶31

petition. The same stands disposed of.

¶32

Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.

¶33

MDAR ptmEZ AHMED,J
F
CJUJ
SACtoEVA, J
MARCH 18, 2016
st '
. • V F--': . .
•. .. 1 ; , •
< • ,

¶34

Page 5 of5

¶35

WP(C) 2209/2016

Ibis Travels Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ibis Travels Private Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashi Coop. G/H Society Ltd. Vs the Registrar, Cooperative Societies

Airport Authority Karamchari Union Vs Union of India and Ors.

Radha Kishan Meena Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Manav Gujral. Vs the Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Vikram Kumar Vs the Registrar Co-Operative Societies & Ors.

Ebrahim Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Jogi Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Bhupendra Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Tata Teleservices Limited and Anr. Vs Gtl Infrastructure Limited and Anr.

Nirmla & Ors. Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

Subhash Arora Vs Rohit Bhatia

Micromax Informatics Limited Vs Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (Publ) and Ors.

M/S Cmi Limited Vs Union of India & Anr.

M/S Otik Hotels and Resorts Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.