Dismissed

Bindra Tours N Travel v. Prasar Bharati & Ors.

Delhi HC14 Jan 2019W.P.(C)/206/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a transportation tender. The High Court held that the tender authority acted on sound reasons for cancelling the process when bidders failed to furnish mandatory challans for Provident Fund and ESI compliance, deeming the deficiency incurable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as unmerited; tender cancellation upheld.

Bindra Tours N Travel Vs Prasar Bharati & Ors. — Delhi HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 206/2019 & CM Appl. 980-891/2019

¶4

BINDRA TOURS N TRAVEL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Rakesh Tikku, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Naunidh Arora, Mr.Sumit Batra, Mr.Shrey Chathly & Mr.Nikhil Gupta, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

PRASAR BHARATI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rajeev Sharma, Mr.Rajat Krishna & Mr.Saket Chandra, Advocates

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 14.01.2019

¶11

The petitioner’s grievance is that the Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] for the transportation contract, floated by Prasar Bharti [respondents herein] was arbitrarily rejected, and the tender cancelled.

¶12

The NIT which was issued on 14^th August, 2018, spelled out various essential conditions. The tender conditions also stipulated – by Clause B, a number of mandatory documents, which were to be supplied by each bidder. The petitioner contended that it complied with these and given these circumstances, the cancellation of the bid was arbitrary and not founded on any reasons.

¶13

W.P.(C) 206/2019

¶14

page 1 of 3

¶15

This Court had issued notice to Prasar Bharti; today, the record has been produced. The record contains Prasar Bharti’s decision to cancel the entire process. The authority felt compelled to take this step because the five tenderers, who had bid for the contract, did not furnish certain documents. The entire argument of the petitioner is premised upon its having fulfilled the condition of furnishing of mandatory documents. This Court, however, notices that Annexure-3, which is part of the tender documents, required – by column 10, each bidder to submit the “latest challans” of compliance with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and Employees State Insurance Act [ESI] payments as proof. None of the bidders complied with it and furnished the copies of the latest challans. Prasar Bharti straight away proceeded to query each bidder and elicit copies of such challans. It sought confirmation with its legal counsel with respect to the regularity of such procedure. The counsel informed Prasar Bharti that if the bidders had indeed not complied with the requirement, the deficiency could not be cured by procuring the documents later; as a consequence, the respondents decided and proceeded to cancel the tender.

¶16

This Court is of the opinion that the rationale for tender cancellation, is founded on sound reasons. If the petitioner’s arguments are to be accepted, the tendering authorities would be under an obligation to elicit from those who had not in the first instance complied with the requirement. It cannot be contended that the need to furnish the proof that indeed the requisite contributions were made to the statutory authorities was optional and could be given to the authority at a later stage. Prasar Bharti’s duty is, and continues to be, to assess the tenders/bids, as supplied to it with the W.P.(C) 206/2019 page 3 of 3

¶17

page 3 of 3

¶18

documents attached at that point of time. If it decides to overlook a deficiency, it is obliged to follow the same procedure i.e. issue a corrigendum or alternatively to cancel the entire process. That in this case, Prasar Bharti chose the latter option, does not render its decision arbitrary. 5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as unmerited.

¶19

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

¶20

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶21

JANUARY 14, 2019 „hkaur‟

¶22

W.P.(C) 206/2019

¶23

page 3 of 3

Bindra Tours N Travel v. Prasar Bharati & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindra Tours N Travel v. Prasar Bharati & Ors.

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

Ankush Ravindra Karwa Vs Union of India and Ors.

Amit Arora Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahender Pratap Singh Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Cambridge School Vs the Commissioner of Police & Ors.

Abdul Wahid Vs Delhi Jal Board and Anr.

Rajkumari Gupta Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. Vs Sunita Kumari and Anr.

M/S Sriyash Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

B.B.M Impex Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (GROUP-7),ICD, Tughalakabad

Narender Yadav Vs Joint Commissioner of Customs (Exports)

M/S. Oriental Trimex Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Recovery) & Anr.

Maruti Suzuki India Limited Vs Union of India

Rockwell Industries Vs Commissioner of Trade & Taxes, & Anr.

Parampreet Singh Kochar Vs Union of India & Ors.