Disposed

M/S Ecartes Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Nicdc Logistics Data Services Ltd. and Anr.

Delhi HC16 May 2024W.P.(C)/7032/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged disqualification of its bid in a logistics tender for RFID tags. The Court directed the Respondent to decide pending representations within two weeks and share any laboratory reports, without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent to decide pending representations and share reports within two weeks.

M/S Ecartes Technology Pvt. Ltd. Vs Nicdc… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 7032/2024

¶4

M/S ECARTES TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Ashish Mohan with Mr.Varun Garg, Ms.Komal Bihani and Ms.Sagrika Tanwar, Advocates.

¶5

versus

¶6

NICDC LOGISTICS DATA SERVICES LTD AND ANR.

¶7

..... Respondents Through: Mr.Shashank Dixit with Mr.Chetan Jadon, Ms.Shivangi Jadon and Ms.Hemlata Singh, Advocates for R- 2/UOI.

¶8

% Date of Decision: 16^th May, 2024

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)

¶13

C.M.No.29257/2024

¶14

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.7032/2024 & C.M.No.29256/2024

¶17

Present petition has been filed challenging the action of Respondent No.1 of disqualifying the Petitioner’s bid in relation to tender invited on Government E Marketplace (GEM) vide Bid No. GEM/2024/B/4557404 dated 01^st February, 2024 issued by Respondent No.1 for supply of RFID

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

W.P.(C) 7032/2024

¶20

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:17.05.2024 18:40:47

¶21

Tags for Logistics Data Bank Project. The Petitioner further seeks issuance of directions to Respondent No.1 to consider the Petitioner as qualified in the technical evaluation and consequently consider the financial bid of the Petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the Petitioner states the Petitioner duly participated in the tender and submitted its bid on 11^th March, 2024 along with all the documents in support as required by Respondent No.1. He states that during the field trial conducted by Respondent No.1 on 5^th April, 2024, the RFID Tags and RFID Tag Applicators of the Petitioner were found to be satisfactory by Respondent No.1 and in compliance with all the criteria prescribed in the RFQ cum RFP.

¶23

He states that on 23^rd April, 2024, the Petitioner submitted the same product i.e. RFID tags to an independent NABL approved Laboratory i.e. Institute of Testing and Certification (India) Pvt. Ltd. for inspection on the very same parameters as have been prescribed in clause 5.10.3 of the RFQ Cum RFP. He further states that the results of the technical evaluation were updated on the GEM Portal on 25^th April, 2024 as per which Respondent No.1 had disqualified the bid of the Petitioner for the purported reason that “ the Bidder did not meet the criteria of clause 5.10.3 of RFQ cum RFP i.e. Laboratory Testing. Pull force of magnet(s) and adhesive of the RFID Tags on metal surface with 24 hour curing time at >= 30 kg ”. However, according to him, neither any report was updated on the portal nor shared with the Petitioner.

¶24

He states that no other reason has been cited by Respondent No.1 for the disqualification. He states that Institute of Testing and Certification (India) Pvt. Ltd. issued its report on 26^th April, 2024, as per which, the RFID

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

W.P.(C) 7032/2024

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:17.05.2024 18:40:47

¶29

Tags of the Petitioner duly passed and complied with the laboratory testing parameters contained in the tender.

¶30

He states that the Petitioner raised representation on the GEM portal on 26^th April, 2024 and subsequently on 30^th April, 2024 and 03^rd May, 2024 against the rejection and shared the report of Institute of Testing and Certification (India) Pvt. Ltd and called upon Respondent No.1 to look into the matter so that the Petitioner gets a fair chance to participate in the financial evaluation. He however states that no revert or response has been received on the same.

¶31

Issue notice. Mr.Shashank Dixit, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.2/UOI. He states that Respondent No.1 is an organisation, which is under the aegis of Respondent No.2.

¶32

Keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner’s representations dated 26^th April, 2024, 30^th April, 2024 and 03^rd May, 2024 have not been decided till date, this Court disposes of the present writ petition along with the application, by directing the Respondent No.2 to decide the aforesaid three representations of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within two weeks in accordance with law. The report, if any, obtained by the respondent with regard to the Petitioner’s product shall also be shared with the Petitioner. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.

¶33

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

MAY 16, 2024/KA

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 7032/2024

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:17.05.2024 18:40:47

M/S Ecartes Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Nicdc Logistics Data Services Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ecartes Technology Pvt. Ltd. v. Nicdc Logistics Data Services Ltd. and 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

Ram Chander Jain Vs Union of India and Anr.

Firoz Ahmad Vs State Bank of India and Anr.

Dhan Raj Dhwan (as Guardian of Devansh Dhawan) Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi Directorate of Education & Anr.

Softech International Private Limited Vs Union of India through Secretary & Ors.

Sabrin Khatun Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Dr Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Umesh Kumar Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Sh. Mahesh Kapoor Vs Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation & Ors.

Mohd Suhaib Vs Registrar of Cooperative Society and Ors.

Shiv Kumar Pal & Ors. Vs Dr. Jagdish Bansal through His Attorney Mr. Anil Goyal

Zaroorat Educational and Welfare Society Regd Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rekha Suneesh Vs Punjab National Bank

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors.

Mrs Rajni Kapur and Anr. Vs Mr Devinder Kumar Diwan and Ors.