Ciss Services Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
Court dismissed petitioner's challenge to disqualification in a government procurement tender under GeM platform, noting dispute over past experience compliance.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- IN THEGCOURFDLAW
Resrvd on : 08 th July, 205
Pronuced : 01 st Augst 205
+ W.P(C) 792/05, CM APL. 3905/2 & CM APL.
3906/25 .
+ W.P(C) 80/25, CM APL. 3962/05 & CM APL.
396/205 .
RVLTD CIS E P eti onr .
roug:T h Mr. AiMoan, Sr sh . Adv with
M r . Au shian ,M. ShmrdB
a, Mr. Santosh KusS h , w ah
Advs.
s ver
FDA&RS. NIO U dtR es po n.
roug:T h Mr. kamJeV i ly, t GSwhs C
Shreya Jetly, Adv, Mr. Navn, e
kulPfR Go M r . S A , - 1 &2.
Mr. Anupam Kishore Sinha with
Mr. Pradp K T e war, Mr. i
rv o Ap Jha, Mr. hity S a
t, AdfoR vas S r i - 3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE TCIFJUS
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICADY
JUDGMENT
ANISH DYL,J.
1. es Thonhav ti p e bnfd l eing k s quahi of e ot hprain
d i an uce s f w o k r des ot d .3( on sp e r I L S mted i ) in rspct e
of the ndrs t e bearing numbers 4B5973 /20 GEM and
73 9 4B5 /20 GEM (” the ndrs ‘).
W.P (C)No792/05and8 Page 1 of 3 2
| 2. Respondt .1( |
Minstry ofCultre, Uniof India) | isued | the | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| tendrs on 26 thJuly204, guards for protecdmonuets located in the Southern and Central |
requistong servic of unarmed security |
|||
| regions fIda ; morespcifal |
,requimnt of925ad381 | |||
| securitygad,pvl. | ||||
| 3. The said tendr proceswasintaed on the Governmt e |
||||
| Marketplc (” GeM |
‘) platform . Archaeolgi Suvyof India |
( ”ASI | ‘)/ | |
| respondt .2wahbficyuj | ||||
| 4. Petionr,acompnyregistdun theCompanis Act**,**2013 |
||||
| claims tobengdhufprv endoutsrcedsolutin andservic forsector wher security and |
- | to | ||
| safetyrikaeconsidrastregicha. Petionrclams tohave | ||||
| p an - India presnc and |
and provide sservic toinstuo, banks, and |
|||
| various genmtdk. | ||||
| 5. Petionrsubmdit bdon 13 |
thAugst204,anexig self | |||
| declartion of itsexprinc from the year20, | in compl | iance of |
of | |
| requimnts ofthendr |
. | |||
| 6. Ther wer 76 biders on the portal. On 23 technial bids wer opend, and 75 of the 76 biders,includg |
rdDecmbr204, | |||
| petionr, wdsqualf.The | only bid remaing wspodt |
|||
| no.3,whasrdetc | ||||
| 7. On th |
e GeM porta | l, | the | reason |
| disquali | fication was does not ful l filthe parmet |
— namely |
requid | |
| exprinchdsqualf | “. |
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was correctly disqualified for failing to meet the past experience requirement in the tender document.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Rvltd Cis E P eti onr .
- respondent
FDA&RS. NIO U dtR es po n.
- respondent
Archaeolgi Suvyof India
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court