The case, titled Union Of India v. E Trav Tech, arises from the Delhi High Court’s July 15 order, in which a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain quashed the technical evaluation process and the subsequent award of the tender. The High Court held that the evaluation process was affected by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency.
The judgment was delivered in a batch of seven petitions filed by two bidders, travel technology platform eTrav Tech and digital signature certifying authority Verasys. The companies had challenged their disqualification during the technical-bid stage of the tender process.
The petitioners argued that marks were deducted from their technical bids arbitrarily and without providing any explanation. They claimed that the unexplained reduction in scores resulted in their disqualification from moving to the next stage of financial evaluation.
The two companies approached the Delhi High Court questioning the legality, transparency and fairness of the decision-making process adopted by the Union Ministry of External Affairs.
Opposing the petitions, the Central government argued that the bidders were attempting to revive issues that had already been considered by courts and that their challenge was motivated by their failure to secure the contract.
However, the High Court rejected the government’s argument, observing that the petitions were based on a fresh cause of action after the Ministry of External Affairs disclosed parameter-wise evaluation details following a direction issued by the Court.
The High Court observed that the disclosed evaluation process contained several shortcomings, including the use of undisclosed comparative standards, unexplained deductions under objective criteria, inconsistent marking and the complete absence of recorded reasons for the decisions taken by the evaluation committee.
The Court noted that the two bidders had received disproportionately low marks without any explanation or identification of deficiencies in their proposals. It held that such an evaluation process was opaque, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action.
"The parameter-wise marks awarded to the Petitioners are vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency, rendering the impugned technical evaluations unsustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution," the Delhi High Court stated in its order.
The Court concluded that the technical evaluation process was legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Consequently, it cancelled the contract awarded to other private bidders under the tender process.
The High Court further directed the Central government to issue a fresh tender for CPV services at the four Indian Missions within one month. Meanwhile, it allowed the existing service providers to continue their operations at the four missions until completion of the fresh tender process.
The Central government’s challenge before the Supreme Court now seeks to overturn the Delhi High Court’s ruling, which had invalidated the technical evaluation and tender awards for providing outsourced CPV services at key Indian diplomatic missions abroad.
About The Author
Comment List