The bench ruled that the Special Leave Petition stood dismissed but emphasized that no disruption should affect the day-to-day functioning of the concerned Indian missions during the completion of the fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
The court stated that EIL and the MEA would be free to make appropriate interim arrangements for the continuation of the services. It said these arrangements could include engaging the successful lowest bidders whose performance had been found satisfactory or appointing any other agency in a manner considered appropriate by EIL and the MEA.
However, the Supreme Court made it clear that the interim arrangement would be purely temporary, would not create any special rights or equitable claims in favor of any party, and would remain subject to the outcome of the fresh Request for Proposal process.
The bench further directed the Ministry of External Affairs to comply with its earlier directions as well as the directions contained in the present order and complete the fresh tender and Request for Proposal exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.
The court also clarified that the interim arrangement was made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of all parties and that no party would be entitled to claim any advantage or equity based on the temporary arrangement.
The Supreme Court was hearing the Central Government's challenge to the Delhi High Court's July 17 judgment, which directed the government to issue a fresh Request for Proposal after finding serious deficiencies in the technical evaluation process adopted during the tender exercise.
Appearing for the Central Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the High Court's decision had adversely affected the functioning of Indian missions abroad, forcing embassy personnel to divert from their regular responsibilities to manage passport, visa and consular services.
Mehta submitted that embassy staff had been reassigned to handle operational responsibilities because of the disruption. He also stated that while tender holders had frequently initiated litigation in previous cases, the government had allowed them to participate in the open tender process on this occasion.
During the hearing, the bench orally observed that the government had effectively invited the High Court's adverse findings by failing to record reasons supporting its technical evaluation.
Defending the evaluation process, the Solicitor General argued that bidders could not be assigned identical comparative scores across different diplomatic missions because each mission had distinct operational requirements. He contended that a bidder could receive different marks in Abu Dhabi and Singapore based on mission-specific considerations and maintained that awarding identical marks across different locations would itself raise concerns.
Earlier, on July 17, the bench headed by the Chief Justice of India agreed to hear the Central Government's plea on July 20 against the Delhi High Court's decision setting aside the tender awarded to private firms for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa services at certain Indian missions abroad.
The Solicitor General also informed the Supreme Court that although fresh tenders had been awarded following the prescribed procedure, newly selected entities could not commence operations immediately, resulting in the near dysfunction of essential passport, visa and consular services.
In its detailed judgment, the Delhi High Court held that the Central Government had relied on undisclosed comparative standards while evaluating bids, made unexplained deductions under objective evaluation criteria, adopted inconsistent marking, and failed to record reasons supporting its assessment.
The High Court observed that these deficiencies struck at the very heart of transparency, fairness and equality in the public procurement process. It ruled that excluding a lower bidder through an arbitrary evaluation process was not merely an individual grievance but also raised significant issues of public interest under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the technical evaluation process and nullified the award of the tender in favor of the private respondents.
The judgment was delivered on petitions filed by two unsuccessful bidders, E Trav Tech Limited and Verasys Limited. Both companies had participated in the tender process but were disqualified during the technical evaluation stage after failing to secure the minimum qualifying score of 70 percent required for the opening of their financial bids.
With the Supreme Court dismissing the Central Government's appeal while permitting only temporary operational arrangements, the Ministry of External Affairs must now complete a fresh and transparent tender process within the prescribed timeframe, ensuring continuity of essential overseas passport, visa and consular services while addressing the procedural deficiencies identified by the Delhi High Court.
About The Author
Comment List