Ncr Corporation India Pvt.Ltd vs Union Bank Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 3425 Bom

2023:BHC-OS:2516-DB

                                                         wpl8205-23.docx

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO. 8205 OF 2023


            NCR Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.               ....Petitioner
                 V/s.
            Union Bank of India and Ors.                  ....Respondents



                                           ALONGWITH
                              WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO. 8490 OF 2023

            Hitachi Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.            ....Petitioner
                 V/s.
            Union Bank of India                           ....Respondents

                                                -----

            Mr. Darius Khambata, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shalaka Patil, Mr.
            Ankit Pathak, Ms. Surbhi Shah, Mr. Karan Rukhana i/by. Trilegal,
            Advocate for the petitioner in WPL-8205/2023.

            Mr. Pradeep Sancheti, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Ameya Gokhale, Ms.
            Meghna Rajadhyaksha, Mr. Kirti Kalyabni, Mr. Harit Lakhani, i/by.
            Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas & Co., Advocate for the petitioner in
            WPL-8490-2023.

            Dr. Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate and Advocate General a/w. Mr.
            Pheroze Mehta, Mr. Satchit Bhogle, Ms. Sumedha Sawant i/by.
            Nainesh N. Amin, Mr. Vijay Kumar M.C. Chief Manager UBI for
            respondent no.1 in WPL-8205/2023 and WPL-8490-2023.

            Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.P. Singh for
            respondents no.2 and 3 in WP(L)-8205-2023 and WP(L)-8490-2023.

            Mr. Vinit Jain, for Union of India, respondent no.3 in WPL-8205-
            2023.

            Mr. Y.R. Mishra, Mr. D.A. Dube, Advocate for respondent no.3 Union
            of India in WPL-8490-2023.



            Mohite                                                                 1/22




                 ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2023            ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2023 22:05:38 :::
                                                   wpl8205-23.docx

                                    CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
                                           SANDEEP V.MARNE, JJ.

                  RESERVED ON             : MARCH 30, 2023
                  PRONOUNCED ON           : APRIL 06, 2023


JUDGMENT : (PER : ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. Both these Writ Petitions are based on similar set of facts and

involve common issues, to avoid rigmarole are decided by common

judgment.

2. The eligibility of non-local suppliers to participate in the

Request for Proposal (RFP) issued by the respondent-Bank for

supply, installation and maintenance of 1900 Cash Recycler

Machines is the subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

3. Petitioners are Indian manufacturers and suppliers of Cash

Recycler Machines (CRMs) and have raised objection to the tender

condition permitting non-local manufacturers and suppliers to

participate in the tender process. Eligibility of non-local suppliers is

essentially challenged on the ground that the same is in

contravention of the "Make In India" Order dated 16.09.2020,

General Financial Rules, 2017 and Manual for Procurement of

Goods, 2022. Petitioners have therefore challenged the RFP, as well

as, the entire bidding process conducted by respondent no.1.

Mohite                                                                      2/22





                                                wpl8205-23.docx

4. Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodg.)No. 8205/2023 has been

adjudged H-1 in the bidding process and its bid is accordingly

rejected by e-mail dated 21.03.2023, which is challenged by it. For

the sake of convenience, petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No.

8205/2023 is referred in the judgment as Petitioner-NCR.

5. Petitioner in Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 8490/2023, is found L-1

amongst Class-II Suppliers, and has been granted an opportunity to

match the L-1 price for the purposes of being awarded 50% of the

order. Though it has been permitted to participate in the Reverse

Auction Process, it is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Bank

in permitting non-local suppliers to participate in the bidding

process. In short, it desires ousting of non-local suppliers from the

bidding process, so that it does not have to match the L-1 price for

securing 50% of the order. It has accordingly set up a challenge to

the Reverse Auction Process conducted by respondent no.1 and has

sought a relief for invitation of price negotiation as per Clause-47.1

of the RAP. Petitioner in Writ Petition (L) No. 8490/2023 is referred

in the judgment as Petitioner-Hitachi.

6. Appearing for Petitioner-NCR, Mr. Kambhatta the learned

senior advocate would submit that, "Make In India" order is

mandatory and binding on the respondent-Bank. That under the

Mohite 3/22

wpl8205-23.docx

"Make In India" Order, only Class-I and Class-II local suppliers are

eligible to bid in the procurement undertaken by procuring agencies,

except where GTE is issued. That the present RFP is not a GTE, as

its value is less than Rs.200 crores. That the reference price shown

in the bidding portal is Rs.174,92,47,369/- which demonstrates that

the RFP is not a GTE. Even if estimated cost is assumed to be over

Rs.200 crores, the RFP still does not qualify as GTE as it does not

comply with the mandatory requirements in the Manual for

Procurement of Goods, 2012 since (i) RFP was not published on

Central Public Procurement Portal, (ii) RFP mandates only Indian

Rupee bids, whereas GTE permits price quotation in foreign

currency as well, (iii) RFP is a mandatory 'e-procurement' tender,

which is not mandatorily insisted upon in a GTE and (iv) RFP does

not contain any condition for INCOTERMS, which is a mandatory

requirement for GTE.

7. Mr. Kambhatta, the learned Senior Advocate would further

submit that mere participation by Petitioner-Hitachi in the bidding

process cannot be construed as an acquiescence, as it objected to the

illegality. That since bidding condition violates "Make In India"

Order, the same is null and void. He makes an alternative

submission that upon petitioner's objections, DPIIT directed

respondent-Bank as late as on 27.02.2023 to procure CRMs only

Mohite 4/22

wpl8205-23.docx

from local suppliers and therefore petitioner had a legitimate

expectation of the respondent-Bank complying to the DPIIT's

directives. He would refer to several correspondence which

Petitioner-NCR made with the respondent-Bank repeatedly objecting

to the tender condition permitting participation by non-local

suppliers. Therefore, petitioner can challenge the tender condition,

notwithstanding its participation in the bidding process.

8. Mr. Kambhatta would further submit that Petitioner-NCR is

erroneously disqualified as H-1 bidder. If the non-local suppliers are

excluded from the bidding process, petitioner-NCR would neither be

H-1 nor can be disqualified. That Petitioner-NCR's disqualification

being owing to participation by non-local suppliers is required to be

set aside.

9. In support of the contentions Mr. Kambhatta would rely

upon the following judgments :

(i) Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research CPSR Versus. Union of India and Others1.

(ii) Sonam Tswang Bhutia and Ors. Versus. State of Sikkim through, the Chief Secretary,Government of SikkimTashiling Secretariat and Others2.

(iii)Tata Cellular Versus. Union of India3.

1    (2021) SCC Online Del 3692
2    (2022) SCC Online Sikk 122
3    (1994) 6 SCC 651

Mohite                                                                     5/22





                                                           wpl8205-23.docx

10. Mr. Sancheti, the learned senior advocate would appear on

behalf of Petitioner-Hitachi. In addition to the submissions made by

Mr. Kambhatta, he would submit that there are multiple local

suppliers of CRMs and therefore the assumption of the respondent-

Bank that the two local suppliers (Petitioners) have formed a cartel

to bag the entire order amongst themselves is totally erroneous.

That another local supplier - Diebold Nixdorf, has been issued with a

procurement order by Bank of Baroda. He would further submit that

mere quotation of lesser price by non-local supplier cannot be a

reason for violating "Make In India" order. Infact the objective of the

"Make In India" order is to ensure that the local manufacturers and

suppliers are not thrown out of competition by foreign

manufacturers and suppliers quoting lesser prices. That it is

impossible for Indian local manufacturers to match the prices of

some of the non-local suppliers and keeping this objective in mind,

procurement through only local suppliers is mandated in the "Make

in India" Order, especially in procurement, where the estimated

value is less than Rs.200 crores. He would submit that there can be

only two kinds of RFPs viz. domestic tender and GTE and that there

is no room for a third category, where a non-local supplier can be

allowed to bid in a domestic tender. Lastly, Mr. Sancheti would

contend that, Petitioner-Hitachi is willing to participate in the

Mohite 6/22

wpl8205-23.docx

bidding process for a price which is below Rs.200 crores (including

GST). In support of his contentions, Mr. Sancheti would rely on

judgment in Centre For Public Interest Litigation Versus. Union of

India and Others4.

11. Petitions are opposed by Dr. Saraf, the learned senior advocate

for respondent-Bank. He would raise a preliminary objection about

maintainability of Petitions that after participation in the tender

process, petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the tender

condition. That the tender conditions were made known to

petitioners on 29.12.2022. That petitioners continued to participate

in the entire bidding process. NCR even desired to participate in the

reverse auction by email dated 20.03.2023. He would submit that

petitioners took chance till opening of financial bids and upon getting

the knowledge that other two bidders are L, SL2 have thereafter

filed the present petitions. In support of this contention, he would

rely upon judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sharad Keshao

Ghonge vs State of Maharashtra5.

12. Dr. Saraf would submit that the respondent-bank has

validly permitted non-local suppliers to participate in the bidding

process. That the estimated value of tender is Rs.209 crores, which

4 (2016) 6 SCC 408 5 (2006) 2 Mh.L.J.356

Mohite 7/22

wpl8205-23.docx

value is arrived at in the internal assessment by the Bank and that

therefore the RPF is in the nature of a GTE. That the price quotations

by Petitioners themselves were in excess of RS. 200 crores. He

would submit that the tender process initiated last year for lesser

quantity of CRMs and estimated cost for below two crores as such

was restricted to local suppliers. The said tender process was

required to be abandoned as only two bidders (Petitioners)

participated and only one was found technically qualified. That

there are extremely limited local suppliers, who can qualify the

technical eligibility criteria and that petitioners want to take

disadvantage of this position so as to establish a monopoly and quote

rates by resorting to cartelisation.

13. Dr. Saraf would contend that the RAP is in consonance with

the "Make In India" Order and the Manual for Procurement of Goods.

That preference is being given to Class-I and Class-II local suppliers,

who can match L-1 price and bag 50% of the Order. That the RFP is a

GTE with purchase value of over Rs.200 crores and that as per the

"Make In India" Order, non-local suppliers are also eligible to bid. He

would submit that what is issued by DPIIT in meeting held on

22.2.2023 are merely guidelines, which are required to be

contextually read as the meeting was convened essentially to clarify

the concept of 'local content'. That the guideline for prohibition on

Mohite 8/22

wpl8205-23.docx

non-local bidders can to participate, at the highest, would apply to

subsequent tender processes. That the DPIIT was aware of the

impugned RFP and despite grievances being raised by petitioners,

DPIIT did not direct respondent-Bank to exclude non-local suppliers.

That the entire tender process is virtually complete as the reverse

auction has been conducted and concluded. That Petitioner-Hitachi

has been given an offer to match L-1 price in reverse auction upto

30.03.2023 for award of 50% of the order. Lastly, Dr. Saraf would

contend that on account of inclusion of non-local suppliers,

respondent-Bank would be in a position to procure CRMs at Rs.43

crores cheaper than petitioners' quoted prices. In support of his

contentions, Dr. Saraf would rely upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha6.

14. We have also heard Mr. Govilkar, the learned Senior Advocate,

Mr.Vinit Jain and Mr.Y.R.Mishra for the Union of India and

Dr.Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate for Union Bank of India who

supports submissions canvassed on behalf of the Respondent-Bank.

15. Both Petitioners-NCR and Hitachi, are Indian local

manufacturers and suppliers of CRMs. Department for Protection of

Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) of the Government of India

issued "Make In India" Order on 16.09.2020 under the provisions of

6 (2020) 16 SCC 759

Mohite 9/22

wpl8205-23.docx

Rule-153(iii) of the General Financial Rules, 2017. The "Make In

India" Order was issued in furtherance of Government of India

Policy to encourage and to promote manufacturing and production

of goods and services in India with a view to enhance income and

employment. That in turn, would enhance income and employment.

The "Make In India" Order, inter-alia, provides the eligibility criteria

for a supplier to participate in the tenders issued by procuring

entities for procurement of goods and services. It sets out the

eligibility and divides the types of suppliers into three categories,

'Class-I local suppliers', 'Class-II local suppliers' and "Non-local

suppliers' based on the 'local content' in the goods, services and

works. Where goods, services and works offered have local content

of 50% and above, the supplier falls within the category of 'Class-I

local supplier'. In the event of local content being in the range of 20%

to 50%, the supplier is known as 'Class-II local supplier'. 'Non-local

Suppliers' are those who have local content less than 20%. The

broad scheme of the "Make In India" Order is participation only by

'Class-I local suppliers' and 'Class-II local suppliers' in the

procurement undertaken by procuring entities except when Global

Tender Enquiry (GTE) has been issued. In GTE, even Non-local

suppliers are eligible to bid alongwith Class-I and Class-II local

suppliers. GTE is to be resorted to when the estimated value of

Mohite 10/22

wpl8205-23.docx

purchases is over Rs.200 crores.

16. Respondent no.1-Bank issued the RFP on 29.12.2022 inviting

bids for supply, installation, and maintenance of CRMs. The bidding

process is divided into two parts - technical and commercial.

Technically qualified bidders except H1 can be chosen to participate

in the Reverse Auction Process. Clause-8.2 of the RFP provided that

the invitation to bid was open to all Original Equipment

Manufacturers (OEMs) having presence in India or their authorized

representatives having offices in India. Thus, the RFP permitted all

OEMs - local or non-local, to participate in the bidding process. Both

Petitioners-NCR and Hitachi, participated in the bidding process. On

4.01.2023 pre-bid meeting was conducted by the respondent-Bank

with the prospective bidders. Both the petitioners addressed their

respective letters (19.01.2023 NCR and 24.01.2023-Hitachi)

objecting to the respondent-Bank permitting the non-local suppliers

to participate in the bidding process. A Corrigendum was issued by

the respondent-Bank on 23.01.2023 substituting few Clauses in the

RFP. However, no change was effected in the clause permitting non-

local suppliers to participate in the bidding process. The

Corrigendum however contained a Disclaimer inter-alia to the effect

that incorporation of any clauses against MSME Policy and

preference to "Make In India" Policy would be treated as null and

Mohite 11/22

wpl8205-23.docx

void and would not be considered as a part of the bid. In the

meantime, petitioners kept on objecting to the decision of the

respondent-Bank to permit participation by non-local suppliers. An

Office Memorandum was issued by the DPIIT directing the

respondent-Bank to comply with the "Make In India" Order.

17. Both Petitioners participated in the bidding process.

Petitioner-NCR submitted its bid on 10.02.2023. Petitioner-Hitachi

also submitted its bid on 9.02.2023. In the meantime, a meeting was

scheduled by DPIIT for providing clarity on the meaning of 'local

content' and who qualifies as Class-I local supplier. Minutes of the

meeting were recorded in which DPIIT inter-alia directed the Banks

to make subsequent amendments to the tendering process by

providing a stipulation mandating that the contractors shall source

CRMs which are available locally only from Class-I/Class-II local

suppliers and that imported items shall not supplied. Both

petitioners once again addressed correspondence with the

respondent-Bank requesting for exclusion of non-local suppliers

from the RFP.

18. On 20.03.2020, respondent-Bank opened technical bids. It

appears that four bidders were technically found qualified. Those

included petitioners, who are local suppliers and CMS Info System

Mohite 12/22

wpl8205-23.docx

Ltd and Oki India Private Limited, which are non-local suppliers. It

appears that the financial bids were also opened and Petitioner-NCR

was found to be H-1 and in accordance with the tender conditions,

was held ineligible to participate in the RAP. The email to that effect

was addressed by the respondent-Bank to Petitioner-NCR on

21.03.2020. It appears that the two non-local suppliers are found L-

1 and L-2. Petitioner-Hitachi is found L-1 amongst local suppliers

and has been provided with an opportunity to participate in the

Reverse Auction Process to match the L-1 price for the purpose of

securing 50% of the order. By its communication dated 25.03.2023,

Petitioner-Hitachi however expressed its disinclination to

participate in the Reverse Auction. Petitioners have therefore filed

present petitions challenging the RFP conditions permitting

participation by non-local suppliers, as well as the entire bidding

process.

19. The courts would be loath to exercise powers of judicial review

in contractual and tender matters. The courts would normally

refrain from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution in tender matters unless the decision and or decision

making process smacks of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness is antithesis

to rule of law, justice, equity, fair play and good conscience.

Mohite                                                                        13/22





                                                   wpl8205-23.docx

20. The Apex Court in case of Tata Cellular (Supra) has held as

under:

"94. The principles deducible from the above are : (1) The modem trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.

(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made.

(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.

(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract.

Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts.

(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.

(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.

Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this

Mohite 14/22

wpl8205-23.docx

case since they commend to us as the correct principles."

21. In the case of Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety and Research

CAPSR (Supra), the Delhi High Court quashed the tender as it

excluded MSMEs. In the case of Sonam Tsewang Bhutia and Others

(Supra), the High Court at Sikkim quashed the tender allowing non

eligible bidders to participate.

22. In the case of Centre For Public Interest Litigation (Supra) ,

the Apex Court observed that minimal interference is called for by

the courts, in exercise of judicial review of a government policy

when the said policy is the outcome of deliberations of the technical

experts in the fields inasmuch as the courts are not well equipped to

fathom into such domain which is left to the discretion of the

execution. It is further observed that the primary and central

purpose of judicial review of the administrative action is to promote

good administration. It is to ensure that administrative bodies act

efficiently and honestly to promote the public good. Relying upon

the said judgment, it was argued by the Petitioners that the sum and

the context of "Make In India" Policy is flouted by allowing non- local

participants.

23. In the case of Sharad Keshao Ghonge (Supra), the Division

Mohite 15/22

wpl8205-23.docx

Bench of this court held that after having participated in the tender

process, the Petitioner is not permitted to challenge the conditions

of the tender.

24. In the case of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. (Supra), the Apex

Court held that employer / competent authority is a better place to

appreciate the requirement of tender conditions and to interpret

them. The persons seeking writ relief must actively satisfy the

Court that the right it is seeking is one in public law, and not merely

contractual. In doing so, a balance is maintained between the need

for commercial freedom and the very real possibility of collusion,

illegality and squandering of public resources. It is further observed

that it is imperative that in addition to arbitrariness, legality or

discrimination under Article 14 or encroachment of freedom under

Article 19(1)(g), public interest too is demonstrated before remedy

is sought.

25. In the present case, the entire horizon of the contention is

allowing non-local entities to participate in the tender and thereby

violating the policy of "Make In India".

26. The Respondent is an instrumentality of the State. The

Respondent no.1 would certainly be bound by the Policy introduced

and promoted by the Government. The "Make in India" Policy of the

Mohite 16/22

wpl8205-23.docx

government has to be adhered to and implemented in its letter and

spirit. This court would not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction and

power of judicial review if the tender is not in conformity with the

policy and guidelines formulated by the Central Government.

27. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade

(DPIIT) of the Government of India issued "Make In India" order

under the provisions of Rule 153(iii) of the General Financial Rules,

2017. The said order will have a binding effect. The Respondent

no.1 being instrument of the State and a Public Sector is bound by

the same. The said order cannot be shrugged off as a mere guideline

nor anyone much less Respondent no.1 can claim discretion in not

implementing it.

28. The "Make In India" order is with an avowed object of

encouraging and promoting manufacture and production of goods

and services in India. The local products and services are to be

encouraged. The Respondent no.1 is bound by the said policy.

29. The prima donna issue would be whether the "Make In India"

order is violated and the action of Respondent no.1 promoting non-

local entities to participate in the instant tender would be in

violation of the "Make In India" order.

Mohite                                                                17/22





                                                   wpl8205-23.docx

30. The procurement guidelines are provided for in the manual for

procurement of goods. Chapter 4.1 deals with the Modes of

Procurement and Bidding Systems. Chapter 4.3.3 envisages that no

Global Tender Enquiry (GTE) upto Rs.200 crores shall be invited or

such limit as may be prescribed by the Department of Expenditure

from time to time. In exceptional cases, where Ministry of

Department feels that there are special reasons for inviting GTE, for

tenders below such limit, it may record its detailed justification and

seek prior approval for relaxation from the Competent Authority

specified by the Department of Expenditure. Clause 4.3.4 provides

that before sending the proposals for approvals of the Global

Tenders, following is to be ensured: -

a) Domestic open tender must be floated to identify the domestic manufacturers / service providers for the items / services for which approval is being sought for issuance of Global Tenders.

31. It would appear that if the tender is below Rs.200 crores, then

in that case, Global Tender is not to be resorted to and the tender is

to be meant for local suppliers. The local suppliers are categorised in

clauses 1 and 2 as discussed above.

32. According to Respondent no.1, the assessment of the extended

cost of tender was of Rs.208 crores. The Respondent no.1 had done

the assessment work prior to the issuance of tender and as per their

Mohite 18/22

wpl8205-23.docx

assessment, the cost of the tender would be Rs.208 crores. The

Respondent no.1 is permitted to invite offers from non-local

suppliers and can resort to the Global Tender provided the estimated

cost of tender is above Rs.200 crores. The tender need not be limited

to the local suppliers. Reading the "Make In India" order and the

guidelines of procurement issued by the DPIIT, we do not find

embargo cast on the government, semi-government, local bodies,

public sector undertakings and other government bodies for

resorting to global tender for estimated cost of tender above Rs.200

crores.

33. The emphasis of the Petitioner is that the tender cost is not

above Rs.200 crores. The Petitioners had put-forth their bid in the

tender as Rs.215 and 219 crores. The Petitioner NCR was H-1. As

such, was eliminated. Both the Petitioners had quoted their bid

above Rs.200 crores. Whereas, according to the Respondents, their

assessment, prior to floating of the tender, was Rs.208 crores. In

that case, the entire edifice of the Petitioners' contention that

Respondent no.1 has violated the "Make In India" order stands

negated.

34. Prior to the present tender, the Respondent no.1 had floated

tender for lesser quantity of CRMs. In the said tender, it did not

Mohite 19/22

wpl8205-23.docx

permit non-local suppliers. Two bids were received. The two bidders

were the present Petitioners. One was disqualified. The present

tender is for more number of CRMs and according to the Respondent

no.1, the assessment was made by them of the estimated cost of

tender prior to its issuance at Rs.208 crores. In the present tender

also, apart from these Petitioners, no third local supplier has

participated. The Petitioners have also given their bid above Rs.200

crores. In tender matters, some leeway has to be given to the

employer. The Respondent no.1 has made assessment and as per

their assessment, the cost of tender would be Rs.208 crores. In view

of that, it was not incumbent upon the Respondents to restrict the

tender for local suppliers only.

35. The Petitioners themselves had bid above Rs.200 crore. In

view of that, it would not be open for the Petitioners now to contend

that the estimated cost of the bid was less than Rs.200 crore. Much

emphasis was laid on the fact that the Respondent no.1

subsequently, had put the reference value (estimated value @

Rs.174.92 crores). The same was on 27.03.2023 after the final bids

were opened and as contended by the learned Senior Advocate for

the Respondent no.1, after the final bids are opened, the reference

value was auto-generated for the purpose of reverse auction and not

at the time of floating the tender. The said reference value as such

Mohite 20/22

wpl8205-23.docx

would not be indicative of the assessment done by Respondent no.1

while floating the tender. The entire gamut of the Petitioners' case is

based upon non adherence to the "Make In India" policy. However,

once it is held that the Respondent no.1 had assessed the estimated

cost of tender while floating it @ Rs.208 crores, the Respondent no.1

is entitled to float global tender and the violation of "Make In India"

Policy would not subsist an issue. The Petitioners certainly would

not be entitled to assail the same.

36. In light of the fact that the estimated cost of the tender

bonafidely estimated by the Respondent no.1 was Rs.208 crores,

then the tender cannot be said to be against the policy and / or the

"Make In India" Order.

37. As we have held that the tender was not violative of "Make In

India" policy, we are not dilating upon the contention that the

Petitioners would not have challenged the terms of the tender after

participating in the tender process.

38. One of the contentions of the Petitioner was that the tender

policy does not satisfy the conditions of GTE (Global Tender

Enquiry) and the procurement policy. The publication is not made

at international level nor the offers are invited in Dollars. The offers

are invited only in Indian Currency. The Respondents had issued

Mohite 21/22

wpl8205-23.docx

the tender allowing the local suppliers and the non-local suppliers

having their presence in India. The Petitioners cannot be said to be

aggrieved by the not inviting offers in Dollars nor can take umbrage

for not inviting offers from entities across the globe not having

presence in India .

39. Even otherwise, the Petitioner Hitachi Payment Services Pvt.

Ltd. have got right to participate in the reverse auction process and

it can participate in the reverse auction process. If it matches the

rate quoted by L1 it will be entitled for 50% of the order.

40. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petitions deserve

to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. However, no orders as to

costs.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

41. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the judgment

of this court be stayed for a period of two weeks.

42. In the Writ Petition, we have not passed any prohibitory

orders. In view of that, the request for stay cannot be considered.

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J)                      (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

Mohite                                                                   22/22