Delhi High Court
Gopsons Printers Private Limited vs Union Of India And Anr on 6 April, 2015
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
$~55
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 06.04.2015
W.P.(C) 3307/2015
GOPSONS PRINTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr B.P.Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Ms Jyoti Dutt Sharma and Ms Namisha Gupta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
CM No.5921/2015 (for exemption)
The exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 3307/2015 and CM Nos. 5919/2015 and 5920/2015
1. This writ petition is directed in respect of the communication dated
10.03.2015 issued by the Directorate General of Employment and Training,
Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India (Respondent
No.2) short listing three firms for further inviting competitive bidding. The
petitioner has not been mentioned in the list of the above short listed three
firms. The petitioner is aggrieved by this.
2. The respondent No.2 had invited „Expressions of Interest‟ by a
communication dated 12.09.2014 for providing services of Printing, Packing
and Despatch of Secret Documents for DGE&T under the Ministry of
Labour and Employment, Government of India. The „Expressions of
Interest‟ were to be submitted in the prescribed format on or before 5 p.m. on
01.10.2014. The petitioner, along with others, submitted its „Expression of
Interest‟ prior to that time and date. Clause 5 of the Letter of Invitation
pertains to the instructions to the firms/organisations. Point No.8 specified
that the „Expression of Interest‟ must go through a pre-qualification
compliance of documents as per Annexure-I. It is also stated under Clause 5
that only those responses that meet the minimum qualification criteria
identified in Annexure-I would be evaluated for selection. Annexure-I,
prescribing the pre-qualification criteria, contained a table. Serial no.7 of the
table specified a pre-qualification criterion to be:-
"the firm should have at least minimum 50 personnel
(including regular & contractual). However, the firm
should have at least 15 senior regular staff capable to
handling secret documents service."
3. The supporting compliance documents were specified as:-
"a copy of certificate of statutory auditor or company
secretary of the firm attached with the format-3 & 4".
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance
notice, submitted that the petitioner did not fulfill the said pre-qualification
criterion specified in serial No.7 of the table given in Annexure-I which has
been referred to above.
5. First of all, the petitioner did not furnish any certificate by a statutory
auditor or the company secretary of the firm. Secondly, only the list of
senior regular staff (18 in number) was supplied. The list of minimum 50
personnel was not furnished. In other words, the documents annexed as
Annexure P-10 and P-11 to the writ petition had not been supplied/furnished
to the respondent No.2 by the petitioner as part of its „Expression of
Interest‟. It is for this reason that the petitioner was not short listed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that through
inadvertence, a copy of the certificate by the statutory auditor or the
company secretary of the firm had not been furnished. He also states that
annexures P-10 and P-11 had not been furnished along with the „Expression
of Interest‟, however, he submits that the fact remains that the petitioner did
fulfill the pre-qualification criteria inasmuch as it had at least 50 personnel
working with it and had at least 15 senior regular staff members capable of
handling the secret documents.
7. It is evident from the forgoing discussion that the supporting
compliance documents had not been furnished by the petitioner along with
its „Expression of Interest‟. That being the case, the action taken by the
respondent in not short listing the petitioner cannot be faulted. It was a
specific condition of the „Expression of Interest‟ that
persons/firms/companies who express their interest would have to pass
through the stage of pre-qualification. It was a specific condition of the pre-
qualification that certain documents which have been referred to above had
to be supplied. Since those documents had not been supplied, the petitioner
did not pass through the pre-qualification stage.
8. In these circumstances, the petition has no merit. It is dismissed but
with no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
APRIL 06, 2015/sv
