Delhi High Court
M/S Security Shoppe (India) Pvt ... vs Thd Director General, Central ... on 11 May, 2016
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 22nd March, 2016
Judgment Delivered on: 11th May, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 12354/2015
M/S SECURITY SHOPPE (INDIA) PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
versus
THD DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE
FORCE & ANR .... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Maninder Singh and Mr Sermon Rawat
For the Respondents1 & 2 : Mr Manish Mohan, Central Government Standing
Counsel with Mr Shivam Chanana and Ms Manisha
Saroha.
For the Respondent No.3 : Mr B.K.Singh and Mr P.S.Bhullar
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a
mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.1, i.e., the Director
General, Central Reserve Police Force, to follow the Trial Directives
dated 04.08.2014 issued by the respondent No.2/Ministry of Home
Affairs, for verification/trial of Deep Search Mine/Metal Detectors
and for a further declaration thereby declaring the petitioner as the
only successful bidder to the Tender No.U.II.1125/2015-16-Proc-1
dated 19.06.2015.
2. The respondent No.1 floated the above Tender Notice inviting
online tenders under two bid systems for purchase of Deep Search
Mine/Metal Detectors (DSMD). The respondent No.2 had issued
Trial Directives dated 04.08.2014 for verification of various
parameters. The relevant parameter in issue is parameter no. 3 which
reads as under:-
S.NO PARAMETER SPECIFICATION PROCEDURE RESULT COMPILED/
SUGGESTED FOR EXPECTED/DESIRED NOT
TRIAL FOR BOARD OF COMPILED
OFFICERS
03 The electronic Should be checked The electronic circuit
circuit should be physically. The must be hermetically
hermetically sealed electronic components sealed and Separate from
and separate from used in the PCB batteries so that in case
batteries so that in should be hermetically of battery leakage the
case of battery sealed by any of the electronic circuit is not
leakage the transparent insulating damaged.
electronic circuit is material to avoid Check the national/
not damaged. contact of the international accredited
components to the lab test report for the
The manufacturer external environment same. In case of any
will provide a like moisture etc. doubt in the test report,
certificate from a It should also be the veracity of the same
recognized checked that the may be checked from the
laboratory for the batteries used is kept concerned lab.
same. separated from the
electronic circuit. The
firm should submit a
national/ International
accredited lab test
report for the same.
3. As per the said Trial Directive, the firm bidding for such
product is required to submit a national/international accredited lab
test report for having tested the offered product with respect to the
said parameter and specification.
4. Several bidders had submitted their bids. However, the
petitioner [M/s Security Shoppe (India) Private Limited] and M/s
Static Systems were found to be technically qualified. Post the filing
of the petition, it transpired on opening of the financial bids that the
bid of M/s Static Systems was lower than that of the petitioner. M/s
Static Systems was thus impleaded as respondent No.3.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that the bid submitted by
Respondent No. 3 [M/s Static Systems] is non-compliant, inasmuch as
the lab report submitted by them was non-compliant with the Trial
Directives dated 04.08.2014. Respondent No.3 had submitted a lab
test report in respect of Parameter No. 03 of the Trial Directives
from M/s EON Testing Labs. In support thereof, the respondent No.3
has also placed on record the certificate of accreditation issued to M/s
EON Testing Labs by National Accreditation Board for Testing and
Calibration Laboratories (NABL).
6. The contention of the petitioner is that the certificate of
accreditation issued in favour of M/s EON Testing Laboratories does
not satisfy the Trial Directives as the said certificate of accreditation is
for a different discipline, i.e, only for building material etc. and is not
an accreditation for the product in issue or any ancillary or similar
product. It is further contended by the petitioner that in support of its
bid, the petitioner has submitted a lab test report from Environmental
Testing Laboratory Incorporated TEXAS, which Laboratory is
accredited to the ANSL-ASQ National Accreditation Board. It is
contended that the respondent No.1 has erred in accepting the lab test
report submitted by the respondent No.3 from M/s EON Testing Lab,
which is not accredited in the required discipline.
7. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have opposed the petition
contending that the EON Testing Laboratory is an accredited Lab,
accredited to NABL. It is further contended that there is no
accreditation for the product in issue, i.e., DSMD. It is further
contended that the bid submitted by the respondent No.3 is compliant
and the certificate furnished by the EON Testing Laboratory is in
accordance with the Trial Directives. It is submitted that a lab test
report was required to be submitted and the same has been submitted
by respondent No.3.
8. The dispute raised by the petitioner is not with respect to non
furnishing of a lab test report but the dispute is with regard to the
accreditation of the Laboratory from which the respondent No.3 has
obtained the lab test report. There can be no quarrel with the fact that
a report has to be obtained from a Laboratory, which is competent or
qualified to perform the test specified in the Trial Directives.
Accreditation of a laboratory would be in respect of one or more
disciplines. Merely because a Laboratory is accredited in a particular
discipline, would not imply that the Laboratory can issue reports with
regard to disciplines completely unconnected with the discipline in
which the Laboratory is accredited. For example, a laboratory may be
accredited in the discipline of pathology that would not entitle the
laboratory to issue certificate with regard to mechanics or mechanical
functioning of a machine.
9. In the present case, the respondent No.3 has obtained
accreditation from NABL. Three accreditation certificates have been
placed on record. To ascertain whether EON Testing Lab is
accredited in the required discipline, one would need to examine the
three certificates that have been placed on record. The first
accreditation certificate No.T-3449 is a certificate, which is in the
discipline of CHEMICAL TESTING. The scope of accreditation
mentioned in the annexure to the Certificate has three
products/materials of tests specified therein, i.e. (I) BUILDING
MATERIALS, (II) PETROLEUM and (III) PAINTS AND
SURFACE COATINGS along with their sub-categories. The second
certificate No.T-3450 is in the discipline of MECHANICAL
TESTING. The product/material of test specified therein is
BUILDING MATERIAL along with its sub-categories i.e. Soil and
Rock Testing. The third certificate No.T-3451 is in the discipline of
ELECTRICAL TESTING. The product/material of test sepcofoed
therein is (I) CABLES AND ACCESSORIES (II) WIRING
ACCESSORIES along with their sub-categories. Perusal of the three
accreditation certificate show that though the certificates have been
issued in the discipline of chemical testing, mechanical testing and
electrical testing, the same pertained to the product/material relating to
building materials, cables accessories, paints etc. The
product/material of test and their sub-categories show that the
accreditation is in respect of construction of buildings etc.
10. The correspondence placed on record by the respondent No.1
with NABL does not advance the case of the respondent No.1.
Further, the argument of the respondents, that the Board of Officers
has also examined the product of Respondent No. 3 in respect of the
Trial Directive No. 3 and found it to be compliant holds no merit.
Trial Directive No. 03 specifically requires the submission of a Lab
Test Report of a national/international accredited lab. The report
cannot be from a Laboratory, which is not accredited in the discipline
in which the product/material falls. The three certificates produced to
show accreditation of EON Testing Lab by NABL do not help the
case of the respondents inasmuch as the respondents have failed to
bring on record anything to show that EON Testing Lab was
accredited to test products other than building material etc. as
mentioned in the scope of accreditation annexed with the certificates
of accreditation. We, thus, hold that the lab test report submitted by
the respondent No.3 in support of its bid failed to satisfy the
requirement of Trial Directive No. 03 and therefore the bid submitted
by the respondent No.3 is clearly non-compliant.
11. The prayer of the petitioner that the petitioner be declared as the
only qualified technical bidder would not be the natural consequence
of our holding that the bid of the respondent No. 3 is non compliant. It
would be open to the competent authority to take an appropriate
decision in the matter.
12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed to the limited
extent of holding that the bid submitted by the respondent No.3 is
non-complaint. We clarify that we have not examined or opined that
the product of the respondent No.3 is non-compliant. We have only
held that the lab report submitted by the respondent No.3 is not from
an accredited laboratory in the requisite discipline and thus does not
satisfy the requirement of Trial Directive No. 03 and therefore it could
not have been accepted, which makes the bid of the respondent No.3
non-compliant.
13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
MAY 11, 2016
'sn'
