Delhi High Court
Caretel Infotech Ltd. vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2019
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2178/2018 CM Nos. 8998/2018, 6586/2019 and
11277/2019
CARETEL INFOTECH LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Sanjeev Sagar and Ms
Nazia Parveen, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC
for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 12.03.2019
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order
dated 22.02.2018 (hereafter 'the impugned order'), whereby the
petitioner has been debarred from participating in any tender process
of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of
India (the respondent), for a period of two years from the date of the
said order. The aforesaid punitive measure was imposed on the
petitioner on an allegation that it had submitted incorrect information
with regard to the Call Centers, which were claimed to be functional at
Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and Jabalpur.
2. On 30.05.2017, the respondent floated an e-tender inviting bids
for selection of Kisan Call Centers (KCC) for providing services to the
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmer Welfare. The
petitioner submitted its bid in consortium with M/s Life Digital Private
Limited) on 19.06.2017. Along with its bid the petitioner also
submitted details of the Call Centers which were being operated by the
petitioner, indicating the number of seats operated at different
locations. The said list also included Call Centres at Jaipur,
Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and Jabalpur.
3. The Technical Bid Evaluation Committee examined the
petitioner's technical bid, which was found to be qualified.
Accordingly, the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee recommended
that the petitioner's financial bid be processed. The petitioner had
indicated that it was operating Call Centers from eleven locations and
in terms with the evaluation criteria, the maximum score was awarded
to the petitioner for operating in more than ten locations.
4. The petitioner's financial bid was opened on 18.08.2017 and the
same was found to be compliant. It is stated by the respondent that on
the same date, a complaint was received that the petitioner's Call
Centers stated to be operating in Jaipur, Ahmedabad, Hyderabad and
Jabalpur were not functional.
5. In view of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent appointed
separate teams to inspect the Call Centers claimed by the petitioner to
be functional at the aforesaid locations. The reports submitted by the
said teams indicated that the call centers were not functional.
6. In view of the above, the respondent sent a letter dated
04.09.2017 calling upon the petitioner to provide various documents
for verifying whether it was operating the call centers as claimed by it
in the bid documents. The petitioner responded to the said letter on
05.10.2017, however, it did not provide the documents as sought for
by the respondent.
7. In view of the above, the respondent sent a reminder dated
08.09.2017, again requesting the petitioner to submit the documents as
requested earlier. The petitioner responded to the same by a letter
dated 13.09.2017, suggesting that the request for documents was not
in conformity with the tender conditions.
8. On 18.09.2017, the concerned Committee constituted for
evaluating the bids recommended inviting fresh tenders. This was
done because the concerned committee found that the details provided
by the petitioner along with its bid documents were misleading.
9. Thereafter, on 05.12.2017, the respondent issued a show cause
notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause why suitable action
for blacklisting the petitioner should not be initiated. The petitioner
responded to the said notice on 09.12.2017, inter alia, stating that it
had a valid license and its call centers were operational in more than
three locations and, therefore, the petitioner duly satisfied the tender
conditions. However, the petitioner declined to share any documents
with regard to the four call centers that were alleged to be non-
functional.
10. The response submitted by the petitioner was not found to be
satisfactory and, accordingly, the respondent passed the impugned
order.
11. Mr Sanjeev Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
assailed the impugned order on two fronts. First, he contended that
the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the
petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of being heard. Second, he
submitted that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was highly
disproportionate as the respondent had not suffered any loss.
12. The contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioner are
unmerited. It is apparent that the petitioner has been provided
adequate opportunity to respond to the aforesaid allegations. In the
first instance, the petitioner was called upon to submit documents
which would establish that it was operating call centers at eleven
locations as claimed by it in the tender documents. The petitioner's
response dated 05.09.2017, clearly evaded the issue. The petitioner
suggested that it was not required to submit any documents since the
same was not a part of the tender requirement. Plainly, the documents
were not sought by the respondent as a part of the tender documents
but to verify whether the facts as stated by the petitioner in its tender
were correct. On 07.09.2017, the petitioner was once again given a
reminder to submit the necessary documents. However, the petitioner
did not do so and insisted that the letter of intent / purchase order be
issued before the petitioner submits any document.
13. It is in the aforesaid context that the respondent issued a show
cause notice dated 09.12.2017, calling upon the petitioner to show
cause why it should not be blacklisted. It is relevant to note that in its
response, the petitioner claimed that it had a valid licence and its call
centers were operational in more than three locations. This was
materially different from its claim in the tender documents that it was
operational at eleven locations.
14. It is material to note that the petitioner neither sought any oral
hearing nor provided any document to contest the allegations made
against it. In this view, the contention that principles of natural justice
have been violated, is wholly unmerited.
15. The contention that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is
disproportionate, is also unpersuasive. The petitioner has been
debarred from participating in a tender for a period of two years in the
context of allegation that it had made false claims in the bid
documents. As a result of the wrong claims, the tender process was
frustrated. The contention that the incorrect particulars had no material
effect since the petitioner duly fulfilled the minimum criteria of
operating Call Centers in more than three locations, is also erroneous.
The petitioner was awarded a higher score on account of its claim that
it was operating call centers at eleven locations and, therefore, had
derived benefit from its claims.
16. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with
the impugned order. The petition is unmerited and is, accordingly,
dismissed. All the pending applications are also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
MARCH 12, 2019/RK
