Delhi High Court
M/S Prem Caterers vs Union Of India & Others on 13 November, 2019
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 13.11.2019
+ W.P.(C) 11866/2019
M/S PREM CATERERS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajmangal Kumar,
Advocate with Mr. Satyendra
Kumar, Advocate.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetley, CGSC for
respondent No.1.
Mr. R. Ramchandran, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
The present petition is directed against the decision taken by
respondent No.2 by which the tender for running a staff canteen at the
Nehru Yuva Kendra, New Delhi, has been awarded to respondent
No.3.
2. The stand of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, that the
petitioner has been successfully running the canteen in question since
2018. Secondly, the petitioner points-out that though the tender was
initially for a period of one year, even after the period of one year
expired, having regard to the fact that petitioner‟s services were
W.P.(C) 11866/2019 page 1 of 4
satisfactory, his contract was extended twice and is now valid upto
14.11.2019.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the bid of the petitioner
has been rejected on the ground that the experience certificates as
required by the tender conditions from a Ministry/Govt. Department
were not provided. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had requested respondent No.2 itself to provide his
experience certificate of running the staff canteen and a
communication with regard to the same was addressed to respondent
No. 2 in the month of August 2019 but no certificate has been
provided. He contends that the fact that he has been successfully
operating a canteen with respondent No.2, is in any case, within their
knowledge and thus no separate, formal experience certificate should
be required. As far as the second certificate as required by the tender
conditions is concerned, he submits that he has been successfully
providing tea, coffee, snacks, lunch, dinner etc in the office of a
former President of India for the last two years, and a certificate to that
effect has been provided. Reliance in that regard is placed upon
certificate dated 28.08.2019 filed on record.
4. Counsel for respondent No.2 has appeared on advance copy.
The original file has also been produced and the same has been
perused.
5. Respondent No.2 points-out that the bid of the petitioner has
been rejected since he has not qualified the technical bid. Reliance is
placed on tender notice dated 19.08.2019, condition No.1 of which we
reproduce below:-
W.P.(C) 11866/2019 page 2 of 4
"1. The contractor should have experience of
operating such canteen satisfactorily in at least two
establishments of Ministries/Departments of Govt. of India."
6. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that even assuming that
the petitioner has been successfully running the canteen of respondent
No.2 and thus a formal certificate may not be necessary, a second
certificate as required has not been furnished since the certificate
relied upon from the office of a former President of India would not
satisfy the tender condition, since a former President‟s office is not an
establishment of any Ministry nor any department of the Government
of India. He further submits that the petitioner is also not L-1 since in
his bid, for certain items he had only quoted "M.R.P." and not the
actual price, thereby making it impossible to compare the complete
price with other bidders.
7. We have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
submissions.
8. Tender condition No.1 makes it clear that the bidder should
have experience of operating a canteen specifically in at least two
establishments of Ministries/Departments of Government of India.
Other things apart, the petitioner has clearly failed to comply with this
tender condition. In the absence of requisite certificates it cannot even
be said that he was operating the canteen of respondent No.2
„satisfactorily‟. Merely because his contract was extended pending
issuance of a fresh tender, that alone cannot be reason to infer
satisfactory performance by the petitioner. In any case, no second
certificate has been furnished.
W.P.(C) 11866/2019 page 3 of 4
9. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present petition. The writ
petition is accordingly dismissed.
C.M. No.48626/2019
10. Since the writ petition is dipsosed of, this application is also
disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
NOVEMBER 13, 2019/Ne
W.P.(C) 11866/2019 page 4 of 4
