Delhi High Court
Seema Pandey & Anr. vs Ministry Of Railways & Ors. on 26 September, 2019
$~55
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 26/09/2019
+ W.P.(C) No.10256/2019
SEEMA PANDEY & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Akshat Bajpai, Advocate with
Ms. Kanika Sondhi, Advocate.
versus
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagjeet Singh, Advocate with Mr.
Preet Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
Notice to show-cause as to why the petition be not admitted.
Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways
accepts notice.
With the consent of the parties, we set down the petition for
final hearing and disposal.
The petitioners seek a direction to prohibit the respondents
from awarding the tenders for allotment of Catering stalls (General
Minor Units) reserved for women. The Tender Notice bearing
No.23AC/SBD/GMU A-1/2018 was floated by respondents Nos.2 and
3 under the supervision of respondent No.1 on 13.08.2018. Another
Tender Notice bearing No.23AC/1101/R.Price/PGW,
WP(C) 10256/2019 page 1 of 6
JRC&FZR/2018 was floated by respondents Nos.2 and 4 under the
supervision of respondent No.1 on 13.02.2019.
Petitioners submitted their bid for award of licence for
"Provision of Catering Services of General Minor Unit (GMU) No.5
in the Category ladies at Pathankot Cantt. Railway Station for
Catering Stall" on 16.03.2019, which was rejected. The petitioners
thereupon made a representation to respondents Nos.2 and 3
regarding their disqualification from the bidding process and
requested that their price bid be considered.
It is the common case of the parties that the tender pertained to
award of food catering stalls to be run by women. According to the
respondents the reasons for rejection in the case of the petitioners
have been mentioned in the Minutes of Tender Committee, which are
reproduced below:-
S. Additional Mandatory The bidder has Not
No.6 requirements; Annexure furnished mandatory Acceptable
A/2 of Chapter-1 of information for
Section-B including eligibility of the bid
Permanent Account in Annexure-A-2 (SN
Number, GSTIN 213-214) of PAN,
Registration, FSSAI etc. GSTIN Registration
(Section A Chapter 3, item and FSSAI are as
3.6, SN 444) under:
1. Self attested
photocopy of PAN
Card, having
no.AQXPP3551G
issued in the name of
Seema Pandey (SN-
165).
WP(C) 10256/2019 page 2 of 6
2. Self attested
photocopy of GSTIN
in the Legal Name of
M/s Express Food
Services (SN 133-
142), not in the name
of Seema Pandey
(Bidder), who has
applied as individual.
The PAN Card &
GSTIN Number are
not matching with
each other.
3. Self attested copies
of Food License
Certificate placed at
S. No.05/1-59 in
favour of M/s Express
Food Services and
Shiva Kant Pandey
(Partner of M/s
Express Food
Services) not in the
name of Seema
Pandey (Bidder), who
has applied as
individual
Hence, the bidder has
not submitted the
GSTIN & Food
License in her
individual name and
have not complied
with the condition of
the contract.
Hence, the bidder is
found to have not
complied with the
WP(C) 10256/2019 page 3 of 6
condition
The reasons for rejection of bid of petitioner No.2 are also
reproduced below:-
7. Additional Mandatory The bidder has Not
requirements; Annexure furnished mandatory Acceptable
A/2 of Chapter-1 of information for
Section-B including eligibility of the bid
Permanent Account in Annexure-A-2 (SN
Number, GSTIN 214-215) of PAN,
Registration, FSSAI etc. GSTIN Registration
(Section A Chapter 3, item and FSSAI are as
3.6, SN 453) under:
1. Self attested
photocopy of PAN
Card, having
no.ARBPP0023E
issued in the name of
Nisha Pandey (SN-
166).
2. Self attested
photocopy of GSTIN
in the Legal Name of
M/s Express Food
Services (SN 134-
143).
3. Self attested copies
of Food License
Certificate placed at
S. No.05-06 in favour
of M/s Express Food
Services and Shiva
Kant Pandey
(Partner of M/s
Express Food
WP(C) 10256/2019 page 4 of 6
Services).
Hence, the bidder has
not submitted the
GSTIN & Food
License in her
individual name and
have not complied
with the condition of
the contract.
Hence, the bidder is
found to have not
complied with the
condition.
Mr. Jagjeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits
that the reasons for rejection are that while the petitioners have
applied in their personal capacity in the women's category, they have
not furnished GSTIN and Food License Certificate in their own
names but in the names of a certain partnership firm/other entities.
Learned counsel for the petitioners however submits that these
documents have been submitted of a partnerhsip firm wherein both
petitioners are active partners.
The only question for consideration is as to whether the
documents provided by the petitioners would satisfy the tender
conditions. The answer to this is in the negative since, admittedly
according to the tender conditions, GSTIN & Food Licence
Certificate was to be provided by the bidders in a tender meant for
women ; and in this case, the documents have been provided of a
partnership firm whereas the bid was made in the petitioners'
individual capacity as women.
WP(C) 10256/2019 page 5 of 6
In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the entire
aim, purpose and object of providing catering stalls exclusively to be
run by women would be completely lost in case contracts are awarded
to partnership firms where women are only one of the partners. Even
otherwise, the tender conditions provide for furnishing of documents
as we have mentioned above and it would appear that the petitioners
either did not possess such documents in their own names or did not
submit the same alongwith the bid.
That apart, while examining the case by way of judicial review
the court must only examine the process of awarding tender and as to
whether the action of the respondent is illegal, mala fide or
unreasonable; and not the decision itself. Reference may be made in
this regard to the decision in the case of New Horizons Limited and
Another vs. Union of India and Others (1995) 1 SCC 478.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the
action of the respondents, which therefore requires no interference
under Article 226 of the Consitution of India. We accordingly find no
merit in the petition, which is therefore dismissed.
C.M. No.42285/2019 (stay)
Since the writ petition is disposed of, this application is also
disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2019/Ne
WP(C) 10256/2019 page 6 of 6
