[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bvg India Limited Through Its ... vs Police Telecommunication Headquaters on 23 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
1
W.P. No. 19948 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF
WRIT PETITION No. 19948 of 2025
BVG INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY MR NIKHIL RAJKUMAR DHOK
Versus
POLICE TELECOMMUNICATION HEADQUATERS AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Brian D. Salva - Senior Advocate with Shri Sarabvir Singh Oberoi -
Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Nalin Kohli - Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia
Nigam, Mohammad Shahyan Khan, Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, Ms. Swati
Bhardwaj, Shri Akarsh Sharma, Ms. Nimisha Menon, Ms. Aishwarya
Kesarwani and Shri Ayushman Arora, Advocates.
Shri Abhijeet Awasthy - Deputy Advocate General for Respondents/State
Reserved on : 17.10.2025
Pronounced on : 23.03.2026
JUDGMENT
Per: Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva
1. Petitioner impugns the decision of Respondent no 1, the Tender
Inviting Authority, declaring Respondent no. 2 as qualified and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
successful bidder (L1) and also impugns the non consideration of the
objections raised by the petitioner challenging the technical
qualification of respondent no. 2.
2. Respondent no. 1, Police Telecommunication Headquarters
issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) for selection of system
integrator for implementation, maintenance and operations of M. P.
Dial 112, Phase-II "On Turnkey Basis" vide Request For Proposal
(RFP for short) dated 12.03.2025.
3. Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 (M/s EMRI Green Health
Services) and M/s JAEPL submitted their bids, however, the bid of
M/s JAEPL was rejected at the stage of technical evaluation and was
declared non-responsive. The bids submitted by the petitioner as well
as by the respondent no. 2 were declared responsive.
4. M.P. Police uploaded the bid documents of the bidders on
portal and from examination of the bid documents submitted by
respondent no. 2, petitioner was of the view that the respondent no. 2
ought to have been disqualified as respondent no. 2 had allegedly
misrepresented the documents, which appear to be fake and
fabricated.
5. Respondent no. 1 i.e. Tender Inviting Authority opened the
financial bid of the petitioner and respondent no.2 and declared
respondent no. 2 as the successful bidder (L1) with bid price at Rs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
972,24,78,854.95 against the price quoted by petitioner at Rs.
996,82,17,112.89. Petitioner was declared as the L2 bidder.
6. Petitioner submitted its objection inter alia that respondent no.
2 did not submit Form 21 which was required to be filled up by the
Original Equipment Manufacturer and to enclose along with the
technical bid as per Clause 114 of RFP and on failure to submit Form
21 would result in the bid being summarily rejected.
7. Petitioner raised an objection that respondent no. 2 had not
furnished the latest certificate of ITIL 4 from PeopleCert Gold
Certificate Processes and the certificate submitted by the respondent
no. 2 was of ITILV4 from UsCert, which was not a valid certificate.
Further objection was raised that the documents submitted in support
of the minimum technical specification of Video Conferencing
System was not issued by the OEM i.e. QSC India Private Limited as
the same did not bear the signature of any official of OEM nor did it
carry the seal of the OEM and the letterhead used for issuance of said
document was different from the original letterhead of QSC India
Private Limited.
8. It was contended that the certificate was issued in respect of the
some products, which QSC India Private Limited does not
manufacture. Petitioner raised the objections and stated that the bid
submitted by the respondent no. 2 was not in compliance of Clause
114 of RFP and the bid of respondent no. 2 was liable to be rejected.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
9. Upon the complaint submitted by petitioner on 28.05.2025
highlighting the alleged shortcomings and irregularities in the bid
document submitted by respondent no. 2, no action was taken by the
respondent no. 1 and on 30.05.2025, work order was issued in favour
of the respondent no. 2 followed by execution of an agreement dated
02.06.2025.
10. The petitioner by this petition originally sought directions to
respondent no. 1 to forthwith disqualify respondent no. 2 from the
tender process and declare the petitioner as the successful bidder (L1)
and to take action by black listing the respondent no. 2, however,
when the factum of issuance of Work Order and execution of
agreement were disclosed by the respondent no. 1, petitioner amended
the petition and sought quashment of the Work Order dated
30.05.2025 and Agreement dated 02.06.2025.
11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the bid submitted by the respondent no. 2 was non responsive.
Reference is made to Clauses 9.1, 9.3, 9.11, 9.12, 10, 17, 22.1, 22.7,
54.3, 54.9, 54.10, 54.32, 113, 114, and 116 of the RFP to contend that
at the time of technical evaluation, it was mandatory for the
Evaluation Committee to examine the documents submitted along
with the bid and to ensure that all the documents had been duly
submitted as per the compliance check list. It is submitted that Clause
9.3 of the RFP provides that if any bid was found to be non-compliant
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
to the mandatory technical requirements, same was liable to be
rejected.
12. It is submitted that Clause 9.11 and 9.12 stipulate that
noncompliance to any of the forms issued by the OEM, would
resulted in rejection of the technical bid and financial bid would be
opened only if the technical bid was found compliant.
13. Learned Senior counsel further submits that Clauses 22.1, 22.4
and 22.5 provide that noncompliance with the instructions contained
in RFP shall render the bid liable to be rejected and Clause 22.7
provides that no supplementary or additional material would be taken.
Clause 54.3 provides that incomplete or partial bid was liable to be
rejected and as per Clause 54.9, it was the responsibility of the bidder
to submit an undertaking given by the OEMs as per Form 23 signed
by the OEMs along with the required certificate in consonance with
the provisions of Clause 54.10, otherwise the bid would be liable to be
rejected in compliance of 54.32.
14. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Clause 113 provides
that format of undertaking was provided in the RFP itself and no
change in the same was acceptable, whereas Clause 114 provides that
failure to submit technical compliance checking documents could
result in the bid being summarily rejected. Manufacturer's
Authorization Form (MAF) was required to be submitted along with
the bid documents.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Form 21
which was required to be filled up by OEM and enclosed along with
the technical bid, was not supplied by respondent no. 2 and similarly
respondent no. 2 failed to submit the latest certification of the ITIL4
from PeopleCert and instead provided a certificate of ITILV4 from
UsCert, which was not in conformity with the terms of Clause 114 of
the RFP. He contended that respondent no. 1 issued a show cause
notice dated 21.05.2025 to respondent no. 2 drawing the attention of
respondent no. 2 to Clauses 114.1.18 of the RFP and further
contended that the certification submitted by respondent no. 2 of
Infraknit Technology was not issued by PeopleCert and the only
credible and internationally accepted authority for issuing ITIL 4
certification. It is contended that a direction was issued to respondent
no. 2 to submit an ITIL 4 certificate issued by the PeopleCert on or
before 1700 hrs. of 25.05.2025, however, same was not complied with
by respondent no. 2 and the certificate issued by the PeopleCert was
submitted by respondent no. 2 on 28.06.2025 much after the execution
of the agreement.
16. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that
despite issuance of communication dated 22.05.2025 and admitted by
respondent no. 2 by its reply dated 25.05.2025 that respondent no. 2
did not possess the certificate issued PeopleCert, the Work Order was
issued on 30.05.2025 followed by an agreement dated 02.06.2025,
ignoring the essential requirement of RFP.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted
that petitioner, in its compliant dated 28.05.2025, expressed doubts
with regard to the genuineness of the document submitted by the
respondent no. 2. Petitioner in its complaint had raised the issue that
the document submitted by the respondent no. 2 for minimum
technical specification of Video Conferencing System was not
genuine due to the reason that the letterhead which was used was not
of OEM i.e. QSC India Private Limited and the document did not bear
the signature of any officer of OEM, nor the seal of OEM was
available on the documents and more so, the document was also
issued in respect of the some products, which OEM i.e. QSC does not
manufacture.
18. It is further submitted that these allegations were also found
correct as the respondent no. 2 in its reply submitted that the
document was not issued by the OEM, but had been provided by the
channel partner and respondent no. 2 furnished a declaration from
another manufacturer i.e. Erthpot Electronics Private Limited. As the
products mentioned in the document at serial numbers 4, 5, 6, 7 and
12 were not manufactured by QSC, respondent no. 2 submitted MAF
dated 12.06.2025 of another manufacturer i.e. Erthpot Electronics
Private Limited and same was submitted much after issuance of Work
Order and execution of the agreement.
19. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegation of
the petitioner was further fortified by the act of respondent no. 2 of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
filing MAF of QSC issued on 16.06.2025. He submitted that the bid
submitted by respondent no. 2 was incomplete and was not in
compliance of various clauses of RFP and therefore, was liable to be
rejected. It is contended that respondent no. 2 not only failed to submit
Form 21 and Form 23 along with the bid document but submitted
forged and fabricated documents.
20. Learned Senior Counsel objected to the submission of
respondent no. 1 in its reply to this petition that Infraknit was already
deployed in the Special Branch of Police, Bhopal and therefore, the
certificate issued by Infraknit was accepted despite specific stipulation
in the RFP that the bidder had to furnish the ITIL4 certificate issued
by PeopleCert. He submits that respondent no.1 had no authority to
relax the tender condition and accept a certificate issued by the
Infraknit.
21. Similarly, the stand of the respondent no.1 that the tender
inviting authority had the right to call for any additional information,
was opposed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the
ground that any additional information could be sought at any stage
prior to execution of the contract, whereas in the case in hand, the
documents were submitted by the respondent no.2 after issuance of
the Work Order and execution of agreement, which was not
permissible at all. It is submitted that the Tender Inviting Authority
failed to conduct any enquiry in respect of the objections raised by the
petitioner, however, same were found correct later on. He submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
the stipulation, rules and conditions of the RFP cannot be ignored and
contract cannot be awarded to the lowest bidder, if his bid is not
compliant and he is not technically qualified.
22. Reliance in placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in
Municipal Corporation Ujjain & Anr. Vs. BVG India Limited (2018) 5
SCC 462, to contend that merely because the financial bid of a bidder
is the lowest, the requirement of compliance with the Rules and
conditions cannot be ignored.
23. Learned Senior counsel further relied upon the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways (India)
Limited Vs. Mandeepa Enterprises & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1959
to contend that adherence to the rules and conditions of tender is must
and the sanctity of the tender process being paramount should be
maintained at any cost.
24. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the essential terms of the
tender must be strictly complied with and the tender inviting authority
cannot relax the essential tender conditions arbitrarily. Reliance was
placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bakshi Security &
Personnel Services Private Limited Vs. Devkishan Computed Private
Limited & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 446.
25. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 1 i.e. the Tender Inviting Authority submits
that the request for proposal for selection of System Integrator for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
Implementation, Maintenance and Operations of MP Dial Phase - II
"On Turnkey Basis"- DIAL 112 service, was issued on 12.03.2025
and after evaluation of the technical bids submitted by the bidders,
petitioner and respondent No. 2 were found qualified in the technical
round and their financial bids were opened and respondent No. 2
secured L1 position, whereas the petitioner was L2. He submits that
petitioner has raised frivolous objections in respect of the documents
submitted by respondent No. 2 along with bid documents.
26. He submits that the Evaluation Authority has not turned a blind
eye to the bid documents submitted by respondent No. 2 and a
communication was issued to respondent No. 2 to explain the
documents on 25.05.2025. He further submits that the allegation of
submitting forged and fabricated document relating to QSC India Pvt.
Ltd. was not sustainable as QSC India Pvt. Ltd. had issued
letters/correspondence and reiterated the earlier documents in
subsequent letters.
27. He further submits that it was in the knowledge of the Tender
Inviting Authority that some of the components of Video
Conferencing System are not manufactured by QSC India Pvt. Ltd.
and by another entity Erthpot Electronics Private Limited and this fact
was brought to the knowledge of Tender Inviting Authority by letter
dated 10.06.2025 and 11.06.2025, and therefore, the allegation of the
petitioner that without evaluating the technical bid properly, the bid of
respondent No. 2 was declared compliant, is baseless.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
28. Learned Dy. Advocate General further submitted that certificate
issued by Infraknit for service desk was equivalent to the ITIL 4
certifications, and therefore, respondent No. 2 has not violated any
term by submitting the certificate issued by Infraknit. He further
submits that Clause 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8 and 9.9 of the RFP empower
the Tender Inviting Authority to seek additional information from any
of the bidders and petitioner has suppressed this fact that originally
petitioner's bid was also not compliant as the ISO certificate submitted
by the petitioner was not in consonance with the requirement, and an
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit another certificate
and after grant of the opportunity, petitioner submitted another ISO
certificate and thereafter his bid was declared compliant. Similarly, an
opportunity was granted to respondent No. 2 and the petitioner had no
right to raise any objection.
29. Learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the work order has
already been issued on 30.05.2025 and agreement in respect of the
same has also been executed on 02.06.2025, therefore, no interference
is permissible in the instant case and the petition preferred by the
petitioner is frivolous and has been submitted due to failure on the
part of the petitioner to secure the contract.
30. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in
Bihar SEB vs. Green Rubber Industries, (1990) 1 SCC 731, Union of
India vs. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231, Provash Chandra
Dalui vs. Biswanath Banerjee, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487, Bangalore
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. ELS, Solar Power (P) Ltd., (2021) 6
SCC 718, Food Corpn. of India vs. Abhijit Paul, Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, Bharat
Coking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759, Silppi
Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489,
and Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, to
contend that the Supreme Court has held that, a contract is a
commercial transaction and evaluating tenders and awarding contracts
are essentially commercial functions and if the decision relating to
award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, Court's will not,
in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural
abrasion or error in assessment or prejudiced to a tenderer, is made
out.
31. It is contended that the Court must rely that the authority
floating the tender is the best judge of its requirement, and therefore,
Court's interference should be minimum. The authority which floats
the contract or tender and has authored the tender documents, is the
best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted, and if two
interpretations are possible, then the interpretation of the author
should be accepted. He prays for dismissal of the petition.
32. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2
vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the petition has
been preferred on false and untenable grounds, which have neither
legal nor factual foundation. The pre-qualification bid was opened on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
27.04.2025, wherein the bid submitted by respondent No. 2 was duly
admitted. However, the bid submitted by the petitioner was initially
disqualified for non-submission of requisite essential documents (ISO
certification) but petitioner was subsequently allowed by the Tender
Inviting Authority to submit requisite ISO certificate after the last date
of bid submission and consequently bid of the petitioner was also
qualified in pre-qualification stage.
33. Learned senior counsel submits that respondent No. 2 was duly
selected as L1 and the tender was awarded to respondent No. 2 as the
bid of respondent No. 2 was Rs. 24.08 Crores lower than the bid
submitted by the petitioner. The work order has already been issued
on 30.05.2025 and agreement has been executed on 02.06.2025. It is
submitted that respondent No. 2 has already deployed the vehicles
with equipment and started the work.
34. Learned senior counsel further submits that Clause 114.1.18,
Entry 59 of RFP requires for minimum technical specification that,
the proposed helpdesk solution should have achieved certification
latest ITIL 4, and the certificate submitted by respondent No. 2 along
with the bid document complied with the requirement. However,
respondent No. 1 by letter dated 22.05.2025 directed it to submit ITIL
4 certificate from PeopleCert and in response to the letter, respondent
No. 2 on 25.05.2025 submitted a clarification, which satisfied the
query of respondent No. 1, however, the respondent No. 2 promptly
asked the OEM to provide the ITIL 4 certificate issued by PeopleCert
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
and provided the same to the respondent No. 1 before the delivery of
the product.
35. Learned senior counsel further submits that the requirement of
possessing an ITIL 4 certification was not mandatorily restricted to
certification issued by PeopleCert. Certification by any other
recognized certification body, such as UsCert, was sufficient to
comply with the requirement of RFP. The OEM interpreted the
submission of ITIL 4 certification and bonafidely provided the
certificate issued by UsCert in compliance of the tender document. A
clarification letter issued by OEM i.e. Infraknit was submitted along
with the reply dated 25.05.2025 and same was found satisfactory,
therefore the work order was issued and later on, the ITIL 4 certificate
issued by PeopleCert was also submitted by respondent No. 2.
36. Learned senior counsel points out that EMS solution developed
by OEM, M/s. Infraknit, had already been successfully deployed and
made operational in the Special Branch of the Madhya Pradesh Police
Headquarters Bhopal, since 17.03.2023, and therefore, there was no
reason to raise any finger towards the EMS solution developed by
M/s. Infraknit. More so, the EMS solution was successfully
demonstrated to Technical Evaluation Committee on 15.05.2025 and
no such objection was raised by Technical Evaluation Committee that
the same should be certified by PeopleCert mandatorily. Clause 9.7 of
RFP empowers the Technical Evaluation Committee to seek for any
document and an undertaking to later on submit the certificate was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
sought by Technical Evaluation Committee, which was submitted by
respondent No. 2 and later on the certificate duly issued by
PeopleCert was submitted.
37. Learned senior counsel further submitted that although there
was no requirement that ITIL 4 certificate should be exclusively
issued by PeopleCert, however an undertaking was submitted by
respondent No. 2 that the same would be provided and on the basis of
the undertaking, work order was issued and the agreement was
executed and subsequently the certificate was duly provided. Hence,
said issue ought to have been closed.
38. So far as the second ground of challenge is concerned that false
and fabricated minimum technical specification of Video
Conferencing System Form MAF was submitted by respondent No. 2,
it is submitted that the allegation is incorrect and has been leveled
only on the basis of some documents downloaded from the website by
the petitioner. Upon inquiry, OEM i.e. QSC has reiterated the contents
of the Form MAF. It is submitted that the MAF was received by
respondent No. 2 from its Channel Partner namely M/s Rhinexa India
Pvt. Ltd. vide email dated 21.04.2025 and the CC of the said mail was
forwarded to Director of QSC as well as Regional Sales Manager and
QSC was aware of the issuance of MAF sent by its Channel Partner
namely M/s Rhinexa India Pvt. Ltd. to respondent No. 2, and
therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that MAF was forged, is
wholly baseless and misconceived. Subsequently, another MAF was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
issued by QSC and the same was also submitted by the respondent
No. 2 and there is no substance in the objection raised by the
petitioner. Form 23 was not filled up by respondent No. 2 and it was
issued by OEM, and therefore, there can't be any malafide intention in
submitting the form.
39. Learned senior counsel further contends that whatever
objections were raised by the petitioner in the instant petition are in
respect of Video Conferencing System, which is a minor component
of the overall project, having 0.5% of the total project value of Rs.972
Crores i.e. Rs. 48.6 Lakhs, and therefore, only on the basis of some
bonafide mistakes committed in submission of the documents along
with the bid, which was also later on cured before delivery of the
product, is not a sufficient ground to declare a successful bidder
disqualified. It is submitted that his bid is Rs. 24.08 Crores lower than
the bid submitted by petitioner.
40. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking: (2023) 19 SCC 1 wherein the Supreme Court has inter
alia held "that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while
exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or
commercial matters. Courts should not use a magnifying glass while
scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big
blunder. Courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government
and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Ordinarily, a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the
decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a
tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. To
set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract
is well underway, would not be in public interest. Even when some
defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise
its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and
should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely
on the making out of a legal point. If the decision relating to award of
contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere
by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural
aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made
out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private
interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual
disputes.
41. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in
Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and another,
(2020) 16 SCC 489.
42. The Supreme Court of India in its various pronouncements1 has
held that a Constitutional Court may interfere to the extent of
examining the decision making process and has complete jurisdiction
to interfere provided such decision making process is found to be
vitiated by malafides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness.
Tata Cellular vs. Union of India; (1994) 6 SCC 651; Air India Ltd vs. Cochin International Airport
Ltd.; (2000) 2 SCC 617; Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
Constitutional Courts ought to consider whether interference in such
matters would be in public interest and in the absence whereof, even if
there is an element of error, Courts would do well not to interdict
tender process. Where public interest would far outweigh private
interests, then, even where there is some infraction by the State, the
Constitutional Courts may refuse to grant relief. Even when some
defect is found in the decision-making process, the Court must
exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution
and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not
merely on the making out of a legal point.
43. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vs. BVG
India Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 462 has held as under:
"27. Thus, only when a decision-making process is so arbitrary
or irrational that no responsible authority proceeding reasonably
or lawfully could have arrived at such decisions, power of judicial
review can be exercised. However, if it is bona fide and in public
interest, the court will not interfere in the exercise of power of
judicial review even if there is a procedural lacuna. The principles
of equity and natural justice do not operate in the field of
commercial transactions. Wherever a decision has been taken
appropriately in public interest, the court ordinarily should
exercise judicial restraint. When a decision is taken by the
authority concerned upon due consideration of the tender
document submitted by all tenderers on their own merits and it is
ultimately found that the successful bidder had in fact substantially
complied with the purpose and object for which the essential
conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be
interfered with."
44. In the present case, subject e-tender notice was issued by Police
Telecommunication Headquarters, M.P. on 12.03.2025 for selection
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
of System Integrator for implantation, maintenance and operations of
M.P. Dial 112 Phase-II "On Turnkey Basis" and petitioner as well as
respondent no. 2 were qualified in the technical evaluation.
45. One of the components of supply was video conferencing
solution. As per Clause 114.1.18 of Request for Proposal (RFP)
minimum technical specification of EMS (Enterprise Management
System) was required to be submitted duly issued on the letter head of
OEM and Clause 113.1.31 provided the minimum technical
specification of video conferencing system to be issued on the
letterhead of OEM. Submissions of these two documents were
essential and the controversy is in respect of these two documents in
the present petition.
46. The first contention of the petitioner is that the Form-21
submitted by the respondent no. 2 was not in consonance with the
requirement of Clause 114.1.18 at Serial No.59. Form-21 required the
submission of latest certificate of ITIL 4 from PeopleCert, whereas
respondent no. 2 submitted the certificate of ITIL V4 from UsCert,
which was not proper compliance. Respondent no. 2 on 25.05.2025 in
response to a letter issued by the Tender Inviting Authority submitted
that the said term does not mandatorily provide that the certificate
should be issued by PeopleCert and the OEM M/s Infraknit
bonafidely provided the ITIL certificate issued by UsCert and also
submitted the correspondence with the OEM. An undertaking was
furnished by the respondent no. 2 to the Technical Evaluation
Committee that before delivery of the product respondent no. 2 shall
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
submit the certificate ITIL 4 duly issued by PeopleCert. Said
undertaking was considered and accepted by the Technical Evaluation
Committee and subsequently respondent no. 2 duly submitted the
ITIL 4 certificate issued by PeopleCert on 28.06.2025.
47. Clause 8.4 of the RFP reserves the right of Tender Inviting
Authority to ask for additional information, as it may deem
necessary to evaluate the bid proposal at any stage before execution of
the contract. Clause 8.5 empowers the Technical Evaluation
Committee to call for any information, document and undertaking
from the bidder in order to satisfy itself about the eligibility, capability
and capacity of the bidder and technical specifications/trustworthiness
of the product. The Technical Evaluation Committee issued a letter on
22.05.2025 to the respondent no. 2 and asked for submission of ITIL 4
certificate duly issued by PeopleCert. Although the respondent no. 2
tried to justify the submission of ITIL V4 certificate issued by UsCert,
but at the same time also furnished undertaking to provide the ITIL 4
certificate duly issued by PeopleCert. RFP duly empowers Technical
Evaluation Committee to accept such undertaking and proceed further
with the bid. Respondent no. 2 before delivery of the product duly
provided ITIL 4 certificate issued by PeopleCert and honoured the
undertaking furnished by it. Once the undertaking is submitted,
accepted by the Technical Evaluation Committee and honoured by
respondent no. 2, we do not find any force in the objection of
petitioner that on this count the bid of respondent no. 2 ought to have
been declared non-compliant.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
48. Clause 116 of the RFP provides format of Form 23 MAF
(Manufacturer Authorization Form), which was required to be issued
by OEM. The allegation against respondent no. 2 is that MAF was not
issued by OEM i.e. QSC India Private Limited and was not genuine
and was a forged and fabricated document. Said allegation was
levelled on three grounds firstly; the letter pad used for the purpose of
issuance of MAF was not of OEM, secondly no signature of any
official of OEM was available on the document and the seal of OEM
was also not affixed and thirdly that the products, which QSC does
not manufacture, were also included in MAF.
49. Respondent no. 2 submitted explanation to the said allegations
along with the copy of e-mail to demonstrate that MAF was provided
to the respondent no. 2 by a channel partner of QSC namely M/s
Rhinexa India Private Limited vide e-mail dated 21.04.2025 and the
Director and Sales Manager of QSC were also kept in loop, meaning
thereby that the issuance of MAF by the channel partner M/s. Rhinexa
was in the knowledge of OEM and respondent no. 2 submitted the
same along with the bid document bonafidely.
50. First of all, from perusal of e-mail dated 21.04.2025 it is
apparent that respondent no. 2 demanded the MAF from the channel
partner of OEM i.e. QSC and same was provided to respondent no. 2
by M/s Rhinexa India Private Limited and respondent no. 2 used the
said document believing that the same to have been issued by the
OEM. The contention of respondent no. 2 that said document was
used bonafidely appears to be plausible as later on the OEM also
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
reiterated the contents of the MAF in subsequent correspondence and
in respect of the products, those were included in MAF by channel
partner and not manufactured by OEM, another MAF was issued by
manufacturer M/s. Erthpot Electronics Private Limited and QSC India
Private Limited also issued a subsequent declaration; meaning thereby
that a bonafide mistake was committed by respondent no. 2 in
submitting the Form-23 supplied by the channel partner of QSC. Said
mistake was also duly cured and separate MAFs issued by OEM QSC
India Private Limited and Erthpot Electronics Private Limited were
duly submitted to respondent no. 1, which were accepted by
respondent no. 1 and no illegality was committed by respondent no. 1
in accepting these documents submitted later on.
51. The allegation of petitioner that respondent no. 1 had arbitrarily
accepted the documents and certificate submitted by respondent no. 2
later on and extended undue favour to respondent no. 2, is not borne
out from the facts and circumstances of the case.
52. At the same time we cannot be ignore of the fact that all the
allegations were in respect of supply of video conferencing system,
which is a minor component of the tender having a value of Rs.48.6
Lacs only, which comes to around 0.5% of the total value of contract
Rs. 972 Crores and if respondent no. 1 has not disqualified respondent
no. 2 on account of some deficiency in respect of the documents
supplied by respondent no. 2 in respect of minor components of the
project and provided opportunity to rectify the same, which was duly
rectified, no undue favour was extended to respondent no. 2 and the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
allegation of malafide, arbitrariness or unreasonableness is not
substantiated.
53. At the same time, we must be cognisant of the fact that the bid
submitted by the respondent no. 2 was Rs. 24.8 Crores lower than the
bid submitted by the petitioner.
54. In terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the
Constitutional Courts may interfere in the tender or administrative
decisions only if the process is vitiated by the malafides, arbitrariness
or unreasonableness and even if the procedural error exists, Courts
must prefer public interest over private grievances.
55. In the present case the allegation of malafides, arbitrariness or
unreasonableness is not made out and, therefore, only on account of
some liberty extended to the respondent no. 2 to submit Form-21 and
Form-23 subsequently, the bid submitted by respondent no. 2 could
not be held non-responsive specially when the products have already
been supplied and the bid submitted by respondent no. 2 was much
lower than the bid of the petitioner and discrepancy in documents
were in relation to the minor component of the product.
56. We may also note that even petitioner was given a similar
opportunity to submit an ISO Certificate later, which enabled the
Petitioner to qualify the Technical scrutiny.
57. We may also note that petitioner has already delivered the
product and the system is operational. The system is of extreme public
importance. Dial 112 service is for people in distress and facilitates
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003
citizens to get in touch with the police during distress situations and
for the authorities to efficiently and promptly respond.
58. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in
the tender process. Petitioner has failed to bring or record any material
irregularity or illegality. Case of undue advantage has not been
established. Respondent no. 1 has not committed any error in
extending some time to respondent no. 2 to submit the documents in
respect of a minor component of the tender. Consequently, the petition
does not have any merit and is thus dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
