The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the Centre's special leave petition challenging a Delhi High Court verdict that quashed the tender process for outsourcing consular, passport and visa (CPV) services at Indian missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra. However, the top court allowed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) and Engineers India Limited (EIL) to make temporary arrangements to ensure uninterrupted delivery of services while a fresh tender process is completed. As reported by Business Standard, the bench said "The SLP (special leave petition of the Centre) is dismissed. However, having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the submissions made before us, we are of the view that no impediment should be caused to the day-to-day functioning of the concerned establishments pending the completion of the fresh tender process." The court clarified that such interim arrangements shall be purely temporary and not create any special equities in favour of any party, remaining subject to the outcome of the fresh Request for Proposal (RFP) process.
The Supreme Court has ordered the MEA to complete the fresh tender/RFP exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. According to Business Standard, the bench made clear that it shall be open to EIL and the MEA to make suitable interim arrangements for continuation of the subject services, including engagement of the successful L-1 bidders whose performance has been found satisfactory, or any other agency in such a manner as EIL and the MEA may consider appropriate. The court emphasized that the MEA shall ensure compliance with the earlier directions as well as the directions contained in this order, ensuring continuity of services while maintaining adherence to the high court's original directives.
The high court had found that while taking the decision, the Centre relied on undisclosed comparative standards, made unexplained deductions under objective evaluation criteria, and adopted inconsistent marking. As reported by Business Standard, the court stated that these deficiencies struck at the very heart of transparency, fairness and equality in the public procurement process. The court emphasized that "The use of undisclosed comparative standards, unexplained deductions under objective criteria, inconsistent marking and complete absence of recorded reasons strikes at the heart of transparency, fairness and equality in public procurement. Therefore, exclusion of a lower bidder on the basis of an arbitrary evaluation process is not merely an individual grievance but also raises concerns of public interest under Article 14 of the Constitution." The technical evaluation processes were set aside by the court, leading to the nullification of the tender award in favour of private respondents.
The verdict was delivered on petitions filed by two unsuccessful bidders, E Trav Tech Limited and Verasys Limited, who had participated in the tender process but were disqualified at the technical evaluation stage, since they had failed to secure the minimum 70 per cent marks to qualify for opening of their financial bids. As reported by Business Standard, the legal battle began when two unsuccessful bidding firms, E Trav Tech Limited and Verasys Limited, challenged their disqualification, with both companies having participated in the tender process but failing to meet the required technical evaluation standards. The solicitor general justified the actions, stating that bidders could not be mechanically assigned comparative scores across different missions, explaining "We are dealing with four different embassies. Abhishek Singhvi's client may get two marks in Abu Dhabi but five in Singapore. If the same marking is given, then something is fishy."
