Centre moves Supreme Court against Delhi HC order quashing tender for passport, visa services at Indian missions abroad

The Central government has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's recent decision to quash the award of tenders for the outsourcing of Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian Missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra [Union Of India v. E Trav Tech].

The matter was mentioned on Friday before a Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.

The Court agreed to list the matter on Monday, July 20.

On July 15, the Delhi High Court quashed the technical evaluation process and the consequent award of the tender, holding that the evaluation suffered from arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain passed its verdict in a batch of seven petitions filed by two bidders, travel technology platform eTrav Tech and digital signature certifying authority Verasys.

The two companies had challenged their disqualification in the technical-bid stage of the tender process.

They stated that their marks were deducted arbitrarily and without any explanation. Due to this they were disqualified from being considered for the next step of financial evaluation.

The bidders moved the High Court challenging the legality, transparency and fairness of the decision-making process adopted by Union Ministry of External Affairs (MEA).

The Central government opposed the petitions, arguing that the bidders are re-agitating issues that have already been previously decided by courts due to their own failure to secure the contract.

The High Court rejected this argument, opining that the petitions were filed on the basis of a fresh cause of action, after the MEA disclosed parameter-wise evaluation following a court direction.

The Court further observed that the disclosed parameter-wise evaluation suffered from multiple infirmities including the use of undisclosed comparative standards, unexplained deductions under objective criteria, inconsistent marking and the complete absence of recorded reasons.

It stated the two bidders were awarded disproportionately low marks without giving any explanation or highlighting any deficiency in their proposal.

The High Court found that such an evaluation was opaque, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action.

It ultimately concluded that the tender process suffered from arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency.

"The parameter-wise marks awarded to the Petitioners are vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency, rendering the impugned technical evaluations unsustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution," the High Court held.

It held that the technical evaluation of the tender was rendered unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Court nullified the contract awarded to other private bidders. 

Therefore, the High Court proceeded to direct the Central government to issue a fresh tender for CPV services at the four Indian missions within one month.

In the meantime, it permitted the existing service providers to continue operating at the four missions until the fresh tender process is concluded.

This ruling has now been challenged before the Supreme Court by the Central government.