Delhi High Court seeks response from Centre, BSNL, Airtel on PIL alleging favouritism in post office digitisation tender

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Central government, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), Bharti Airtel and others on a plea flagging violation of tender eligibility conditions with respect to digitisation of post offices across India [Telecom Watchdog v Union of India & Ors.].

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Nitin Wasudeo Sambre and Justice Sanjay Sharma granted two weeks to the respondents to file their replies.

The PIL, filed by Telecom Watchdog, has challenged BSNL’s decision to allow bids from companies which use equipment supplied by Lavelle Networks.

As per the plea, use of Lavelle's equipment would make a company ineligible to participate in the bid because of its links with Bharti Airtel, a telecom service provider.

It is the petitioner's case that the project aims to digitise nearly 27,000 post offices to support postal, banking and insurance services.

The petition argues that the project’s eligibility conditions barred telecom service providers, like Airtel, and their group companies from participating.

It alleges that BSNL failed to enforce these conditions by allowing two bidders, Sify Technologies and Pace Digitek, to quote equipment supplied by Lavelle without the required self-certificates.

"In this tender, there were four bidders. All the bidders including their respective OEMs submitted their self-certificates, barring Lavelle. BSNL should have rejected the bids of Respondent Nos.3 (Sify Technologies Ltd) & 4 (Pace Digitek Ltd), which had quoted Lavelle’s equipment without self-certificate. This omission by BSNL is deliberate attempt to favour the bidder for letting them bypass the risk of submitting a false certificate," states the petition.

The dispute over Lavelle’s eligibility centres on its relationship with Airtel.

According to the petition, Airtel disclosed that it acquired a stake in Lavelle, a Bengaluru-based networking technology company, in 2022 and increased it to 45.6 percent in 2023.

The petition claims that Airtel exercises significant influence over Lavelle. It contends that their relationship brings the company within the tender restrictions.

BSNL, however, rejected the complaint in September, maintaining that Airtel’s interest did not amount to control over Lavelle’s board, management or policy decisions that would make the two companies a parent-subsidiary or group company under the tender conditions.

The petitioner subsequently, disputed BSNL’s assessment. They alleged that allowing the bids to proceed amounted to favouritism.

"Letting an ineligible company to take contract in this manner is nothing but an indication of massive corruption by the management of BSNL," the petition said.

The High Court had on September 9 directed BSNL to communicate a reasoned decision on the petitioner’s complaint. BSNL rejected the complaint on September 30, prompting the present challenge.

The petition was filed through advocate Pranav Sachdeva.