KALPANA SINGH v. GOVERNEMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
Court: High Court of Delhi
Bench: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Delhi judgment dated 2024-12-10. KALPANA SINGH v. GOVERNEMENT OF NCT OF DELHI. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
$~258 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W. P. (C) 16916/2024 & CM APPL. 71679/2024 KALPANA SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Nakul Dewan, Sr Advocate with Mr Mohd. Fuzail Khan, Ms Shisba Chawla and Mr Gaurav Kumar, Advocates. versus GOVERNEMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr Anuj Aggarwal, ASC, Mr Vikrant Chawla, Mr Yash Upadhyay, Mr Siddhant Dutt, and Ms Ishita Pandey, Advocates for GNCTD. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 10. 12. 2024 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the notification bearing No. F. No. DTO/VIU/TPT/2024/396/075776799 (hereafter the impugned notice) issued by the Transport Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. 2.
The respondent (Transport Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi) had issued the impugned notice inviting Expression of Interest (EOI) from various bidders to manage the Automated Testing Station (hereafter the ATS) for testing fitness of the vehicles through automated equipment and for issuance of the fitness certificates. The impugned notice identified five locations where Automated Testing Stations are required to be set up. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned notice on essentially two fronts. First, it is submitted that the eligibility criteria for bidders is framed This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 11:58:30 in a manner so as to favour one M/s.
Rosmerta Technologies Limited (hereafter the RTL) in as much as the RTL has the highest “operation experience of managing vehicle fitness centres in India”. Thus, providing a selection criteria, which accords a high weightage to past experience in managing of ATS, would essentially ensure that the bidding process tilts in the favour of RTL. Second, it is submitted that the selection criteria providing a decisive weightage for experience has no rational nexus with the object of selecting bidders for operating ATS and, therefore, the said criteria is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. At the outset, it is relevant to set out the Article 10 and 11 of the impugned notice which is at the heart of the petitioner’s challenge in this case. “10. TECHNICAL EVALUATION: S. No. Qualification conditions Scoring Criteria Documents to be submitted 1 The Applicant/any i..
More than 6 Notarized Copy of member of Consortium (in months but below license granted by the case of Consortium) must 12 months registering authority on have experience of - 10 marks form 39/ form 62 of operation of ATS/ CMVR. Inspection & Certification Centre/ Automated Fitness ii. More than 12 Notarized undertaking Centre for at least six months but below from the Applicant months during the last 18 months along with certified three years preceding last - 20 marks copy from the authority date of submission of bid. regarding experience of operation. Work experience will be iii. 18 months or counted for last three above years preceding last date - 30 marks of submission of bid. For illustration: In case, last date of submission of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 11:58:30 bid is 30th Sep 2024, then last three years will be: th Year 1: 30 Sep 2023- 30th Sep 2024. Year 2: 30th Sep 2022- 30th Sep 2023 Year 3: 30th Sep 2021- 30th Sep 2022 2 Equipment Supplier/OEM 10 Test Lanes - Notarized undertaking must have supplied at 10 Marks from the Applicant least 10 test lane along with certified comprising of Roller 20 Test Lanes - copy from the Brake Tester, Side Slip 20 Marks respective authority Tester, Suspension Tester, regarding and supply of Speedometer and Joint 30 Test Lanes and specified Test Lane Play Tester in India in the above - Equipment last three years preceding 30 Marks last date of submission of bid. 3 The Applicant must have 1. Distance of Notarized document of suitable Project Land for proposed land ownership (e. g. , establishment of ATS as Notarised Transfer accepted by the Transport document of land Deed/Khatauni etc.
) in Department in accordance from NH or State the name of Applicant with point 8 of EOI. Highway: or Copy of registered Lease Deed for a lease i. Up to 25 meters : period of at least 10 25 marks years from the date of ii. More than 25 allotment of tender, in meters to 75 meters the name of Applicant : 15 marks along with Location iii. More than 75 Map of the Project meters to 150 Land, demarcating the meters : 5 Marks. boundaries and National Highway or State Highways 4 When evaluating bids for Maximum 15 Scoring Criteria: this project that involves Marks setting up test lanes, a key 5 test lanes- 15 marks criterion is the number of test lanes that each 4 Test lanes-12 marks This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 11:58:30 Applicant proposes to establish.
The principle 3 Test lanes- 09 marks guiding this criterion is that the Applicant who 2 Test lanes- 06 marks proposes the highest number of test lanes will be given preference. This approach is to ensure that the testing facility can handle a higher volume of vehicles, thereby increasing its capacity and efficiency. A Applicant must propose minimum two lane at one location in that area. 11. DETERMINATION OF THE SUCCESSFUL APPLICANT: 1) At each of the area, one Preliminary Registration Certificate (PRC) will be issued for setting one ATS (minimum 2 lane and maximum can be any depending on land size availability) at one location within that area. 2) A Preliminary Registration Certificate (PRC) will be awarded to the Applicant (after receipt of application through NSWS as per procedure as defined in Rule 175 of CMVR) who scores the highest technical marks for each area, according to the evaluation criteria in this EOI.
Each area will be assessed separately by the technical committee, and the Applicant with the highest score in that area will receive the PRC. 3) In case of tie of score in a specific area, Applicant with maximum experience in operation of ATS/ Inspection & Certification Centre/ Automated Fitness Centre will be preferred (Counted in terms of lane years= Number of lane operational x period of operation). 4) In case of tie in in lane experience as specified in sub clause 3, the applicant with higher availability of land area for a specific location will be preferred. 5) However, any single Applicant can only be awarded a maximum of two ATS area. If an Applicant qualifies for a third area, the PRC for that location will go to the next highest scorer. 6) The Technical Evaluation Committee shall submit a report with Technical Score of each Applicant and recommendations of highest scorer in each of the five area separately for approval to the approving authority. ” 5.
As is apparent from the above, the Article 10 sets out the scoring criteria of awarding marks against each qualification condition. The bidder having experience of more than eighteen months in operating ATS would be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 11:58:30 awarded 30 marks against the said qualitative criterion. Similarly, the experience in supplying test lanes is required to be awarded marks in accordance with the given scale – 10 marks for 10 lanes; 20 marks for 20 lanes; and 30 marks for 30 lanes and above. 6. Clause 3 and 4 of Article 11 of the impugned notice stipulates the order of preference in case there is a tie in the scores awarded to different bidders. 7.
It is the petitioner’s case that since RTL has been operating ATS since the year 2014, pursuant to the agreements with Ministry of Transport, it has the highest experience in the said field. It would, thus, follow that in case of a tie of scores between the two bidders, RTL would steal a march over the other bidders by virtue of their past experience. 8. According to the petitioner, the said criteria is arbitrary and unreasonable considering that the experience of more than six months is a qualifying criteria for any bidder to participate in the bidding process. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that clause 5 of Article 11, stipulates that an applicant would be awarded a maximum of two ATS areas (out of five). He submits that by virtue of this condition, RTL cannot be awarded the contract for ATS in all five areas. Subject to RTL scoring the highest marks, it can at the maximum be allocated two ATS areas. 10.
There is merit in the contention that given the weightage accorded to the management/operation experience, the bidder with the highest experience in managing ATS, would inevitably have a competitive advantage. Since RTL is the most experienced bidder, in this case, it would have a decisive advantage in case of a tie with other bidders. However, we This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 11:58:30 are unable to accept that the said condition is arbitrary or unreasonable. 11. Plainly, from the perspective of the respondent, preferring an operator with a higher experience in case of other parameters being equal, is neither irrational nor unreasonable. 12. We are unable to accept that clause 3 of Article 11 is arbitrary or unreasonable. 13.
It is also relevant to note that in terms of clause 4 of Article 11, in case there is a tie between the bidders after awarding scores for experience as stipulated under clause 3 of Article 11, the bidder with the maximum availability of the land would be preferred. 14. The contention that the criteria of experience in the given field has no rational nexus with the object to be achieved, is insubstantial. The contract is for operating the ATS. Clearly, preferring an entity who has a higher experience in the said field, has a clear nexus with the object of better management/operation of the ATS. Selecting a person with more experience in a particular field cannot by any stretch be said to be a condition that has no nexus with performance in the given field. 15. The petition is unmerited, and accordingly, dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 10, 2024 M Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/12/2024 at 11:58:30
Source: High Court of Delhi. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.