Centre moves SC against HC order scrapping passport, visa services tender

The Centre has challenged the Delhi High Court's decision quashing the award of a tender for outsourcing consular, passport and visa services at four Indian missions abroad

The Centre has approached the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court judgment that quashed the award of a tender for outsourcing consular, passport and visa (CPV) services at Indian missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra.

 

The matter was mentioned on Friday before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohan by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The Bench agreed to list the appeal for hearing on July 20.

 

The Delhi High Court, in a July 15 judgment, had set aside the technical evaluation process and the resulting award of the contract, holding that the exercise was vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency.

 

 

It also directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to issue a fresh tender within one month while allowing the existing service providers to continue until the new process is completed.

 

The verdict came on a batch of petitions filed by travel technology company eTrav Tech and digital signature certification authority Verasys, both of which had been eliminated during the technical bid stage.

 

The petitioners argued that marks had been deducted without any explanation, preventing them from advancing to the financial bid. They also challenged the fairness and transparency of the evaluation process adopted by the MEA.

 

The Union government opposed the petitions, contending that the bidders were attempting to reopen issues that had already been decided in earlier litigation.

 

The High Court rejected the objection, observing that the challenge arose from a fresh cause of action after the MEA disclosed parameter-wise evaluation details pursuant to a court direction.

 

Examining the evaluation records, the High Court found several shortcomings, including the use of undisclosed comparative benchmarks, unexplained deductions despite objective criteria, inconsistent marking, and the absence of recorded reasons for awarding scores.

 

The court held that the bidders had received disproportionately low marks without being informed of any deficiencies in their proposals, rendering the technical evaluation legally unsustainable. It concluded that the process violated the principles of fairness and transparency and failed to satisfy the constitutional requirement of non-arbitrariness under Article 14 (right to equality).

 

Consequently, the High Court annulled the technical evaluation and the contracts awarded pursuant to it. The Centre has now challenged that ruling before the Supreme Court.