The Supreme Court on Monday permitted the Union Government to withdraw its special leave petitions challenging the Delhi High Court judgment that had set aside the tender process for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services at Indian Missions in Abu Dhabi (UAE), Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra (Australia). The Court granted liberty to the Centre to seek review before the High Court instead of pursuing the appeals before the apex court.
The matters arose from the Delhi High Court’s July 15th judgment in E Trav Tech Limited v. Union of India & Ors., whereby the High Court held that the technical evaluation of bids suffered from arbitrariness, lack of transparency and absence of reasons, set aside the tender process, nullified the award of contracts and directed issuance of fresh Requests for Proposal (RFPs) within one month. Pending completion of the fresh tender process, the High Court had permitted the existing service providers to continue to avoid disruption of passport, visa and consular services.
Before the Supreme Court,Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, contended that the High Court proceeded on an erroneous premise that the technical evaluation committees had not recorded reasons for awarding marks. He submitted that reasons had in fact been recorded but were not taken on record by the High Court because the successful bidders objected to their disclosure to competing bidders. He maintained that the Ministry had nothing to conceal and was prepared to place the original evaluation records before the Court.
Mr Mehta further submitted that implementation of the High Court’s direction for fresh tenders would seriously disrupt consular operations, stating that Indian missions were already diverting embassy personnel to handle passport and visa work.
“
“Our embassies and missions are now running the function which they are not supposed to. We don’t have manpower. Only emergency situations are being tackled like renewal of passport, giving of a visa etc.”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for one of the successful bidders, submitted that substantial investments had already been made pursuant to the award of the contracts and requested that the successful L-1 bidders be permitted to operate pending adjudication.
The Bench, however, observed that it was not inclined to examine the factual controversy regarding the evaluation process in the appeals. Instead, it suggested that if the Union believed the High Court had proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding non-recording of reasons, the appropriate course would be to seek review before the High Court. When the Solicitor General requested liberty to approach the High Court, the Bench agreed.
“
“If you want to withdraw your SLPs and file a review before the High Court, we can’t stop you… We reluctantly permit you to withdraw and file a review petition.”
During the hearing, the Court also considered interim arrangements for continuation of passport and visa services, noting the practical difficulties in immediately replacing service providers or making ad hoc arrangements for sensitive consular functions. However, it left the issue to be addressed in appropriate proceedings before the High Court.
The special leave petitions were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Union Government to pursue review proceedings before the Delhi High Court.