Bvg India Limited Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr Nikhil Rajkumar Dhok vs Police Telecommunication Headquaters

Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided on: 23-03-2026

<div> NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 1 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JA BA LP U R BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF WRIT PETITION No. 19948 of 2025 BVG INDIA LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR NIKHIL RAJKUMAR DHOK Versus POLICE TELECOMMUNICATION HEADQUATERS AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Brian D. Salva - Senior Advocate with Shri Sarabvir Singh Oberoi - Advocate for Petitioner. Shri Nalin Kohli - Senior Advocate with Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. Sonia Nigam, Mohammad Shahyan Khan, Shri Abhinav Shrivastava, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, Shri Akarsh Sharma, Ms. Nimisha Menon, Ms. Aishwarya Kesarwani and Shri Ayushman Arora, Advocates. Shri Abhijeet Awasthy - Deputy Advocate General for Respondents/State Reserved on : 17.10.2025 Pronounced on : 23.03.2026 JUDGMENT Per : Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva 1. Petitioner impugns the decision of Respondent no 1, the Tender Inviting Authority, declaring Respondent no. 2 as qualified and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 2 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 successful bidder (L1) and also impugns the non consideration of the objections raised by the petitioner challenging the technical qualification of respondent no. 2. 2. Respondent no. 1, Police Telecommunication Headquarters issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) for selection of system integrator for implementation, maintenance and operations of M. P. Dial 112, Phase-II “On Turnkey Basis” vide Request For Proposal (RFP for short) dated 12.03.2025. 3. Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 (M/s EMRI Green Health Services) and M/s JAEPL submitted their bids, however, the bid of M/s JAEPL was rejected at the stage of technical evaluation and was declared non-responsive. The bids submitted by the petitioner as well as by the respondent no. 2 were declared responsive. 4. M.P. Police uploaded the bid documents of the bidders on portal and from examination of the bid documents submitted by respondent no. 2, petitioner was of the view that the respondent no. 2 ought to have been disqualified as respondent no. 2 had allegedly misrepresented the documents, which appear to be fake and fabricated. 5. Respondent no. 1 i.e. Tender Inviting Authority opened the financial bid of the petitioner and respondent no.2 and declared respondent no. 2 as the successful bidder (L1) with bid price at Rs. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 3 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 972,24,78,854.95 against the price quoted by petitioner at Rs. 996,82,17,112.89. Petitioner was declared as the L2 bidder. 6. Petitioner submitted its objection inter alia that respondent no. 2 did not submit Form 21 which was required to be filled up by the Original Equipment Manufacturer and to enclose along with the technical bid as per Clause 114 of RFP and on failure to submit Form 21 would result in the bid being summarily rejected. 7. Petitioner raised an objection that respondent no. 2 had not furnished the latest certificate of ITIL 4 from PeopleCert Gold Certificate Processes and the certificate submitted by the respondent no. 2 was of ITILV4 from UsCert, which was not a valid certificate. Further objection was raised that the documents submitted in support of the minimum technical specification of Video Conferencing System was not issued by the OEM i.e. QSC India Private Limited as the same did not bear the signature of any official of OEM nor did it carry the seal of the OEM and the letterhead used for issuance of said document was different from the original letterhead of QSC India Private Limited. 8. It was contended that the certificate was issued in respect of the some products, which QSC India Private Limited does not manufacture. Petitioner raised the objections and stated that the bid submitted by the respondent no. 2 was not in compliance of Clause 114 of RFP and the bid of respondent no. 2 was liable to be rejected. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 4 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 9. Upon the complaint submitted by petitioner on 28.05.2025 highlighting the alleged shortcomings and irregularities in the bid document submitted by respondent no. 2, no action was taken by the respondent no. 1 and on 30.05.2025, work order was issued in favour of the respondent no. 2 followed by execution of an agreement dated 02.06.2025. 10. The petitioner by this petition originally sought directions to respondent no. 1 to forthwith disqualify respondent no. 2 from the tender process and declare the petitioner as the successful bidder (L1) and to take action by black listing the respondent no. 2, however, when the factum of issuance of Work Order and execution of agreement were disclosed by the respondent no. 1, petitioner amended the petition and sought quashment of the Work Order dated 30.05.2025 and Agreement dated 02.06.2025. 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the bid submitted by the respondent no. 2 was non responsive. Reference is made to Clauses 9.1, 9.3, 9.11, 9.12, 10, 17, 22.1, 22.7, 54.3, 54.9, 54.10, 54.32, 113, 114, and 116 of the RFP to contend that at the time of technical evaluation, it was mandatory for the Evaluation Committee to examine the documents submitted along with the bid and to ensure that all the documents had been duly submitted as per the compliance check list. It is submitted that Clause 9.3 of the RFP provides that if any bid was found to be non-compliant Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 5 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 to the mandatory technical requirements, same was liable to be rejected. 12. It is submitted that Clause 9.11 and 9.12 stipulate that noncompliance to any of the forms issued by the OEM, would resulted in rejection of the technical bid and financial bid would be opened only if the technical bid was found compliant. 13. Learned Senior counsel further submits that Clauses 22.1, 22.4 and 22.5 provide that noncompliance with the instructions contained in RFP shall render the bid liable to be rejected and Clause 22.7 provides that no supplementary or additional material would be taken. Clause 54.3 provides that incomplete or partial bid was liable to be rejected and as per Clause 54.9, it was the responsibility of the bidder to submit an undertaking given by the OEMs as per Form 23 signed by the OEMs along with the required certificate in consonance with the provisions of Clause 54.10, otherwise the bid would be liable to be rejected in compliance of 54.32. 14. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that Clause 113 provides that format of undertaking was provided in the RFP itself and no change in the same was acceptable, whereas Clause 114 provides that failure to submit technical compliance checking documents could result in the bid being summarily rejected. Manufacturer’s Authorization Form (MAF) was required to be submitted along with the bid documents. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 6 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Form 21 which was required to be filled up by OEM and enclosed along with the technical bid, was not supplied by respondent no. 2 and similarly respondent no. 2 failed to submit the latest certification of the ITIL4 from PeopleCert and instead provided a certificate of ITILV4 from UsCert, which was not in conformity with the terms of Clause 114 of the RFP. He contended that respondent no. 1 issued a show cause notice dated 21.05.2025 to respondent no. 2 drawing the attention of respondent no. 2 to Clauses 114.1.18 of the RFP and further contended that the certification submitted by respondent no. 2 of Infraknit Technology was not issued by PeopleCert and the only credible and internationally accepted authority for issuing ITIL 4 certification. It is contended that a direction was issued to respondent no. 2 to submit an ITIL 4 certificate issued by the PeopleCert on or before 1700 hrs. of 25.05.2025, however, same was not complied with by respondent no. 2 and the certificate issued by the PeopleCert was submitted by respondent no. 2 on 28.06.2025 much after the execution of the agreement. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that despite issuance of communication dated 22.05.2025 and admitted by respondent no. 2 by its reply dated 25.05.2025 that respondent no. 2 did not possess the certificate issued PeopleCert , the Work Order was issued on 30.05.2025 followed by an agreement dated 02.06.2025, ignoring the essential requirement of RFP. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 7 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 17. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner, in its compliant dated 28.05.2025, expressed doubts with regard to the genuineness of the document submitted by the respondent no. 2. Petitioner in its complaint had raised the issue that the document submitted by the respondent no. 2 for minimum technical specification of Video Conferencing System was not genuine due to the reason that the letterhead which was used was not of OEM i.e. QSC India Private Limited and the document did not bear the signature of any officer of OEM, nor the seal of OEM was available on the documents and more so, the document was also issued in respect of the some products, which OEM i.e. QSC does not manufacture. 18. It is further submitted that these allegations were also found correct as the respondent no. 2 in its reply submitted that the document was not issued by the OEM, but had been provided by the channel partner and respondent no. 2 furnished a declaration from another manufacturer i.e. Erthpot Electronics Private Limited. As the products mentioned in the document at serial numbers 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 were not manufactured by QSC, respondent no. 2 submitted MAF dated 12.06.2025 of another manufacturer i.e. Erthpot Electronics Private Limited and same was submitted much after issuance of Work Order and execution of the agreement. 19. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegation of the petitioner was further fortified by the act of respondent no. 2 of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 8 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 filing MAF of QSC issued on 16.06.2025. He submitted that the bid submitted by respondent no. 2 was incomplete and was not in compliance of various clauses of RFP and therefore, was liable to be rejected. It is contended that respondent no. 2 not only failed to submit Form 21 and Form 23 along with the bid document but submitted forged and fabricated documents. 20. Learned Senior Counsel objected to the submission of respondent no. 1 in its reply to this petition that Infraknit was already deployed in the Special Branch of Police, Bhopal and therefore, the certificate issued by Infraknit was accepted despite specific stipulation in the RFP that the bidder had to furnish the ITIL4 certificate issued by PeopleCert . He submits that respondent no.1 had no authority to relax the tender condition and accept a certificate issued by the Infraknit . 21. Similarly, the stand of the respondent no.1 that the tender inviting authority had the right to call for any additional information, was opposed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner on the ground that any additional information could be sought at any stage prior to execution of the contract, whereas in the case in hand, the documents were submitted by the respondent no.2 after issuance of the Work Order and execution of agreement, which was not permissible at all. It is submitted that the Tender Inviting Authority failed to conduct any enquiry in respect of the objections raised by the petitioner, however, same were found correct later on. He submits that Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 9 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 the stipulation, rules and conditions of the RFP cannot be ignored and contract cannot be awarded to the lowest bidder, if his bid is not compliant and he is not technically qualified. 22. Reliance in placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation Ujjain & Anr. Vs. BVG India Limited (2018) 5 SCC 462, to contend that merely because the financial bid of a bidder is the lowest, the requirement of compliance with the Rules and conditions cannot be ignored. 23. Learned Senior counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prakash Asphaltings & Toll Highways (India) Limited Vs. Mandeepa Enterprises & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1959 to contend that adherence to the rules and conditions of tender is must and the sanctity of the tender process being paramount should be maintained at any cost. 24. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the essential terms of the tender must be strictly complied with and the tender inviting authority cannot relax the essential tender conditions arbitrarily. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bakshi Security & Personnel Services Private Limited Vs. Devkishan Computed Private Limited & Ors. (2016) 8 SCC 446 . 25. Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 i.e. the Tender Inviting Authority submits that the request for proposal for selection of System Integrator for Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 10 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 Implementation, Maintenance and Operations of MP Dial Phase - II “On Turnkey Basis”- DIAL 112 service, was issued on 12.03.2025 and after evaluation of the technical bids submitted by the bidders, petitioner and respondent No. 2 were found qualified in the technical round and their financial bids were opened and respondent No. 2 secured L1 position, whereas the petitioner was L2. He submits that petitioner has raised frivolous objections in respect of the documents submitted by respondent No. 2 along with bid documents. 26. He submits that the Evaluation Authority has not turned a blind eye to the bid documents submitted by respondent No. 2 and a communication was issued to respondent No. 2 to explain the documents on 25.05.2025. He further submits that the allegation of submitting forged and fabricated document relating to QSC India Pvt. Ltd. was not sustainable as QSC India Pvt. Ltd. had issued letters/correspondence and reiterated the earlier documents in subsequent letters. 27. He further submits that it was in the knowledge of the Tender Inviting Authority that some of the components of Video Conferencing System are not manufactured by QSC India Pvt. Ltd. and by another entity Erthpot Electronics Private Limited and this fact was brought to the knowledge of Tender Inviting Authority by letter dated 10.06.2025 and 11.06.2025, and therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that without evaluating the technical bid properly, the bid of respondent No. 2 was declared compliant, is baseless . Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 11 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 28. Learned Dy. Advocate General further submitted that certificate issued by Infraknit for service desk was equivalent to the ITIL 4 certifications, and therefore, respondent No. 2 has not violated any term by submitting the certificate issued by Infraknit . He further submits that Clause 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8 and 9.9 of the RFP empower the Tender Inviting Authority to seek additional information from any of the bidders and petitioner has suppressed this fact that originally petitioner's bid was also not compliant as the ISO certificate submitted by the petitioner was not in consonance with the requirement, and an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit another certificate and after grant of the opportunity, petitioner submitted another ISO certificate and thereafter his bid was declared compliant. Similarly, an opportunity was granted to respondent No. 2 and the petitioner had no right to raise any objection. 29. Learned Dy. Advocate General submits that the work order has already been issued on 30.05.2025 and agreement in respect of the same has also been executed on 02.06.2025, therefore, no interference is permissible in the instant case and the petition preferred by the petitioner is frivolous and has been submitted due to failure on the part of the petitioner to secure the contract. 30. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Bihar SEB vs. Green Rubber Industries, (1990) 1 SCC 731, Union of India vs. Raman Iron Foundry, (1974) 2 SCC 231, Provash Chandra Dalui vs. Biswanath Banerjee, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 487, Bangalore Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 12 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. vs. ELS, Solar Power (P) Ltd., (2021) 6 SCC 718, Food Corpn. of India vs. Abhijit Paul, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha, (2020) 16 SCC 759, Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489, and Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 , to contend that the Supreme Court has held that, a contract is a commercial transaction and evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions and if the decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, Court's will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural abrasion or error in assessment or prejudiced to a tenderer, is made out. 31. It is contended that the Court must rely that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirement, and therefore, Court's interference should be minimum. The authority which floats the contract or tender and has authored the tender documents, is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted, and if two interpretations are possible, then the interpretation of the author should be accepted. He prays for dismissal of the petition. 32. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the petition and submits that the petition has been preferred on false and untenable grounds, which have neither legal nor factual foundation. The pre-qualification bid was opened on Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 13 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 27.04.2025, wherein the bid submitted by respondent No. 2 was duly admitted. However, the bid submitted by the petitioner was initially disqualified for non-submission of requisite essential documents (ISO certification) but petitioner was subsequently allowed by the Tender Inviting Authority to submit requisite ISO certificate after the last date of bid submission and consequently bid of the petitioner was also qualified in pre-qualification stage. 33. Learned senior counsel submits that respondent No. 2 was duly selected as L1 and the tender was awarded to respondent No. 2 as the bid of respondent No. 2 was Rs. 24.08 Crores lower than the bid submitted by the petitioner. The work order has already been issued on 30.05.2025 and agreement has been executed on 02.06.2025. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has already deployed the vehicles with equipment and started the work. 34. Learned senior counsel further submits that Clause 114.1.18, Entry 59 of RFP requires for minimum technical specification that, the proposed helpdesk solution should have achieved certification latest ITIL 4, and the certificate submitted by respondent No. 2 along with the bid document complied with the requirement. However, respondent No. 1 by letter dated 22.05.2025 directed it to submit ITIL 4 certificate from PeopleCert and in response to the letter, respondent No. 2 on 25.05.2025 submitted a clarification, which satisfied the query of respondent No. 1, however, the respondent No. 2 promptly asked the OEM to provide the ITIL 4 certificate issued by PeopleCert Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 14 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 and provided the same to the respondent No. 1 before the delivery of the product. 35. Learned senior counsel further submits that the requirement of possessing an ITIL 4 certification was not mandatorily restricted to certification issued by PeopleCert . Certification by any other recognized certification body, such as UsCert, was sufficient to comply with the requirement of RFP. The OEM interpreted the submission of ITIL 4 certification and bonafidely provided the certificate issued by UsCert in compliance of the tender document. A clarification letter issued by OEM i.e. Infraknit was submitted along with the reply dated 25.05.2025 and same was found satisfactory, therefore the work order was issued and later on, the ITIL 4 certificate issued by PeopleCert was also submitted by respondent No. 2. 36. Learned senior counsel points out that EMS solution developed by OEM, M/s. Infraknit , had already been successfully deployed and made operational in the Special Branch of the Madhya Pradesh Police Headquarters Bhopal, since 17.03.2023, and therefore, there was no reason to raise any finger towards the EMS solution developed by M/s. Infraknit . More so, the EMS solution was successfully demonstrated to Technical Evaluation Committee on 15.05.2025 and no such objection was raised by Technical Evaluation Committee that the same should be certified by PeopleCert mandatorily. Clause 9.7 of RFP empowers the Technical Evaluation Committee to seek for any document and an undertaking to later on submit the certificate was Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 15 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 sought by Technical Evaluation Committee, which was submitted by respondent No. 2 and later on the certificate duly issued by PeopleCert was submitted. 37. Learned senior counsel further submitted that although there was no requirement that ITIL 4 certificate should be exclusively issued by PeopleCert , however an undertaking was submitted by respondent No. 2 that the same would be provided and on the basis of the undertaking, work order was issued and the agreement was executed and subsequently the certificate was duly provided. Hence, said issue ought to have been closed. 38. So far as the second ground of challenge is concerned that false and fabricated minimum technical specification of Video Conferencing System Form MAF was submitted by respondent No. 2, it is submitted that the allegation is incorrect and has been leveled only on the basis of some documents downloaded from the website by the petitioner. Upon inquiry, OEM i.e. QSC has reiterated the contents of the Form MAF. It is submitted that the MAF was received by respondent No. 2 from its Channel Partner namely M/s Rhinexa India Pvt. Ltd. vide email dated 21.04.2025 and the CC of the said mail was forwarded to Director of QSC as well as Regional Sales Manager and QSC was aware of the issuance of MAF sent by its Channel Partner namely M/s Rhinexa India Pvt. Ltd. to respondent No. 2, and therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that MAF was forged, is wholly baseless and misconceived. Subsequently, another MAF was Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 16 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 issued by QSC and the same was also submitted by the respondent No. 2 and there is no substance in the objection raised by the petitioner. Form 23 was not filled up by respondent No. 2 and it was issued by OEM, and therefore, there can't be any malafide intention in submitting the form. 39. Learned senior counsel further contends that whatever objections were raised by the petitioner in the instant petition are in respect of Video Conferencing System, which is a minor component of the overall project, having 0.5% of the total project value of Rs.972 Crores i.e. Rs. 48.6 Lakhs, and therefore, only on the basis of some bonafide mistakes committed in submission of the documents along with the bid, which was also later on cured before delivery of the product, is not a sufficient ground to declare a successful bidder disqualified. It is submitted that his bid is Rs. 24.08 Crores lower than the bid submitted by petitioner. 40. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Motors Ltd. vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking: (2023) 19 SCC 1 wherein the Supreme Court has inter alia held “ that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. Courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. Courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Ordinarily, a Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 17 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 writ court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is pointed out. To set at naught the entire tender process at the stage when the contract is well underway, would not be in public interest. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not interfere by exercising powers of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. Power of judicial review will not be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. 41. Similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and another, (2020) 16 SCC 489. 1 42. The Supreme Court of India in its various pronouncements has held that a Constitutional Court may interfere to the extent of examining the decision making process and has complete jurisdiction to interfere provided such decision making process is found to be vitiated by malafides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. 1 Tata Cellular vs. Union of India; (1994) 6 SCC 651; Air India Ltd vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd.; (2000) 2 SCC 617; Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517; Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 18 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 Constitutional Courts ought to consider whether interference in such matters would be in public interest and in the absence whereof, even if there is an element of error, Courts would do well not to interdict tender process. Where public interest would far outweigh private interests, then, even where there is some infraction by the State, the Constitutional Courts may refuse to grant relief. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. 43. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain vs. BVG India Ltd. (2018) 5 SCC 462 has held as under: “27 . Thus, only when a decision-making process is so arbitrary or irrational that no responsible authority proceeding reasonably or lawfully could have arrived at such decisions, power of judicial review can be exercised. However, if it is bona fide and in public interest, the court will not interfere in the exercise of power of judicial review even if there is a procedural lacuna. The principles of equity and natural justice do not operate in the field of commercial transactions. Wherever a decision has been taken appropriately in public interest, the court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint. When a decision is taken by the authority concerned upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all tenderers on their own merits and it is ultimately found that the successful bidder had in fact substantially complied with the purpose and object for which the essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with.” 44. In the present case, subject e-tender notice was issued by Police Telecommunication Headquarters, M.P. on 12.03.2025 for selection Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 19 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 of System Integrator for implantation, maintenance and operations of M.P. Dial 112 Phase-II “On Turnkey Basis” and petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 were qualified in the technical evaluation. 45. One of the components of supply was video conferencing solution. As per Clause 114.1.18 of Request for Proposal (RFP) minimum technical specification of EMS (Enterprise Management System) was required to be submitted duly issued on the letter head of OEM and Clause 113.1.31 provided the minimum technical specification of video conferencing system to be issued on the letterhead of OEM. Submissions of these two documents were essential and the controversy is in respect of these two documents in the present petition. 46. The first contention of the petitioner is that the Form-21 submitted by the respondent no. 2 was not in consonance with the requirement of Clause 114.1.18 at Serial No.59. Form-21 required the </div><table><thead><tr><th>submission of latest certificate of ITIL 4 from</th><th>PeopleCert</th><th>, whereas</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> respondent no. 2 submitted the certificate of ITIL V4 from UsCert, which was not proper compliance. Respondent no. 2 on 25.05.2025 in response to a letter issued by the Tender Inviting Authority submitted that the said term does not mandatorily provide that the certificate </div><table><thead><tr><th>should be issued by</th><th>PeopleCert</th><th>and the OEM M/s</th><th>Infraknit</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> bonafidely provided the ITIL certificate issued by UsCert and also submitted the correspondence with the OEM. An undertaking was furnished by the respondent no. 2 to the Technical Evaluation Committee that before delivery of the product respondent no. 2 shall Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 20 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 </div><table><thead><tr><th>submit the certificate ITIL 4 duly issued by</th><th>PeopleCert</th><th>. Said</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> undertaking was considered and accepted by the Technical Evaluation Committee and subsequently respondent no. 2 duly submitted the </div><table><thead><tr><th>ITIL 4 certificate issued by</th><th>PeopleCert</th><th>on 28.06.2025.</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> 47. Clause 8.4 of the RFP reserves the right of Tender Inviting </div><table><thead><tr><th>Authority</th><th></th><th>to ask for additional information, as it may deem</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> necessary to evaluate the bid proposal at any stage before execution of the contract. Clause 8.5 empowers the Technical Evaluation Committee to call for any information, document and undertaking from the bidder in order to satisfy itself about the eligibility, capability and capacity of the bidder and technical specifications/trustworthiness of the product. The Technical Evaluation Committee issued a letter on 22.05.2025 to the respondent no. 2 and asked for submission of ITIL 4 </div><table><thead><tr><th>certificate duly issued by</th><th>PeopleCert</th><th>. Although the respondent no. 2</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> tried to justify the submission of ITIL V4 certificate issued by UsCert, but at the same time also furnished undertaking to provide the ITIL 4 </div><table><thead><tr><th>certificate duly issued by</th><th>PeopleCert</th><th>. RFP duly empowers Technical</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> Evaluation Committee to accept such undertaking and proceed further with the bid. Respondent no. 2 before delivery of the product duly </div><table><thead><tr><th>provided ITIL 4 certificate issued by</th><th>PeopleCert</th><th>and honoured the</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div> undertaking furnished by it. Once the undertaking is submitted, accepted by the Technical Evaluation Committee and honoured by respondent no. 2, we do not find any force in the objection of petitioner that on this count the bid of respondent no. 2 ought to have been declared non-compliant. Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 21 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 48. Clause 116 of the RFP provides format of Form 23 MAF (Manufacturer Authorization Form), which was required to be issued by OEM. The allegation against respondent no. 2 is that MAF was not issued by OEM i.e. QSC India Private Limited and was not genuine and was a forged and fabricated document. Said allegation was levelled on three grounds firstly; the letter pad used for the purpose of issuance of MAF was not of OEM, secondly no signature of any official of OEM was available on the document and the seal of OEM was also not affixed and thirdly that the products, which QSC does not manufacture, were also included in MAF. 49. Respondent no. 2 submitted explanation to the said allegations along with the copy of e-mail to demonstrate that MAF was provided to the respondent no. 2 by a channel partner of QSC namely M/s Rhinexa India Private Limited vide e-mail dated 21.04.2025 and the Director and Sales Manager of QSC were also kept in loop, meaning thereby that the issuance of MAF by the channel partner M/s. Rhinexa was in the knowledge of OEM and respondent no. 2 submitted the same along with the bid document bonafidely. 50. First of all, from perusal of e-mail dated 21.04.2025 it is apparent that respondent no. 2 demanded the MAF from the channel partner of OEM i.e. QSC and same was provided to respondent no. 2 by M/s Rhinexa India Private Limited and respondent no. 2 used the said document believing that the same to have been issued by the OEM. The contention of respondent no. 2 that said document was used bonafidely appears to be plausible as later on the OEM also Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 22 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 reiterated the contents of the MAF in subsequent correspondence and in respect of the products, those were included in MAF by channel partner and not manufactured by OEM, another MAF was issued by manufacturer M/s. Erthpot Electronics Private Limited and QSC India Private Limited also issued a subsequent declaration; meaning thereby that a bonafide mistake was committed by respondent no. 2 in submitting the Form-23 supplied by the channel partner of QSC. Said mistake was also duly cured and separate MAFs issued by OEM QSC India Private Limited and Erthpot Electronics Private Limited were duly submitted to respondent no. 1, which were accepted by respondent no. 1 and no illegality was committed by respondent no. 1 in accepting these documents submitted later on. 51. The allegation of petitioner that respondent no. 1 had arbitrarily accepted the documents and certificate submitted by respondent no. 2 later on and extended undue favour to respondent no. 2, is not borne out from the facts and circumstances of the case. 52. At the same time we cannot be ignore of the fact that all the allegations were in respect of supply of video conferencing system, which is a minor component of the tender having a value of Rs.48.6 Lacs only, which comes to around 0.5% of the total value of contract Rs. 972 Crores and if respondent no. 1 has not disqualified respondent no. 2 on account of some deficiency in respect of the documents supplied by respondent no. 2 in respect of minor components of the project and provided opportunity to rectify the same, which was duly rectified, no undue favour was extended to respondent no. 2 and the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 23 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 allegation of malafide, arbitrariness or unreasonableness is not substantiated. 53. At the same time, we must be cognisant of the fact that the bid submitted by the respondent no. 2 was Rs. 24.8 Crores lower than the bid submitted by the petitioner. 54. In terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Courts may interfere in the tender or administrative decisions only if the process is vitiated by the malafides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness and even if the procedural error exists, Courts must prefer public interest over private grievances. 55. In the present case the allegation of malafides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness is not made out and, therefore, only on account of some liberty extended to the respondent no. 2 to submit Form-21 and Form-23 subsequently, the bid submitted by respondent no. 2 could not be held non-responsive specially when the products have already been supplied and the bid submitted by respondent no. 2 was much lower than the bid of the petitioner and discrepancy in documents were in relation to the minor component of the product. 56. We may also note that even petitioner was given a similar opportunity to submit an ISO Certificate later, which enabled the Petitioner to qualify the Technical scrutiny. 57. We may also note that petitioner has already delivered the product and the system is operational. The system is of extreme public importance. Dial 112 service is for people in distress and facilitates Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24003 24 W.P. No. 19948 of 2025 citizens to get in touch with the police during distress situations and for the authorities to efficiently and promptly respond. 58. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in the tender process. Petitioner has failed to bring or record any material irregularity or illegality. Case of undue advantage has not been established. Respondent no. 1 has not committed any error in extending some time to respondent no. 2 to submit the documents in respect of a minor component of the tender. Consequently, the petition does not have any merit and is thus dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANJEEV SACHDEVA) (VINAY SARAF) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Signature Not Verified Signed by: MOHD IRFAN SIDDIQUI Signing time: 24-03-2026 13:01:57</div>