Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2470 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 36061/2013 )
SCORE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. APPELLANT
VERSUS
SRIYASH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.4 in Writ
Petition No.1087/2007 on the file of the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital. That writ petition was filed by
respondent No.1 herein, challenging the award of project of
Smart Card based driving licence and vehicle registration
JUDGMENT
certificate. Though it may not be necessary to go into the
facts in detail, still it is significant to note that
respondent No.3 in the Writ Petition, namely, HILTRON is a
Public Sector Undertaking, with whom the State of Uttarakhand
had entered into an MOU for providing, facilitating and
marketing information technology solutions within the State of
Uttarakhand. HILTRON was also nominated as the Information
Technology and Communication service provider for various
1
Page 1
Departments, Semi-Government Departments and Institutions,
etc. HILTRON and Transport Commissioner of Uttarakhand
entered into an MOU with regard to the project of Smart Card
based driving licence and vehicle registration certificate.
HILTRON in turn nominated the appellant herein for execution
of the project work. That MOU with HILTRON was challenged by
the respondent No.1 herein (petitioner before the High Court).
According to them, the award of the project to HILTRON on the
basis of an understanding between the Transport Commissioner
and the undertaking was impermissible under law, being
violative of Article 14. Therefore, necessarily any
arrangement made by the HILTRON with any other party would
also have to be set at naught. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition holding that there was no
illegality on the part of the State and the Transport
Commissioner in getting the work of Smart Card based driving
licence and vehicle registration certificate, etc. done
through HILTRON with the assistance of the appellant herein.
JUDGMENT
The above conclusion of the learned Single Judge was based on
the finding that the writ petitioners were not competitors
qualified for execution of the project and hence the intra
court-before the Division Bench.
3. Though, there are serious disputes on those aspects as to
whether the writ petitioners were qualified or not,
ultimately what the Division Bench did is only to set aside
the arrangement between the Transport Commissioner and the
2
Page 2
HILTRON. In the impugned judgment dated 24.07.2013, the
Division Bench held as under:
“ The fact remains that it is not necessary for
the State to invite tender in all cases. The fact
remains that it is not necessary for the State to
buy a product at the lowest price. The State has
a choice to buy a better product at a higher
price. But the law is settled that whatever the
State is doing, the same must be transparent.
Unless the intention to enter into such a contract
is made public, there cannot be any transparency
in the entering into that contract. The process
of finalizing the contract being shrouded with
thick blackness, the whole thing is bad.”
4. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition
was also allowed setting aside the arrangement made by the
Transport Commissioner with the HILTRON-Respondent No.3 in the
High Court.
5. HILTRON is not before this Court in challenging the
judgment. The judgment is challenged only by respondent No.4
JUDGMENT
in the writ petition who had entered into an MOU with HILTRON
for execution of the project work.
6. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for
the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge having
found that the writ petitioners had no locus-standi and thus,
dismissed the writ petition, the Division Bench was not
justified in addressing the issue on a different angle. We
find it difficult to appreciate this contention. Whether the
3
Page 3
writ petitioners were qualified for the execution of the
project work is to be seen only when the qualification is to
be addressed by the quarters concerned while awarding the
work.
7. Be that as it may, the MOU was entered into between the
parties in the year 2006 and since one decade has elapsed, we
are of the view that the whole issue must be addressed afresh
by the State, in case it is not already addressed.
8. In public interest, we are also of the view that the
State should take steps, if not already taken, for execution
of the project, in accordance with law expeditiously.
9. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of
with no order as to costs.
10. However, we make it clear that this order shall not stand
in the way of the appellant to work out his grievances with
HILTRON in appropriate proceedings.
.................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
JUDGMENT
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 03, 2016
4
Page 4