Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1332-1333 OF 2022
Union of India …Appellant
Versus
Bharat Fritz Werner Limited & Another …Respondents
O R D E R
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with some of the observations
made by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in the last paragraph of its
order dated 19.01.2021, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 5700/2020,
the Union of India has preferred the present appeals.
2. That respondent no.1 herein filed the writ petition before the High
Court of Delhi being Writ Petition No. 5700/2020 assailing the Letter of
Acceptance dated 05.06.2020 issued by the Union of India in favour of
respondent no.2 herein, in respect of the award of tender pertaining to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jatinder Kaur
Date: 2022.02.17
16:15:37 IST
Reason:
lot No.3; ICB Ref. No. 21/TCSP/GOODS/P41/2018/TR/TC (Package-
41).
1
2.1 By the impugned order and keeping in view the fact that
substantial time has elapsed since the award of the tender in favour of
respondent no.2, the High Court declined to interfere in the proceedings
and disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty in favour of the original
writ petitioner to raise all its pleas and claim the reliefs available to him at
this stage in an appropriate civil proceedings. However, while not
entertaining the writ petition and/or while disposing of the writ petition,
the High Court has made the following observations:
“..We also permit the petitioner to make a representation addressed to the
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India highlighting the aspects with regard to
wrongful evaluation of the bids and discrimination meted out to some of
the bidders. In case such a representation is made, we request the PMO
to ensure that the same receives the attention of the Hon’ble Prime
Minister of India. We are inclined to grant this liberty to the petitioner in
the light of the fact that the petitioner is an Indian manufacturer and we
had earlier found merit in the claim of the petitioner in Macpower CNC
Machines Limited v. Union of India [W.P. No. 3942/2020] that Indian
bidders are being discriminated against, even though the tender conditions
itself stipulated that Indian manufacturers would be given preference.
Keeping in view the fact that the Government of India is laying emphasis
on “Make in India (Atma-Nirbharta), the grievances of the petitioner appear
to be correct and, in our view, require serious consideration at the highest
level.”
2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the above observations, the
Union of India has preferred the present appeals and has prayed to
expunge the said observations/remarks.
3. Having heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India, appearing on behalf of the Union of India and Shri
Gaurav Juneja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1
2
herein and having gone through the observations made by the High
Court in the last paragraph of its order, made while disposing of the writ
petition, reproduced hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the
observations made by the High Court, reproduced hereinabove, were
absolutely unwarranted. The High Court was not deciding a Public
Interest Litigation. The High Court did not even decide the writ petition
on merits. On the contrary, in the earlier paragraph, it was observed that
it had not gone into the merits of the writ petitioner’s claim or the
respondent’s defence. In such circumstances, such general
observations should have been avoided by the High Court and the High
Court ought to have restricted itself to the controversy between the
parties before it. Even otherwise, on the basis of a solitary case, general
observations could not have been made by the High Court that the
Indian bidders are being discriminated against. We advise the High
Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the
case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations
which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before
them.
4. In view of the above, the present appeals succeed in part. The
observations made by the High Court in its order dated 19.01.2021,
namely,
3
“..We also permit the petitioner to make a representation addressed to the
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India highlighting the aspects with regard to
wrongful evaluation of the bids and discrimination meted out to some of
the bidders. In case such a representation is made, we request the PMO
to ensure that the same receives the attention of the Hon’ble Prime
Minister of India. We are inclined to grant this liberty to the petitioner in
the light of the fact that the petitioner is an Indian manufacturer and we
had earlier found merit in the claim of the petitioner in Macpower CNC
Machines Limited v. Union of India [W.P. No. 3942/2020] that Indian
bidders are being discriminated against, even though the tender conditions
itself stipulated that Indian manufacturers would be given preference.
Keeping in view the fact that the Government of India is laying emphasis
on “Make in India (Atma-Nirbharta), the grievances of the petitioner appear
to be correct and, in our view, require serious consideration at the highest
level.”
are hereby ordered to be expunged/set aside from the order passed by
the High Court.
5. The present appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No
costs.
………………………………..J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ………………………………..J.
FEBRUARY 17, 2022. [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
4