Dismissed and Disqualified : The High Court of Delhi Upholds Bid Disqualification over Documentation Discrepancy.

Case Title – M/s. Sunshine Caterers Private Limited Vs. The Union of India

Case Number – Writ Petition (C) 4628/2024 & CM APPL. 18999-19000/2024

Dated on – 1^st April, 2024

Quorum – ACJ Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

FACTS OF THE CASE

In The Case of M/s. Sunshine Caterers Private Limited Vs. The Union of India, the second Respondent, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC), issued a notice inviting the tender (NIT) for onboard catering services in the trains for a period of five years. The Appellant, M/s. Sunshine Caterers Private Limited, submitted their bid on the 1^st of March, 2024, along with the required documents inclusive of the Annexures B, D and E, which were certified by a Chartered Accountant (CA) with a Unique Document Identification Number (UDIN). On the 27^th of March, 2024, the Appellant received an E-Mail asserting that its bid was disqualified as the information in the submitted Annexures was not reflected on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) website. The Appellant instituted a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to withdraw the disqualification and declare it as qualified technically to participate in the tender.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

1. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, contented that they submitted all the necessary documents as per the NIT, certified duly by a CA with UDIN, making it eligible, technically.
2. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the rejection of the bid was solely based on the absence of the information in the downloaded UDIN Certificate from the ICAI website was unfair, as the tender possessed no such conditions.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent, through their counsel in the said case, contented that for the purpose of prevention of the issuance of bogus certificates, the UDIN was introduced by the ICAI and that it is mandatory for all the CA Certificates.
2. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the certified information by the CA in the Annexures must align with the UDIN certificate downloaded from the website of the ICAI.
3. The Appellant, through their counsel in the said case, contented that the UDIN Certificates of the Appellant did not reflect the certified information, leading to the disqualification of the bid.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the provision of the Powers of the High Courts to issue Writs.
2. The Gazette Notification of the date 2^nd of August, 2019 introduced the UDIN by ICAI to ensure the authenticity of the CA Certificates.

ISSUES

1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the rejection of the bid of the Appellant solely on the basis of the absence of information in the UDIN Certificate is justified?
2. Whether the submissions of the Appellant of all the necessary documents certified by a CA with the UDIN makes it technically eligible?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of M/s. Sunshine Caterers Private Limited Vs. The Union of India, the court delved into a subtle examination of the rejection of the bid of the Appellant for onboard catering services in trains, issued by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC). The court in the present case observed a pivotal disparity where the information certified by the CA of the Appellant did not coincide with the corresponding UDIN Certificates. The court observed that the UDIN serves as a indispensable reason of vindicating the genuineness of the certificates of the CA in an online format. However, due to the absence of the certified information in the UDIN Certificates, the Respondent, in the present case, rejected the bid of the Appellant. The court deemed the rejection of the bid of the Appellant by the Respondent, as reasonable, stressing on the importance of the UDIN in upholding the reliability of the CA Certification.

Despite the contentions of the Appellant that there was no specific requirement in the tender for the certified information in the annexures to be reflected in the UDIN Certificates, the court in this case held firm on the significance UDIN. The purpose of the UDIN, mandated by the ICAI, is not merely procedural but aimed at ensuring the precision and reliability of the CA Certificates. Upon carefully analysing the facts of the case and relevant provision, the court found that there was no merit in the argument of the Appellant. The rejection of the bid by the IRCTC was based on the valid grounds, given the disparities between the UDIN Certificates as well as the certified information. The court dismissed the petition along with any pending applications, stating the importance of adherence to the procedural requirements and the crucial role of the UDIN in maintaining the integrity of the financial documentation in the processes of the tenders.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment