9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have experience of operating a centre for visa services on behalf of a Diplomatic Mission or Missions for at least one year with electronic data entry, dealing with at least 250 applications per day on an annual average basis. 3. As pleaded in the petition in para B, the above condition according to the Petitioners was arbitrary and tailor-made to ensure a monopoly is created in favour of M/s. VFS Global Ltd. which, in the submission of the Petitioner, is the only agency (at least in Russia) capable of fulfilling the aforesaid condition. 4. The Petitioners state that Petitioner No.1 has been in the field of travel and tourism and has de facto been performing all the duties and functions of an agent handling visa applications for the Indian Embassy, Moscow since 2002. It is submitted that the above condition draws an irrational classification between agencies which have previously operated a centre for visa services on behalf of a Diplomatic Mission and those agencies which have experience in handling visa application without running a visa center. It is stated that the above classification has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is further sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bidders. He also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies JT 2009 (6) SC 169. 7. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, on the other hand, raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh 1983 ELT 1392 (SC) and of this Court in Star India P. Ltd. v. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India 146 (2008) DLT 455 he submits that Petitioner No.1 being a foreign company could not possibly seek to enforce any fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He submitted that although the petition was made to appear as one seeking the enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it was in fact seeking enforcement of the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It is pointed out that it is not as if only one party qualified in the bidding process. There were three such parties which were invited for the negotiations at the bidding stage. In fact, the contract was awarded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar that we are expressing no opinion on the validity of S.52A under Art. 19(1)(f). If the said question were to arise for our decision in any case, we would have to consider whether the provisions of S. 52A are not justified by Art. 19(5). That is a matter which is foreign to the enquiry in the present appeal. 11. The present petition is being entertained only because the challenge by the Petitioners to the impugned conditions RFP issued by the Respondents for visa outsourcing at the Indian Embassy in Moscow is limited to the extent that such conditions are alleged to be arbitrary and unreasonable and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. It is plain from the RFP that the Indian Embassy in Moscow was seeking to use the latest and best practices worldwide in the field of visa outsourcing. The Respondents were entitled to insist upon possession by bidders of appropriate and adequate experience in handling of visa centres for Diplomatic Missions abroad. Learned counsel for the Respondents is justified in pointing out that the experience of a visa agent, which is what the Petitioner No.1 was, is very different from running a full-fledged visa centre. A vis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s if only one party qualified and was awarded with the contract. Further the premise on which the Petitioner approached this Court was that the conditions were tailor-made to suit M/s. VFS Global Ltd. However, as it turned out, the contract was not awarded to M/s. VFS Global Ltd. but to TT Services Ltd. Therefore, the very premise on which the Petitioner approached this Court has been shown to be non-existent. 16. In Association of Registration Plates it was pointed out by the Supreme Court in para 38 as under: 38. In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract of the nature of ensuring supply of high security registration plates, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities. Unless the action of tendering Authority is found to be malicious and misuse of its statutory powers, tender conditions are unassailable. On intensive examination of tender conditions, we do not find that they violate the equality clause under Article 14 or encroach on fundamental rights of a class of intending tenderer under Article 19 of the Constitution. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the Union and State authorities and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
