Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Badar Durrez Ahmed and Ashutosh Kumar JUDGMENT
Ashutosh Kumar, J.
1. BLS international services ltd., a public limited company, involving itself in providing visa, passport, consular and attestation related services to various diplomatic missions, has challenged the order dated 13.07.2016 passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner company has been disqualified at the technical stage for not having obtained 70% marks at that stage which was fixed as the threshold eligibility criterion for the consideration of the financial bid in the tender for outsourcing of visa services at Madrid, Barcelona and Las Palmas in Spain.
2. The respondents had floated a tender in January 2013 for providing visa/passport/consular services at Madrid and Barcelona in which the petitioner who was eligible and had been providing the aforesaid services till date, also participated. However, on 14.03.2013, the petitioner company was disqualified at the technical bid stage by the respondents. This led the petitioner in filing a writ petition bearing No. W.P.(C) No. 1878/2013 before this court, wherein by order dated 21.03.2013 a bench of this court, keeping the matter pending, directed that the financial bid of the petitioner should not be returned while the bid process be continued and put an embargo on award of the contract till the next date of hearing. On 01.05.2013, the bench disposed of the writ petition filed by the petitioner in the following terms:
"ORDER
01.05.2013
WP(C) No. 1878/2013
We had heard learned counsel for the parties at length yesterday when learned counsel for the respondents took time to obtain instructions.
It is now agreed that the writ petition be disposed of on the following agreed terms:
i) In view of the conclusion reached by the respondents qua the bid of the petitioner as communicated vide the email dated 16.03.2013 that there was misrepresentation of facts as the visa application centres in Madrid and Barcelona were actually being run by ARKE BLS in which the petitioner had no stake and the same having been reached without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, the said conclusion be set aside with an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth its casein pursuance to a proper notice to be issued by the respondents. On such notice being issued, the petitioner will file their response within a week of the receipt of the notice and will be given personal hearing and a speaking order will be passed. In case the speaking order is against the petitioner, the same will not be given effect to for a period of 15 days from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy, if so advised.
ii) The aforesaid decision will be taken by the officers at senior level not associated with the earlier decision.
iii) In case there is a favourable decision qua the petitioner, a fresh look would be given to the tender submitted by the petitioner by a committee once again of officers who were not party to the earlier decision.
iv) The, interim arrangement, which is continuing at present, would continue to operate till the decision in terms aforesaid is taken and in case of an adverse decision to the ........