Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rohit Rao, Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya and Ms v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Judgment

1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner - Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:53:30 W.P.(C) 4297/2025 Ltd., assailing the rejection letter dated 27.03.2025 [‘impugned rejection letter’] issued by Respondent No. 2, as being arbitrary and violative of the Petitioner’s right enshrined under Article(s) 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner is also seeking a declaration to the effect that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 be disqualified from the evaluation process of the tender issued by Respondent No. 2 herein, as having not satisfied the conditions stipulated therein. 2. The facts, as stated in pleadings, which are relevant for adjudication of the present petition are as under: - 2.1. It is stated that on 24.09.2024, Respondent No. 2 - Directorate General of the Central Reserve Police Force [‘CRPF’] under the aegis of Respondent No. 1 - Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, floated a tender bearing no. U.II-1472/2024-25-Proc-VI for procurement of 200 Nos. of 0.338” Sniper Rifle along with day scope and 20,000 Nos. of 0.338” Lapua Magnum Ammunitions (250gr). 2.2. It is stated that the Petitioner, along with Respondent No. 3 - PLR Systems (India) Limited as well as Respondent No. 4 - ICOMM Tele Limited participated in the tender bidding process, 2.3. It is stated that on 29.10.2024, the Petitioner, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 [hereinafter collectively referred to as “participating firms”] were informed by Respondent No. 2 to deposit two (2) units of the proposed rifle to be procured along with matching ammunition before 23.12.2024 for trial to be conducted at Central Weapons Store 2, CRPF, Pune. 2.4. It is stated that on 13.01.2025, an initial pre-trial meeting was carried out by Respondent No. 2 by outlining the trial procedure at Pune. It is further Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:53:30 W.P.(C) 4297/2025 stated that after the meeting, all the weapon systems of each bidder were inspected for physical parameters in terms of the tender. 2.5. It is stated that, however, the trials conducted during the period from

15.01.2025 to 18.01.2025 at Pune were inconclusive, as none of the participating firms could meet the requisite parameters in the trial, as per the ‘Trial Directives’ contained in the Tender document. 2.6. It is stated that thereafter, the Tender Processing Committee considering the request made by participating firms decided to conduct a re-test of firing (Accuracy & Zeroing) test at CRPF Academy, Kadarpur, Gurugram, Haryana from 24.02.2025 to 26.02.2025 and the same was communicated to the participating firms vide letter dated 03.02.2025. 2.7. It is stated that on 24.02.2025, another pre-trial meeting was conducted by Respondent No. 2 and a range practice was provided to the participating firms at CRPF Academy, Kadarpur, Gurugram, Haryana. 2.8. It is stated that during the trials at CRPF Academy, Kadarpur, Gurugram, Haryana the Petitioner herein failed the 400m test; and aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner vide its letter dated 26.02.2025, made a representation to Respondent No. 2, stating that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had used Hollow Point Boat Tail [‘HPBT’] Ammunition in the trials, whereas the specified variant of the ammunition as per the Tender document was Ball/Lock Base Ammunition. It was further stated in the said letter that since the Petitioner had used Ball/Lock Base Ammunition in the trials and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had used HPBT Ammunition by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, therefore Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had an undue advantage. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:53:30 W.P.(C) 4297/2025

2.9. It is stated that however, the said representation was decided against the Petitioner, and the Petitioner’s bid was consequently rejected by Respondent No. 2 vide impugned rejection letter dated 27.03.2025. 2.10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and, being aggrieved by the impugned rejection letter, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition seeking quashing of the said impugned rejection letter. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner 3. Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner stated that the tender floated by Respondent No. 2 was for the procurement of 200 Nos. of 0.338” sniper rifles and 20,000 Nos. of 0.338 Lapua Magnum Ball Ammunitions (250gm). 3.1. He stated that as per the evaluation criteria stated at clause 27 of the Tender conditions, the bidders have to submit 2 samples of sniper rifles along with total 500 numbers of matching ammunitions. He stated that the tender document envisages a field trial during which the weapons will be evaluated as per the approved GSQR. He stated that the technical specification (GSQR) for the tender bidding process is mentioned in the Appendix-4 of the tender document. 3.2. He stated that the three (3) bidders/participating firms i.e., the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3 and Respondent no 4 participated in the tender bidding process. During the trials CRPF Academy, Kadarpur, Gurugram, Haryana, the Petitioner had used the Lock Base ammunition as per the GSQR requirement; whereas, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 used another type of ammunition i.e. HPBT ammunition. He stated that since Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have not used the prescribed type ammunition [i.e. .338” Lapua Magnum ball/ lock base ammunitions], the said Respondents have acted in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:53:30 W.P.(C) 4297/2025 complete violation of the tender conditions. He stated that the accuracy of the weapon was to be tested with the ammunition which is to be supplied as per the tender conditions. 3.3. He stated that the tender conditions, specifically Clause 27(iv) and special instruction stipulated under Clause 5 and Clause 13 of the tender conditions refers to Appendix – 4/GSQR provides the technical specifications of the sniper rifle as well as the ammunition. He stated that in the Appendix-4 of the tender document it is envisaged that the correct nomenclature of the ammunition is Lapua Magnum (8.6x70mm) B- 408, 16.2g/250gr Lock base. He further draws attention to the Trial Directives which as well specifies at

serial no. 3 that ‘the Sniper rifle should fire 0.338" Lapua Magnum ammunition. 3.4. He stated that in view of the aforesaid Technical Specifications and Trial Directives given for the ammunition, the only logical sequitur is that field trial is to be conducted as per the specified variant of the ammunition and which is sought to be supplied i.e. 0.338” Lapua Magnum Ball/Lock base ammunition. 3.5. He further stated that Respondent No. 2 at page 33 of its counter affidavit has submitted that the sniper rifle being procured under the subject tender will also be tested with the Ball/Lock Base variant of the ammunition at the time of final delivery. He, therefore, pleaded that the said testing has to be done prior to the procurement of the rifles and ammunition and not after the procurement process is over. 3.6. He stated that the ammunition used by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i.e., HPBT ammunition raises ballistic coefficient, and reduces drag, leading to a higher retained velocity and flatter trajectory. It also makes it less susceptible Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:53:30 W.P.(C) 4297/2025 to wind interference. Thus, HPBT ammunition provides a clear relative advantage over the use of Ball/Lock base variant of the ammunition. 3.7. He stated that the use of HPBT ammunition is banned under the Hague & Geneva conventions as well as International Human Laws, because of the fact that HPBT ammunition cause heavier damage and wounds to humans as compared to Ball/Full Metal Jacket rounds, Respondent No.2 has floated the subject tender for procurement of Ball/Lock base ammunition and not HPBT ammunition. 3.8. He stated that the field trial results of Respondent Nos.3 and 4 cannot be taken into account since there has been no verification that the rifles used by Respondent Nos.3 and 4 will achieve the same results in a combat situation while using the Ball/Lock base variant of the ammunition. 3.9. He stated that due to the hostile discrimination faced by the Petitioner and an unfair advantage gained by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by not using the ammunition as stipulated in the tender conditions, Respondent No. 2, has purportedly issued the impugned order dated 27.03.2025 without assigning any reason for disqualification of the technical bid. He, therefore, states that since the procedure followed was not in conformity of the terms and conditions duly specified in the Tender, hence, judicial interference is required and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3.10. He stated that the disqualification of the Petitioner was not justified. He stated that the first trial held in Pune was not totally disregarded by CRPF and in fact the results of 1200m test held in Pune was carried forward in the trials conducted at Gurugram CRPF Academy. He stated that, therefore, in alternative to other reliefs sought in this petition, the Petitioner be given Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:MAMTA RANI Signing Date:01.07.2025 17:53:30 W.P.(C) 4297/2025 benefit of the results of 400m test held in Pune, which was duly cleared by the Petitioner. 3.11. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Poddar Steel Corp. V. Ganesh Engg. Works1and Bakshi Security V. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd.2to contend that essential conditions by the bidders cannot be waived or deviated. 3.12. He further submitted that in terms of Order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the predecessor Division Bench of this Court, the Petitioner be granted another opportunity for trials qua 400m accuracy test. He stated that Respondent No. 2 had made a statement before this Court on 08.04.2025 that Respondent No. 2 has decided to go in for a re-trial of the competing firms with the stipulation that the weapons and ammunition to be used during the re-trial should be exactly the same as the firms proposed to supply as part of tender. He stated that the based on this statement, the captioned writ petition was dismissed and the impugned rejection letter dated 27.03.2025 was also quashed. He stated therefore, Respondent No. 2 shall have no problem in granting re-trial to the Petitioner for the purpose of 400m accuracy test. 3.13. Written Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner were filed on

20.06.2025. Arguments on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 4. Mr. Rohan Jaitley, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stated that Respondent No. 2 herein in the interest of national security, decided to procure the best quality of 200 units of 0.338 Sniper Rifles and 20,000 units of ammunition at competitive prices through a tender process.