NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2470 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 36061/2013)
SCORE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. APPELLANT
VERSUS
SRIYASH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.4 in Writ Petition
No.1087/2007 on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
That writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 herein, challenging the
award of project of Smart Card based driving licence and vehicle
registration certificate. Though it may not be necessary to go into the
facts in detail, still it is significant to note that respondent No.3 in
the Writ Petition, namely, HILTRON is a Public Sector Undertaking, with
whom the State of Uttarakhand had entered into an MOU for providing,
facilitating and marketing information technology solutions within the
State of Uttarakhand. HILTRON was also nominated as the Information
Technology and Communication service provider for various Departments, Semi-
Government Departments and Institutions,
etc. HILTRON and Transport Commissioner of Uttarakhand entered into an MOU
with regard to the project of Smart Card based driving licence and vehicle
registration certificate. HILTRON in turn nominated the appellant herein
for execution of the project work. That MOU with HILTRON was challenged by
the respondent No.1 herein (petitioner before the High Court). According
to them, the award of the project to HILTRON on the basis of an
understanding between the Transport Commissioner and the undertaking was
impermissible under law, being violative of Article 14. Therefore,
necessarily any arrangement made by the HILTRON with any other party would
also have to be set at naught. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ
Petition holding that there was no illegality on the part of the State and
the Transport Commissioner in getting the work of Smart Card based driving
licence and vehicle registration certificate, etc. done through HILTRON
with the assistance of the appellant herein. The above conclusion of the
learned Single Judge was based on the finding that the writ petitioners
were not competitors qualified for execution of the project and hence the
intra court-before the Division Bench.
3. Though, there are serious disputes on those aspects as to whether the
writ petitioners were qualified or not, ultimately what the Division Bench
did is only to set aside the arrangement between the Transport
Commissioner and the
HILTRON. In the impugned judgment dated 24.07.2013, the Division Bench
held as under:
“ The fact remains that it is not necessary for the State to invite tender
in all cases. The fact remains that it is not necessary for the State to
buy a product at the lowest price. The State has a choice to buy a better
product at a higher price. But the law is settled that whatever the State
is doing, the same must be transparent. Unless the intention to enter into
such a contract is made public, there cannot be any transparency in the
entering into that contract. The process of finalizing the contract being
shrouded with thick blackness, the whole thing is bad.”
4. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was also
allowed setting aside the arrangement made by the Transport Commissioner
with the HILTRON-Respondent No.3 in the High Court.
5. HILTRON is not before this Court in challenging the judgment. The
judgment is challenged only by respondent No.4 in the writ petition who had
entered into an MOU with HILTRON for execution of the project work.
6. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
contends that the learned Single Judge having found that the writ
petitioners had no locus-standi and thus, dismissed the writ petition, the
Division Bench was not justified in addressing the issue on a different
angle. We find it difficult to appreciate this contention. Whether the
writ petitioners were qualified for the execution of the project work is to
be seen only when the qualification is to be addressed by the quarters
concerned while awarding the work.
7. Be that as it may, the MOU was entered into between the parties in the
year 2006 and since one decade has elapsed, we are of the view that the
whole issue must be addressed afresh by the State, in case it is not
already addressed.
8. In public interest, we are also of the view that the State should
take steps, if not already taken, for execution of the project, in
accordance with law expeditiously.
9. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of with no order
as to costs.
10. However, we make it clear that this order shall not stand in the way
of the appellant to work out his grievances with HILTRON in appropriate
proceedings.
.................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 03, 2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2470 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 36061/2013)
SCORE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES LTD. APPELLANT
VERSUS
SRIYASH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. & ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein was the respondent No.4 in Writ Petition
No.1087/2007 on the file of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital.
That writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 herein, challenging the
award of project of Smart Card based driving licence and vehicle
registration certificate. Though it may not be necessary to go into the
facts in detail, still it is significant to note that respondent No.3 in
the Writ Petition, namely, HILTRON is a Public Sector Undertaking, with
whom the State of Uttarakhand had entered into an MOU for providing,
facilitating and marketing information technology solutions within the
State of Uttarakhand. HILTRON was also nominated as the Information
Technology and Communication service provider for various Departments, Semi-
Government Departments and Institutions,
etc. HILTRON and Transport Commissioner of Uttarakhand entered into an MOU
with regard to the project of Smart Card based driving licence and vehicle
registration certificate. HILTRON in turn nominated the appellant herein
for execution of the project work. That MOU with HILTRON was challenged by
the respondent No.1 herein (petitioner before the High Court). According
to them, the award of the project to HILTRON on the basis of an
understanding between the Transport Commissioner and the undertaking was
impermissible under law, being violative of Article 14. Therefore,
necessarily any arrangement made by the HILTRON with any other party would
also have to be set at naught. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ
Petition holding that there was no illegality on the part of the State and
the Transport Commissioner in getting the work of Smart Card based driving
licence and vehicle registration certificate, etc. done through HILTRON
with the assistance of the appellant herein. The above conclusion of the
learned Single Judge was based on the finding that the writ petitioners
were not competitors qualified for execution of the project and hence the
intra court-before the Division Bench.
3. Though, there are serious disputes on those aspects as to whether the
writ petitioners were qualified or not, ultimately what the Division Bench
did is only to set aside the arrangement between the Transport
Commissioner and the
HILTRON. In the impugned judgment dated 24.07.2013, the Division Bench
held as under:
“ The fact remains that it is not necessary for the State to invite tender
in all cases. The fact remains that it is not necessary for the State to
buy a product at the lowest price. The State has a choice to buy a better
product at a higher price. But the law is settled that whatever the State
is doing, the same must be transparent. Unless the intention to enter into
such a contract is made public, there cannot be any transparency in the
entering into that contract. The process of finalizing the contract being
shrouded with thick blackness, the whole thing is bad.”
4. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the writ petition was also
allowed setting aside the arrangement made by the Transport Commissioner
with the HILTRON-Respondent No.3 in the High Court.
5. HILTRON is not before this Court in challenging the judgment. The
judgment is challenged only by respondent No.4 in the writ petition who had
entered into an MOU with HILTRON for execution of the project work.
6. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
contends that the learned Single Judge having found that the writ
petitioners had no locus-standi and thus, dismissed the writ petition, the
Division Bench was not justified in addressing the issue on a different
angle. We find it difficult to appreciate this contention. Whether the
writ petitioners were qualified for the execution of the project work is to
be seen only when the qualification is to be addressed by the quarters
concerned while awarding the work.
7. Be that as it may, the MOU was entered into between the parties in the
year 2006 and since one decade has elapsed, we are of the view that the
whole issue must be addressed afresh by the State, in case it is not
already addressed.
8. In public interest, we are also of the view that the State should
take steps, if not already taken, for execution of the project, in
accordance with law expeditiously.
9. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of with no order
as to costs.
10. However, we make it clear that this order shall not stand in the way
of the appellant to work out his grievances with HILTRON in appropriate
proceedings.
.................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 03, 2016
