M/S SECURITY SHOPPE (INDIA) PVT LTD v. DIRECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking a mandamus thereby directing the respondent No.l, i.e., the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, to follow the Trial Directives dated 04.08.2014 issued by the respondent No.2/Ministry of Home Affairs, for verification/trial of Deep Search Minc/Mctal Detectors W.P.(C) 12354/2015 P^Se1of[8] 2016:DHC:8895-DB and for a further declaration thereby declaring the petitioner as the only successful bidder to the Tender No.U.II.l125/2015-16-Proc-l dated 19.06.2015.

2. The respondent No.l floated the above Tender Notice inviting online tenders under two bid systems for purchase of Deep Search Mine/Metal Detectors (DSMD). The respondent No.2 had issued Trial Directives dated;5'04'.p[8]..2014-- for''^^verification of various parameters. The relevant parameter in issue is paraineter no. 3 which reads as underiTf^'^ cj'. f,Ti)i.'if[4] '4. '4,"'.V' S.NO Parameter Specification /1 PROCEDI#E44|aT SUGGESTEl|i{p|jfe^^ TRiAEeoKBdirailbF OFFICERS'-j'Eif|Vi4result expected/desiredA Compiled/ NOT compiled

03 Tl^e electronic circuit should be hemietically sealed and v'.separate from batteries so thaflin^ case "4of leakage"/} the electronic circuit is "s •. ■not damaged".' / The manufacturer will provide a certificate from a recognized laboratory for the same. Should I'ibe' l^fcKecked physically \ (The elect^nic/pohippnents us^dj\in//4the'^jTpGB;> /iif- WX T| liTj i^shbuld-'be/hefmetm ^sealed; ap^iiT;the transparent insulating materid. ^ to _ avoid, contact^..>(ijif the| ('cOmpdiiehts•. to--'JjtKej ^extemai; environment; like moisture etc. It should also be checked that the batteries used is kept separated from the electronic circuit. The firm should submit a national/ International accredited lab test report for the same. The electronic circuit must be hermetically sealed and Separate/from batteries so that in'case Qf[4]:6attery leakage the /el'ecfrbniC' ■eircuit is not Check the/' national/ iinterhatiohal accredited "•lab -Tesi report for the /same. In case of any doubt in the test report, the veracity of the same may be checked from the concerned lab.

3. As per the said Trial Directive, the firm bidding for such W.P.(C) 12354/2015 Page 2 of[8] product is required to submit a national/international accredited lab test report for having tested the offered product with respect to the said parameter and specification.

4. Several bidders had submitted their bids. However, the petitioner [M/s Security Shoppe (India) Private Limited] and M/s Static Systems were found to be technically qualified. Post the filing ofthe petition, it transpired on.p|3ening ofthe-.financial bids that the bid ofM/s Static Systems/was lower thaifthat ofthe petitioner. M/s Static Systems.^as;.thusimpleaB^dasrespondentNo,3. • -.

5. The contention of thelpetitioner Is that the bid"submitted by i'; RespondentNo.3[M/s Static Systems]is non-compliant,inasmuch as 11 /l| '||-i./j;^ the lab report submitted by themjwksi^npn-compl^ with'the Trial Directives dated 04.08r€014llRespondehf;'No.3^:had submitted a lab test report in respebt>o.Lc|Paranietef"^N[6]. 03:>oftheiTfial Directives ^ from M/sEON TeStihgcEabs IhjSuppprtfhereofth^^ has also placed on recor^ the certifeate'bfaccredit issued to M/s EON Testing Labs by National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories(NABL).

6. The contention of the petitioner is that the certificate of accreditation issued in favour of M/s EON Testing Laboratories does not satisfy the Trial Directives asthe said certificate ofaccreditation is W.P. (C)12354/2015 Page3of[8] for a different discipline, i.e, only for building material etc. and is not an accreditation for the product in issue or any ancillary or similar product. It is further contended by the petitioner that in support ofits bid,the petitioner has submitted a lab test report from Environmental Testing Laboratory Incorporated TEXAS, which Laboratory is accredited to the ANSL-ASQ National Accreditation Board. It is contended that the respondentNorEhas-erre.d in accepting the lab test report submitted by the resppnd^ntMb.S^,!^^^^^ Testing Lab, whichisnotaccredited itrtherequireddisciplinfe.- b; K n K \ *iI ^ ^'t '-'i

7. The reispoiMent Nos.^, l,_and.''3 have opposed the petition contending mat the EON Testing Laboratory is an accredited Lab, accredited to NABL. It is IfurthM Contended that thdre is no U i accreditation:'!,for the produeWftLi'Msslie#^i,e., DSMD. XLis further contended thatThe bid:^feiited||5||^ is compliant and the certificate,JfufhisHe^^^ the EQN'Testirig'L is in accordance with the"Trial-:ilirbctives.'y'l|]is-s that a lab test report was required to be subMtted and'the same has been submitted by respondent No.3.

8. The dispute raised by the petitioner is not with respect to non furnishing of a lab test report but the dispute is with regard to the accreditation ofthe Laboratory from which the respondent No.3 has obtained the lab test report. There can be no quarrel with the factthat W.P.(C)12354/2015 Page4of[8] a report has to be obtained from a Laboratory, which is competent or qualified to perform the test specified in the Trial Directives. Accreditation of a laboratory would be in respect of one or more disciplines. Merely because a Laboratory is accredited in a particular discipline, would not imply that the Laboratory can issue reports with regard to disciplines completely unconnected with the discipline in which the Laboratory is accredited. Foricxample,a laboratory may be accredited in the discipline of pathology that would not entitle the laboratory to issue certificate wit&regard to mechanics or mechanical functioning ofa machine. -., ' > t,

9. In the present case, • the respondent No.3 has,* obtained if i', J,[1] \i accreditatioiilfrom NABL. Three accreditation certificatesihave been I:. ■..:1 placed on fpcord. To ascertain^: whether EON Testing Lab is \ V accredited in the required discipline, one would heed to examine the three certificates AhaLLave been placed on record. The first accreditation certificate No.T-3449 is a certificate, which is in the discipline of CHEMICAL TESTING. The scope of accreditation mentioned in the annexure to the Certificate has three products/materials of tests specified therein, i.e. (I) BUILDING MATERIALS, (II) PETROLEUM and (III)

PAINTS AND SURFACE COATINGS along with their sub-categories. The second certificate No.T-3450 is in the discipline of MECHANICAL W.P.(C)12354/2015 Page5of[8] o TESTESIG. The product/material of test specified therein is BUILDING MATERIAL along with its sub-categories i.e. Soil and Rock Testing. The third certificate No.T-3451 is in the discipline of ELECTRICAL TESTING. The product/material of test sepcofoed therein is (I) CABLES AND ACCESSORIES (II)

WIRING ACCESSORIES along with their sub-categories. Perusal ofthe three accreditation certificate shojwtthat-though-the certificates have been issued in the discipline of-'ch'emic^allltestihg~'nieehanical testing and electricaltesting^Aesanie'pertainedtotheproducVmaterialrelatingto building materi§ls| cables -access^n^Q.^, paints. etc. 1he product/materialiof test and'their' shfecategories shoW that the fi ' accreditation'is in respect ofconstruction ofbuildings etc.;j

10. The correspondence placedJl'ofiifecQrd by the respondent No.l with NABL does notiTadyadQftt&bsda'se df-'tHb^T No.l. Further, the argumenf#|jthe-rcspondenfe of Officers hasalso examinedtiie^-p^bducfoffsRespoh^^ 3in respectofthe Trial Directive No. 3 and found compliant holds no merit. Trial Directive No.03 specifically requires the submission of a Lab Test Report of a national/international accredited lab. The report cannot be from a Laboratory, which is not accredited in the discipline in which the product/material falls. The three certificates produced to show accreditation ofEON Testing Lab by NABL do not help the W.p. (C)12354/2015 ^ case of the respondents inasmuch as the respondents have failed to bring on record anything to show that EON Testing Lab was accredited to test products other than building material etc. as mentioned in the scope of accreditation annexed with the certificates of accreditation. We,thus, hold that the lab test report submitted by the respondent No.3 in support of its bid failed to satisfy the requirement ofTrial DirectiverNo~.=03-mnd.therefore the bid submitted bythe respondentNovSTs clearly ndnrbom^hant.

11. The prayefofT^ie pelitionerthaf^the petitioner be declared asthe // izy -A only qualifie^Techliical bidderwould not be the natural consequence ii '''"by ofour holding thatthe bid of'the^respondent No.3 is non compliant.It 11 II J'j 1^ U (J 'f; '! would be o^en to the comp^fepl'a|t^ority to take an Appropriate decision in thb matter. JV"--' '? > // /, ^ ' ! ■ t

12. In view 6T&e;;abpve.,the-^nLpetition}!^'^liD.wb^{to the limited extent of holding %at-^tKe?;bid'"'submittB'd,.by the respondent No.3 is non-complaint. We clarify tHaLweAhaye:^^^ or opined that the product ofthe respondent No.3 is non-compliant. We have only held that the lab report submitted by the respondent No.3 is not from an accredited laboratory in the requisite discipline and thus does not satisfy the requirementofTrial Directive No.03 and therefore it could not have been accepted, which makes the bid ofthe respondent No.3 non-compliant. W.P.(C)12354/2015 ~ Page 7of[8] n/