Page 1

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  

1

Page 2

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

2

Page 3

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  

3

Page 4

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

4