The Delhi High Court Tuesday dismissed a petition by Rotoffset Corporation, Corporation, a Micro Small Medium Enterprise, seeking quashing of proprietary article certificates (PAC) issued by Security Printing and Mining Corporation of India ( SPMCI) to Rotatek Printing & Packaging Technologies S.L.
Upholding the decision of SPMCI, a wholly-owned Government of India firm, to award tender for the design and supply of a customised excise adhesive label printing machine to Rotatek, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upahyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected Rotoffset's plea for a directions to the Central Vigilance Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigating authority to conduct a thorough investigation into procurement transaction involving Rotatek-branded entities from 2012 onwards.
Rotoffset (petitioner) had alleged that Rotatek Printing and its previous avatars were shell companies and had indulged in large scale fraud, fabrication and manipulation of documents resulting in the contract being awarded to the latter.
The HC said that though the May 7 tender was in the petitioner’s knowledge, it chose not to challenge it or its conditions at that stage itself. Not only did the petitioner not challenge the conditions of the tender in time, it waited all along till the contract under the instant tender was awarded to Rotatek Printing, the bench said, noting that Rotatek Printing had already started executing the project.
“The narration of relevant dates and facts unequivocally and unerringly point out to the fact that the petitioner lacks in due diligence and the challenge laid in the petition is unreasonably delayed,” the judges stated, adding that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Rotoffset Corporation, which claimed to be over 30 years of expertise in printing technology, was in 2022 awarded a contract by SPMCI through a transparent bidding process for the design and supply of a customised excise adhesive label printing machine worth Rs 17.5 crore. It submitted that it began execution of the contract, complied with tender’s enhanced technical specifications, and substantially completed the machine by January 2025.
Despite SPMCI extending the delivery deadline to March 2025, the contract was abruptly cancelled in January 2025 citing non-performance, without granting a hearing or issuing a reasoned order, the petitioner said.
Soon after the cancellation, SPMCI issued proprietary article certificates in favour of a newly incorporated foreign company Rotatek Printing, which lacked legitimate original equipment manufacturer credentials, Rotoffset Corporation alleged, adding that Rotatek Printing was a shell company with no manufacturing history, misleadingly projected as an original equipment manufacturer for servicing obsolete Rotatek machines.
Rotoffset Corporation said that this procurement violatesd the General Financial Rules, bypasses competitive bidding, excludes capable Indian MSEs and undermined the " Make in India" and " Atmanirbhar Bharat" policies.
The petitioner further alleged Rotatek S.A., the Original Equipment Manufacturer, was liquidated in June 2012 by the competent authority/Court in Barcelona, Spain and its name was changed many times, ostensibly, by creation of shell companies and lastly resulting in formation of a fraud company, i.e., Rotatek Printing.
SPMCI opposed the petitioner’s stand, saying the tender was based on PAC and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any grievance to that extent since the tendering authority has the competence and jurisdiction to decide as to how a tender is to be formulated.
Additionally, the government company submitted that Rotatek was not a stranger to the tendering authority as purchases had been regularly made from Rotatek since 1999 and there is no reason as to why the it would suspect or doubt the integrity of Rotatek.
Upholding the decision of SPMCI, a wholly-owned Government of India firm, to award tender for the design and supply of a customised excise adhesive label printing machine to Rotatek, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Devender Kumar Upahyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela rejected Rotoffset's plea for a directions to the Central Vigilance Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, Central Bureau of Investigation or any other investigating authority to conduct a thorough investigation into procurement transaction involving Rotatek-branded entities from 2012 onwards.
Rotoffset (petitioner) had alleged that Rotatek Printing and its previous avatars were shell companies and had indulged in large scale fraud, fabrication and manipulation of documents resulting in the contract being awarded to the latter.
The HC said that though the May 7 tender was in the petitioner’s knowledge, it chose not to challenge it or its conditions at that stage itself. Not only did the petitioner not challenge the conditions of the tender in time, it waited all along till the contract under the instant tender was awarded to Rotatek Printing, the bench said, noting that Rotatek Printing had already started executing the project.
“The narration of relevant dates and facts unequivocally and unerringly point out to the fact that the petitioner lacks in due diligence and the challenge laid in the petition is unreasonably delayed,” the judges stated, adding that the writ petition was not maintainable.
Rotoffset Corporation, which claimed to be over 30 years of expertise in printing technology, was in 2022 awarded a contract by SPMCI through a transparent bidding process for the design and supply of a customised excise adhesive label printing machine worth Rs 17.5 crore. It submitted that it began execution of the contract, complied with tender’s enhanced technical specifications, and substantially completed the machine by January 2025.
Despite SPMCI extending the delivery deadline to March 2025, the contract was abruptly cancelled in January 2025 citing non-performance, without granting a hearing or issuing a reasoned order, the petitioner said.
Soon after the cancellation, SPMCI issued proprietary article certificates in favour of a newly incorporated foreign company Rotatek Printing, which lacked legitimate original equipment manufacturer credentials, Rotoffset Corporation alleged, adding that Rotatek Printing was a shell company with no manufacturing history, misleadingly projected as an original equipment manufacturer for servicing obsolete Rotatek machines.
Rotoffset Corporation said that this procurement violatesd the General Financial Rules, bypasses competitive bidding, excludes capable Indian MSEs and undermined the " Make in India" and " Atmanirbhar Bharat" policies.
The petitioner further alleged Rotatek S.A., the Original Equipment Manufacturer, was liquidated in June 2012 by the competent authority/Court in Barcelona, Spain and its name was changed many times, ostensibly, by creation of shell companies and lastly resulting in formation of a fraud company, i.e., Rotatek Printing.
SPMCI opposed the petitioner’s stand, saying the tender was based on PAC and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any grievance to that extent since the tendering authority has the competence and jurisdiction to decide as to how a tender is to be formulated.
Additionally, the government company submitted that Rotatek was not a stranger to the tendering authority as purchases had been regularly made from Rotatek since 1999 and there is no reason as to why the it would suspect or doubt the integrity of Rotatek.
You may also like
SC asks whether harmony between governor, state govt exists as envisioned by Constitution framers
UK inflation rises again in new misery for households - what it means for you
Gaza City invasion plan approved by Israel with 60k reserve troops to be called up
Trinamool's Abhishek Banerjee slams Centre over Constitution Amendment bill
Redistricting row: California Republicans sue to block Governor Newsom's plan; Democrats push fast-track plan
