Delhi High Court | Sniper Rifle Tender Rejection Sustained | Judicial Review Cannot Compel Third Accuracy Trial Once Bidder Fails Mandatory Test
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta have dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a technical bid in a government procurement process. The Court held that the decision to disqualify the Petitioner was not arbitrary, unreasonable, or irrational. The Bench further stated that the Petitioner was estopped from raising objections regarding ammunition used by other bidders since fair trial certificates had been issued post trials. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with parties left to bear their own costs.
The case arose out of a tender issued on 24 September 2024 by the Directorate General of the Central Reserve Police Force, under the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, for the procurement of 200 sniper rifles of 0.338” calibre along with 20,000 rounds of corresponding ammunition. The Petitioner company participated along with two other private firms. As part of the evaluation process, all bidders were directed on 29 October 2024 to deposit two rifle samples each with 500 rounds of matching ammunition for field trials to be conducted by a Board of Officers at the Central Weapons Store-II, Pune.
On 13 January 2025, a pre-trial meeting was held at Pune, followed by field trials between 15 January and 18 January 2025. The Board of Officers noted that none of the rifles of the three bidders met the accuracy parameters. Each firm was issued a fair trial certificate indicating that no objections were raised regarding the trial methodology or results. Thereafter, on 24 January 2025, the Petitioner submitted a representation seeking a re-trial. The Tender Processing Committee on 27 January 2025 accepted this request and ordered a re-test of firing to be conducted at the CRPF Academy, Kadarpur, Gurugram.
On 24 February 2025, another pre-trial meeting was held, where the methodology for accuracy and zeroing tests was finalised and agreed to by all parties. Field trials were conducted between 25 and 26 February 2025 covering accuracy at 100 metres, 400 metres, 800 metres, and 1000 metres, along with zeroing tests. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 passed, while the Petitioner’s rifle failed at the 400-metre test. The Petitioner issued another fair trial certificate but subsequently raised objections on 26 February 2025, alleging that other firms had used Hollow Point Boat Tail (HPBT) ammunition in violation of tender specifications, which gave them an unfair advantage.
On 27 March 2025, the Tender Processing Committee formally rejected the Petitioner’s technical bid citing failure to pass the 400-metre accuracy test. The Petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the rejection letter and disqualification of the other two bidders.
Arguments for the Petitioner were advanced by senior counsel who submitted that the tender explicitly required rifles to be tested with 0.338” Lapua Magnum Ball/Lock Base ammunition. It was argued that Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had violated this essential condition by using HPBT ammunition, thereby gaining an undue advantage. The Petitioner claimed that the use of HPBT ammunition was inconsistent with tender directives, international conventions, and that results obtained with such ammunition could not be relied upon. It was further contended that the Petitioner’s own disqualification was unjustified, as it had cleared the 400-metre test at Pune and that environmental factors such as mirage and crosswinds had affected results at Gurugram. The Petitioner sought a direction for a re-trial.
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, represented by counsel, argued that all bidders had been free to use any matching ammunition, as clarified in pre-bid meetings. They maintained that the Petitioner had signed fair trial certificates at both Pune and Gurugram without raising objections at the time. It was argued that the objection regarding ammunition was an afterthought raised only after failure at the 400-metre test. Respondents contended that the difference in ballistic coefficients between Lock Base and HPBT ammunition was negligible and would not have affected accuracy at 400 metres. They further argued that the Petitioner was provided three attempts at each test, and that sufficient opportunity had already been granted.
Respondent No. 3, represented by senior counsel, submitted that the tender conditions referred to matching ammunition, not exclusively Lapua Magnum Ball/Lock Base. They argued that HPBT ammunition was fully compatible with 0.338” calibre rifles and had been supplied under supervision of the Board of Officers. Respondent No. 3 contended that only the rifles were under evaluation during field trials, not ammunition, which was part of final delivery inspection. They submitted that the Petitioner’s silence during both trials and issuance of fair trial certificates demonstrated acquiescence. It was argued that objections raised after results were known were only an afterthought. Respondent No. 4 adopted similar submissions.
The Court reviewed minutes of pre-trial meetings, trial methodologies, representations made by bidders, and the Tender Processing Committee’s decisions. It recorded that all bidders had been given equal opportunity and that Petitioner had signed fair trial certificates for both trials. It also noted that results of the 1200-metre range test from Pune, which all bidders passed, were carried forward to Gurugram trials with mutual agreement.
The Court stated: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the Petitioner’s submission that its Sniper rifle’s failure at the accuracy test for the 400 mts. range at the second trial held at Kadarpur, Gurugram, Haryana can be attributed as a human error and should therefore, entitle the Petitioner to a third trial cannot be a ground for challenging the rejection letter dated 27.03.2025.”
The Bench further observed: “As per the trial methodology, the Sniper in first attempt is allowed to fire five rounds from a fixed-mount on a 4x4 target and the four best shots are taken into consideration. If the Sniper fails to qualify in the first attempt, the Sniper will be afforded two more attempts at the 400 mts. range in the same manner. In this case the Petitioner’s Sniper was admittedly allowed three attempts at 400 mts. range but he failed the accuracy test.”
The Court recorded that the provision for three attempts sufficiently accommodated human error and environmental factors. It held that issuance of fair trial certificates estopped the Petitioner from later attributing failure to environmental conditions. Regarding reliance on Pune results, the Court stated: “The re-test at the second trial was held for accuracy and zeroing for 100 mts., 400 mts., 800 mts., and 1000 mts. The re-test was held in supersession of the results for these ranges at the Pune trial. The bidders agreed to this methodology.”
On the demand for a third trial, the Court observed: “The Petitioner has failed to show any legal right in its favour to entitle it to a third trial. Respondent No. 2, the tendering authority has submitted that holding a third trial will further delay the tender process and they are not inclined to hold a third trial for the Petitioner.”
Addressing the objection regarding ammunition, the Court held: “In the facts of this case, as is apparent from the record the Sniper rifles of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been approved by the BOOs during the technical evaluation and the rifles have passed the accuracy and zeroing test. The BOOs comprise of member of different armed forces and the Petitioner does not dispute the competence of the BOOs.”
The Court observed: “In the considered opinion of this Court, this objection raised by the Petitioner after the completion of field trials on 26.02.2025 is an afterthought and a red herring so as to enable the Petitioner to seek a third trial.” It noted that the Petitioner itself had accepted results of the 1200-metre test conducted with HPBT ammunition.
On interpretation of tender terms, the Court stated: “The interpretation given by Respondent No. 2 to the phrase ‘matching ammunition’ for testing the Sniper rifles during trials in the tender conditions is plausible and there is no violation of the tender conditions.”
The Bench also cited precedent, stating: “It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.” It further recorded: “It is a well-established legal principle that interference by the Court in matters relating to tender has to be minimal and to be exercised only if the Court finds that the decision of the tendering authority is arbitrary or whimsical or unreasonable.”
The Division Bench concluded that the decision of Respondent No. 2 in disqualifying the Petitioner was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. It held: “In view of findings returned at issue no. I, this Court finds that the decision taken by Respondent No. 2 in disqualifying the Petitioner vide impugned rejection letter dated 27.03.2025 was not arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational as the Petitioner was unable to point out any unfairness in the field trials.”
The Court further directed: “In view of the findings returned at issue no. II and III, the second contention of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 2 by allowing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to use HPBT ammunition has acted in violation of the tender conditions is also without any merits. The use of HPBT ammunition by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was never objected to by the Petitioner during trials and this plea was raised only after Petitioner’s own rifle failed the test.”
The Bench concluded: “The experts of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have opined that the use of HPBT ammunition by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 does not unduly influence the result of the field trials of the sample rifles. The Petitioner issued Fair Trial Certificates post both the Pune trial and Kadarpur, Gurugram, Haryana trials and issuance of these certificates estops the Petitioner from raising the challenge made in this petition and shows that the challenge is an afterthought to overcome its own disqualification.”
Finally, the Court ordered: “Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Rao, Mr. Ananga Bhattacharya and Ms. Krishanu Barua, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC for Union of India with Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Dev Pratap Shani and Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates; Mr. Raj Kumar, DIGLAW, CRPF; Mr. Harin P. Raval, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nilana Bandhopadhyay, Mr. Kumar Shashwat Singh, Ms. Surbhi Rana and Ms. Shreya Bansal, Advocates; Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra, Ms. Mrinal Bharti, Mr. Manish Kr. Shekhari, Ms. Anisha Mahajan, and Mr. Hemant Dixit, Advocates
Case Title: Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 5134
Case Number: W.P.(C) 4297/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
