(Prayer in W.P.No.30776 of 2026 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the eligibility and declaration of 4th respondent and the decision culminating in the issuance of the Letter of Acceptance bearing No.STORES/FUR/08252551/1364867 dated 16.04.2026 in favour of the 4th respondent pursuant to ICF Tender No.08252551 dated 13.02.2026, quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the mandatory terms and conditions of the Tender and consequently direct the 1st - 3rd respondents to undertake a fresh evaluation of the bids strictly in accordance with the Tender Conditions.

Prayer in W.P.No.30778 of 2026 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the eligibility and declaration of 4th respondent and the decision culminating in the issuance of the Purchase Order bearing No.ICF/08252551100866, dated 17.04.2026, quash the same as being arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the mandatory terms and conditions of the Tender and consequently direct the 1st - 3rd respondents to undertake a fresh evaluation of the bids strictly in accordance with the Tender Conditions.)

Common Order:

These two Writ Petitions arise out of the single tender and, as such, are taken up and disposed of by this common order.

2. Pursuant to the finalisation of the offer in respect of the tender notice dated 23.12.2025, a letter of acceptance was issued on 16.04.2026 in favour of the fourth respondent, namely, M/s.Apna Technologies and Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘APNA’). The next day, a purchase order was issued to them. W.P.No.30776 of 2026 is filed challenging the impugned letter of acceptance dated 16.04.2026, and W.P.No.30778 of 2026 is filed challenging the impugned purchase order placed on the fourth respondent.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the Writ Petitions are that the Indian Railways is in the process of installing a train safety system called the Unattended Axle Box Acceleration Measurement System (‘UABAMS’). It is the first of its kind now being implemented. The system is a sophisticated condition-monitoring technology designed to continuously measure axle-box acceleration of moving railway coaches and analyse the data generated therefrom to identify abnormal vibration signatures indicative of rail defects, track geometry deterioration, wheel defects, and other developing conditions that may adversely affect operational safety. It is a GPS and cloud-based architecture aimed at automating the track monitoring and diagnostic system. From the year 2020, the Research Designs and Standards Organisation (hereinafter referred to as ‘RDSO’) of the Indian Railways has been trying to install the said system, and repeated tenders issued in this regard up to 17.02.2025 did not fructify for one reason or the other.

4. Under the said circumstances, on 23.12.2025, a Special Limited Tender was again issued for the e-procurement of UABAMS along with software. The last date for submission of bids was 13.02.2026. The writ petitioner, namely, SMARTSYS TECHLABS LLP, (hereinafter referred to as ‘SMARTSYS’) a limited liability partnership engaged in the design, development, manufacture, supply, installation and maintenance of railway condition monitoring systems, railway track safety systems, predictive maintenance technologies and other safety-critical equipment for railway applications, is already engaged in the development and deployment of the UABAMS technology. Accordingly, SMARTSYS participated in the tender. APNA, a vendor supplying various equipment to the railways, though not manufacturing or supplying UABAMS on its own, entered into a Transfer of Technology Agreement with a foreign original equipment manufacturer, namely, M/s.MoniRail Limited, United Kingdom, and, according to Clause 1.1.0(e), participated in the tender. Apart from SMARTSYS and APNA another company, namely, M/s.Vista Information Systems Private Limited, also participated. The bids were opened on 13.02.2026, and the quotes were as follows:-



5. After opening of the bids, they were forwarded to the RDSO to submit a report on technical suitability. With reference to technical eligibility, Clause 1.1 of the tender document contains the relevant eligibility conditions. Clause 1.1.1 mandates that the procurement shall be done in accordance with the extended instructions of the Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade for the Make in India Policy Order, 2017, as amended. Clause 1.1.2 deals with the eligibility of bidders with a Transfer of Technology Agreement and lays down that the Original Equipment Manufacturer must have supplied, installed and commissioned, with reference to the period, at least two acceleration measurement systems capable of measuring acceleration in the coach, bogie/axle-box of railway rolling stock, along with the process for data handling and generation of exception reports, and tested in field trials at a minimum speed of 120 kmph. The bidder must submit a Performance Certificate issued by the system user, a copy of the contract document/purchase order, the Commission Certificate, and supply details. It is further noted that submission of the Performance Certificate and Contract Purchase Order is mandatory, and otherwise, the offer will be summarily rejected. The relevant portion of Clause 1.1.2 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

                          “(1.1.2) The bidder must be an entity as per Clause 1.1.0 above and the OEM, as mentioned in the above Clause 1.1.0, must have supplied, installed and commissioned within the reference period at least two [02] acceleration measurement systems capable of measuring acceleration in coach/bogie/axle box of railway rolling stock along with processing of data and generation of exception reports and tested in field trials at a minimum speed of 120 kmph. The supplied systems must be performing satisfactorily on a Railway network at least for 02 years within the reference period. The performance report should also include testing of the system at a minimum speed of 120 kmph. The date of supply should not be before 01.04.2018.

                          The Bidder must submit the performance certificate issued by the user of the system, copy of contract document/ Purchase order along with commissioning certificate and supply details. The requirement of commissioning certificate and supply details is considered to be fulfilled, if the client/user organisation gives a clear certificate mentioning supply date and commissioning date (vague period will not be acceptable). The performance certificate should clearly indicate the Contract/Purchase Order Number. Submission of Performance Certificate and Contract/Purchase Order is mandatory otherwise the offer will be summarily rejected.”

6. Further, Clause 1.1.3 mandates that the bidder must have at least one year's experience in acquiring data from a moving vehicle remotely via GPRS or any other suitable network, processing the same at the cloud or processing station, and generating an exception report. It further mandates the submission of a Performance Certificate, which must be issued by the user of the system, etc. Clause 1.1.3 is also extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

                          “(1.1.3) The bidder must have at least 01 year experience within the reference period for acquiring data from moving vehicle remotely through GPRS or any other suitable network and processing of same at cloud or processing station along with generation of exception report.

                          For acquiring data from moving vehicle remotely through GPRS or any other suitable network, firm shall attach Certificate of satisfactory performance for the required period from the clients/ organisations for which above service has been provided. The performance report should clearly mention capability of data acquiring from the moving vehicle and generation of exception reports. Submission of Performance Certificate is mandatory otherwise the offer will be summarily rejected.

                          The Bidder must submit the performance certificate issued by the user of the system, copy of contract document/ Purchase order along with, commissioning certificate and supply details. The requirement of commissioning certificate and supply details is considered to be fulfilled; if the client/user organisation gives a clear certificate mentioning supply date and commissioning date (vague period will not be acceptable). The performance certificate should clearly indicate the Contract/Purchase Order Number. Submission of Performance Certificate and Contract/Purchase Order is mandatory otherwise the offer will be summarily rejected.”

7. In the above background, when the bids were forwarded to the RDSO for technical evaluation, the RDSO made the following observations with reference to Clause 1.1.2:-

                          “5.5 Clause 1.1.2 – In reference to clause 1.1.2 of eligibility criteria

                          i. The firm M/s Apna Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai has participated in ToT agreement with M/s MoniRail Ltd., United Kingdom (SN 2449, 2174).

                          ii. As per the performance certificate issued by Network Rail, UK, dated 16.01.2026 (SN 2293), following points are stated:

                          a) M/s MoniRail Ltd., United Kingdom has supplied, installed and commissioned two (02) complete acceleration measurement systems on high speed train Euro Star Rail 374. The date of supply is 07.10.2022 and date of commissioning is 10.10.2022, which is within the reference period.

                          b) The systems have been performing satisfactorily for a period of more than 02 years within the reference period.

                          c) Acceleration measurement systems are installed in high speed train Euro Star Rail 374 having a maximum speed of 300 kmph which is higher than 120 kmph.

                          iii. Data analysis reports along with exception reports pertaining to Euro star 374 010 from 21.12.24 to 29.12.24 placed at SN 2294-2297.

                          iv. As per clause 1.1.2, submission of Contract/ PO and Performance Certificate is mandatory.

                          a) The firm has submitted performance certificate issued by Network Rail, UK, dated 16.01.2026 (SN 2293).

                          b) In place of PO/ Contract document, the firm has submitted the Grant Offer letter issued by United Kingdom Research Innovation (UKRI) (SN 2252). This aspect should be examined by the tender committee.

                          v. Since the firm has mentioned the supply and commissioning dates clearly in the performance certificate (SN 2293), the requirement of commissioning certificate and supply details are considered to be fulfilled, as per clause 1.1.2.

                          vi. In view of the discussion in above paras, the systems supplied by M/s MoniRail, UK fulfils the criteria mentioned in Clause 1.1.2 above.”

8. Similarly, with reference to Clause 1.1.3, the following was the valuation of the RDSO:-

                          “5.6 Clause 1.1.3 – In reference to clause 1.1.3 of eligibility criteria, regarding at least one year experience of acquiring and processing data etc. from moving vehicle remotely through GPRS etc., following points are stated:

                          i. The firm has attached the Performance Certificate of satisfactory performance issued by Network Rail, UK, dated 16.01.2026 (SN 2293) to M/s MoniRail, UK for the period for more than one year with the generation of analysis and exception reports. The processed data is made available through a secure cloud-based portal, enabling informed maintenance decisions by the user.

                          ii. The performance certificate states that “MoniRail, UK has been remotely acquiring accelerometer data from the moving vehicles and processing the data through a cloud-based platform” which fulfills the criteria.

                          iii. Few data analysis reports along with exception reports pertaining to euro star 374 010 from 21.12.24 to 29.12.24 placed at SN 2294-2297.

                          iv. As per clause 1.1.3 submission of Contract/ PO and Performance Certificate is mandatory.

                          a) As mentioned above, the firm has submitted the performance certificate issued by Network Rail, UK, dated 16.01.2026 (SN 2293).

                          b) In place of PO/ Contract document, the firm has submitted the Grant Offer letter issued by United Kingdom Research Innovation (UKRI) (SN 2252). This aspect should be seen by the tender committee.

                          v. In the performance certificate (SN 2293) the user has indicated supply date as 07.10.2022 and commissioning date as 10.10.2022. As per clause 1.1.3, since the Firm has mentioned the supply and commissioning date clearly in the performance certificate, the commissioning certificate and supply details are considered to be fulfilled.

                          vi. In view of the discussion above paras the requirements of clause 1.1.3 of eligibility criteria are considered to be fulfilled.”

9. Thus, while being satisfied with the technical aspects, the RDSO has pointed out that, instead of the contract document, the firm has submitted only a grant offer letter, and that this aspect should be examined Tender Committee. After holding so, in the final conclusion, the found that the bids of APNA, SMARTSYS, and the third bidder, M/s.Vista Information Systems Private Limited, are all technically suitable. However, with reference to APNA, an additional comment was made that the grant offer letter and the documents submitted in support of the Transfer of Technology Agreement should also be examined by the Tender Committee in detail. The final comments of the RDSO are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

                          “8. Conclusion: Based on above discussion, the following conclusion can be drawn:

                          (i) M/s APNA Technologies and Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Chennai ToT with MoniRail, UK – The systems supplied by bidder fulfils the condition as per the clause 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 of the eligibility criteria. The firm has also complied all the clauses of technical specification. The firm can be considered to be technically suitable. However, the offer grant letter and documents submitted in support of ToT agreement should also be examined by the TC in detail.

                          (ii) M/s SMARTSUS TECHLABS LLP, Mumbai – The systems supplied by M/s SMARTSYS LABS fulfils the condition as per the clause 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 of the eligibility criteria. The firm has also complied all the clauses of technical specification. Hence the firm can be considered to be technically suitable.

                          (iii) M/s. Vista Information Systems Private Limited, New Delhi – The systems supplied by the bidder fulfils the condition as per the clause 1.1.2 & 1.1.3 of the eligibility criteria. The firm has also complied all the clauses of technical specification. Hence the firm can be considered to be technically suitable.

                          However, documents in support JV agreement and acquisition of M/s System Aid Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru by M/s SysAid technologies should be examined in detail by TC for final decision.”

10. Thereafter, on 20.03.2026, the Tender Committee analysed the issue in detail. After considering the same, the Tender Committee held that, in the Performance Certificate, the user has indicated the supply date as 07.10.2022 and the commissioning date as 10.10.2022. As per Clause 1.1.3, since the firm has clearly mentioned the supply and commissioning dates in the Performance Certificate, the Commissioning Certificate and supply details are considered to be fulfilled, and it was held that APNA fulfilled the requirements of Clause 1.1.3. Similarly, the systems supplied by M/s.MoniRail Limited, United Kingdom, were held to fulfill the criteria mentioned in Clause 1.1.2 above, as the Performance Certificate mentions the dates of supply and commissioning. After the above analysis, the findings of the Tender Committee with reference to Clauses 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-









11. In view of the above findings, the Tender Committee noted APNA fulfill the conditions as per Clauses 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.1.3, and held that the firm’s offer is technically suitable and meets the eligibility criteria for the placement of a regular order. In view of the said decision of the Tender Committee, the impugned orders, namely the letter of acceptance and the purchase order, were issued to APNA. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed.

12. The first contention of the writ petitioner is that the tender was floated under the aegis of the Make in India Policy, and SMARTSYS, being an indigenous manufacturer of the original equipment and possessing the relevant software for extraction and analysis of the data, ought to have been preferred by the respondents over APNA, which neither manufactures the equipment nor has the software and is going to do all the above with the Technology Transfer Agreement and is only going to merely execute the production in India. The second and most important contention of the writ petitioner is that, as per the original bids submitted, the mandatory documents under Clauses 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 were not submitted, and the bid ought to have been rejected. Even though the RDSO found the offer technically suitable, it categorically observed that the Tender Committee should verify the above details.

13. Clause 1.1.2 unequivocally required a Performance Certificate, a copy of the contract document/purchase order, the Commissioning Certificate, and supply details. It also made it clear that failure to submit these would result in the offer being summarily rejected. Thus, even the Tender Committee does not have the power to arbitrarily relax this condition. What APNA submitted is only a grant offer letter issued by an agency, namely Innovate UK. It was jointly issued to the APNA’s partners, namely M/s.MoniRail Limited and Eurostar International Limited, and the University of Birmingham. The documents show that an amount was awarded for innovation and cannot be treated as the contract document between the supplier, namely M/s.MoniRail Limited, and the technology user. In the absence of the relevant documents, the APNA neither fulfilled the requirement to produce proof of actual supply of the UABAMS system nor produced any proof of one year’s experience.

14. The RDSO is only the technical authority, which has gone into technical details and left the above violation by APNA to the Tender Committee for consideration. The Tender Committee beats around the bush and culls only certain facts from the Performance Certificate to hold the bid as valid. When, as per the tender, the contract document is not produced and only a grant offer letter is produced, which does not prove the contract, APNA's bid ought to have been rejected and SMARTSYS ought to have been awarded the contract.

15. In support of his contentions, Mr.D.Giridharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and Ors. Vs. Anoj Kumar Agarwala and Ors. ((2020) 17 SCC 577), to contend that the words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous, must be given meaning and necessary significance, and that the essential tender condition should be strictly complied with, and that the Tender Committee shall not condone the lack of such strict compliance. Paragraph Nos.14 to 16 of the said judgment are relied upon.

16. Per contra, Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent Nos.1 to 3, would submit that when the bid requires the production of a Performance Certificate, APNA, produces the same. When the bid also requires the contract document to be produced, it need not be in the form of an express agreement between the user and the partner of APNA. However, if the Tender Committee can be satisfied that a contract existed, the requirement is fulfilled in substance, and form is not important. The Tender Committee, in its wisdom, relied on the substance rather than the form, and when it approved the technical bid, the petitioner cannot call it into question.

17. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Ors. ((2007) 14 SCC 517) to contend the scope of judicial review in the award of contracts, more specifically, paragraph No.22, to contend that when the authority's action is not malafide and is in the public interest, this Court should not interfere. He would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Uflex Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors. ((2022) 1 SCC 165) to contend that this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority for scrutinising the tender, and that when the tender is all about commercial competitiveness, and there is transparency, the freedom of the tender-floating authority, within the said contours, should not be curtailed and economics must be permitted to play its role.

18. Mr.Vishnu Mohan, the learned Counsel for APNA, relying on the Performance Certificate issued by the M/s.Network Rail (High Speed) Limited, a private organisation operating railways in the United Kingdom, would submit that, on a perusal of the same, it is evident that the systems have been tested through free trials at speeds exceeding 120 kmph. It categorically states that the M/s.MoniRail Limited supplied, installed, and commissioned two complete acceleration measurement systems, each comprising carrier sensors, bogie sensors, and axle-box sensor units, on Eurostar Class 374 high-speed rolling stock under Innovate UK Application No.103924. In that context, the grant letter under Innovate UK Application No.103924 is also submitted to further support the existence of the contract. If the overseas or foreign operator does not enter into a formal contract but operates on the basis of a grant letter and has issued the Performance Certificate, it cannot be deemed a disqualification. APNA substantially meets the eligibility criteria.

19. I have considered the rival submissions on both sides and perused the material records of the case.

20. With reference to the Make in India Policy, even though the impugned tender notice in Clause 1.1.1 states that it is for the promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, considering the various general circumstances, under Clause 1.1.0(e), an Indian firm with experience in supplying, installing, commissioning, operating, and maintaining the type of acceleration and measurement system, and having a Transfer of Technology Agreement with a foreign Original Equipment Manufacturer, is also made eligible. However, it can be seen that no special preference has been accorded to an indigenous manufacturer. Thus, in the absence of any policy favouring home-grown technology (APNA technology!), when an Indian firm borrowing technology from outside is also eligible, the first ground raised, that the petitioner, being an indigenous equipment manufacturer in India, should be given preference, though a laudable principle, cannot be upheld in the context of the present tender notice and the bid process.

21. With reference to the lack of qualification of the successful bidder - APNA, it is true that, normally, the Tender Committee should not be permitted to relax any condition with reference to any bidder, and the wording of the tender document, when it speaks about submission of the contract or purchase order, should not be rendered nugatory. But in the instant case, the equipment relates to the safety of railway operations. This has been attempted since 2020. Only for the first time, in the instant tender, three participants have to be found technically suitable. While so considering: if an overseas private rail operator does not enter into a written agreement or issue a purchase order; when the tender conditions permit an Indian firm to have a Transfer of Technology agreement with an overseas Original Equipment Manufacturer who had actually supplied the systems which are in use; when documents are produced to demonstrate the same in substance; when the Tender Committee has gone ahead to consider the qualification, whether it exists in substance; when the alleged non-compliance is a mere form; and when the decision is made in pursuance of public interest, this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere on the ground that the written form of contract or purchase order, or that the experience certificate in the same wording, is not produced by the successful bidder.

22. When the suitability is evaluated twice by the RDSO and thereafter by the Tender Committee, and, after applying their mind, they have taken a conscious decision, and the comments made with reference to compliance with Clauses 1. 1. 1.1.2 and 1. 1. 1.1.3, having been extracted supra, I am not able to conclude that the same is malafide. In the absence of malafide, when the bid of APNA is only L1, resulting in economic benefit to the railways, this is not a fit case to interfere and quash the letter of acceptance or the purchase order.

23. For the reasons stated above, these Writ Petitions fail and, as such, are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.