Delhi HC upholds CRPF decision rejecting company's bid for arms supply

The Delhi High Court has upheld CRPF’s decision rejecting a company’s bid for supplying sniper rifles and ammunition, calling it fair and reasonable.

A bench of Justices Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta on July 1 passed the order acting on a petition filed by Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd’s, which alleged technical bias and unfair advantage to rival bidders.

The bench said that the petitioner was given ample opportunity, including a second round of field trials, and was unable to point out any unfairness in the field trials.

It rejected company’s argument that weather conditions or mirage effects caused the petitioner’s failure and said that allowing a third trial would undermine the procurement process and set a problematic precedent.

“This court finds that the decision taken by respondent 2 in disqualifying the petitioner vide impugned rejection letter dated March 27, 2025 was not arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational as the petitioner was unable to point out any unfairness in the field trials,” the bench said.

The court noted that all bidders had agreed to the trial methodology in advance, and the petitioner’s objections surfaced only after failing the trial, making them appear as an afterthought.

The company contested its disqualification.

Advocate Rohan Jaitley appeared for the Centre while advocates Varun Pratap Singh, Dev Pratap Shani, and Yogya Bhatia represented the CRPF.

The company claimed that it used the specified ball/lock base ammunition whereas its competitors used “hollow point boat tail” type of rounds allegedly in violation of tender norms and international standards.

The case stems from a CRPF tender issued on September 24, 2024, for 200 sniper rifles chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum and 20,000 rounds of ammunition.

The first round, held in January 2025 in Pune, saw none of the bidders meeting all accuracy benchmarks.

A second round in February at the CRPF academy in Gurugram resulted in two other companies passing as the petitioner failed to meet the 400-metre accuracy requirement.