The Delhi High Court has upheld the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF)’s decision to reject the technical bid of Stumpp Schuele Lewis Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. for supplying sniper rifles and ammunition, ruling that the disqualification was neither arbitrary nor unfair.
A division bench of Justices Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta delivered the judgment on July 1, dismissing the company’s plea alleging technical bias and procedural irregularities in favour of rival bidders.
The dispute arose from a CRPF tender floated on September 24, 2024, for the procurement of 200 sniper rifles chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum calibre, along with 20,000 rounds of ammunition. The petitioner firm was disqualified following two rounds of field trials — the first in Pune in January 2025, where no bidder met all accuracy criteria, and the second in February at the CRPF Academy in Gurugram, where two competing firms qualified while the petitioner failed to meet the 400-metre accuracy requirement.
The petitioner alleged that environmental factors, such as mirage and weather, impacted its performance and claimed that rival firms used non-compliant ammunition, giving them an undue advantage. However, the bench held that all participants had agreed to the trial methodology beforehand, and the objections raised by the petitioner surfaced only after failing the trial — making them appear as an afterthought.
“The decision taken by respondent 2 (Directorate General of CRPF) in disqualifying the petitioner vide impugned rejection letter dated March 27, 2025, was not arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational,” the court observed, adding that permitting a third trial would compromise the integrity of the procurement process.
Rejecting the demand for a fresh trial, the bench noted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity, including a rare second round of testing, and failed to establish any procedural unfairness.
Advocate Rohan Jaitley appeared for the Centre, while Advocates Varun Pratap Singh, Dev Pratap Shani, and Yogya Bhatia represented the CRPF. The petitioner was represented through separate counsel.
