Kuldip Tourist Taxi Service vs Doordarshan Kendra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
VIPIN SANGHI, JASMEET SINGH
Kuldip Tourist Taxi Service – Appellant
Versus
Doordarshan Kendra – Respondent

Table of Content
1. petitioner's rights regarding service provision. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. unfair service termination without notice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 29)
3. limitations on service provider replacements. (Para 14)
4. requirements for transparent tendering procedures. (Para 30 , 31)
5. final ruling on the petition. (Para 32)

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J. (ORAL)

C.M. Nos. 473/2022& 2388/2022

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The applications stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 168/2022 and C.M. Nos.472/2022 & 2387/2022

3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a direction to the respondents not to award any contract for hiring of taxi vans/cars without following the due process of floating a tender/bid through the online Government e-Marketplace (Gem) portal. The petitioner also assails the appointment of M/s City Cab Co. (also described as M/s Citi Cab Co.) to meet the transport related requirements of the respondent Door Darshan Kendra, Delhi (DDK, Delhi) with effect from 01.01.2022 as being illegal, null and void. The petitioner assails the cancellation of the tender/bid document issued vide Bid No. GeM/2021/B/1424866 dated 12.08.20

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTVIPIN SANGHI, JASMEET SINGHKuldip Tourist Taxi Service – AppellantVersusDoordarshan Kendra – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
VIPIN SANGHI, JASMEET SINGH
Kuldip Tourist Taxi Service – Appellant
Versus
Doordarshan Kendra – Respondent