Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, ANISH DAYAL
CISS Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual basis for the petitioner’s claims. (Para 1 , 6) |
JUDGMENT :
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. These petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the operation and issuance of work orders to respondent no.3 (SIS Limited) in respect of the tenders bearing numbers GEM/2024/B/5209730 and GEM/2024/B/5209739 (‘the tenders’).
2. Respondent no.1 (Ministry of Culture, Union of India) issued the tenders on 26th July 2024, requisitioning service of unarmed security guards for protected monuments located in the Southern and Central regions of India; more specifically, requirement of 925 and 381 unarmed security guards, respectively.
3. The said tender process was initiated on the Government e- Marketplace (‘GeM’) platform. Archaeological Survey of India (‘ASI’)/respondent no.2 was the beneficiary of the subject tender.
4. Petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, claims to be engaged in the business of providing comprehensive end-to- end outsourced solutions and services for sectors where security and safety risks are considered a strategic threat. Petitioner claims to have a pan-India presence and provides services to institutions, banks, and various government und
Tender disqualification must be reasonable and justified; arbitrary rejections violate principles of fair competition.
Judicial review in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrariness or fundamental legal errors; ambiguity in tender specifications justifies cancellation.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters and the deference to be given to the interpretation of the tender document by the author. It also clarified that the w....
The court upheld the authority's discretion in evaluating tender bids, emphasizing the need for compliance with mandatory conditions and the absence of arbitrariness in disqualification decisions.
The court ruled that disqualification of a bidder without opportunity to respond violates principles of natural justice, and tender ambiguity necessitates careful clarifications to avoid unfair resul....
The court established that significant deviations from tender guidelines and arbitrary evaluation criteria violate the principles of fairness and proportionality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Ambiguity in tender terms and conditions led to the cancellation of the tender and disqualification of the lowest bidder. The court emphasized the importance of clear and unambiguous tender condition....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
