Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
Gaurav Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
GTB Hospital and Another – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 522 of 2026, C.M. APPL. No. 2510 of 2026
Decided On : 23-02-2026
For the Appellants : Ramesh Singh, Tarkeshwar Nath, Harshit Singh, Hage Nanya
For the Respondents: Sameer Vashisht, Harshita Nathrani
Only bidders who participate in the tender process have the standing to challenge the bid conditions or proceedings; lack of timely participation undermines the right to contest.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ petition for quashing bid documents in procurement of security services - Petitioner challenges eligibility conditions for bidders and compliance with regulatory rules. - Lack of participation in bidding process diminishes petitioner's locus standi; requirement of minimum annual turnover and supervision ratio contested. (Paras 1, 6, 11, 18)
(B) Jurisdiction of High Court in Tender Matters - Only entities participating in the bidding process possess the right to challenge the validity of the tender conditions. - Written representations were not made timely or through the correct channels, undermining the seriousness of the petitioner’s claims. (Paras 9-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a security service provider, contested bid documents for security and manpower services issued by GTB Hospital, challenging conditions of minimum turnover and the stipulation for security supervisors based on regulatory rules. The responsiveness of the bid process was called into question after failing to participate within prescribed deadlines. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner lacked real intent to engage in the bidding process and had effectively lost the right to challenge the bids after deadlines had lapsed, highlighting procedural lapses and lack of earnestness. (Paras 5, 13-17)
Issues: Whether the petitioner has the locus standi to challenge the bid documents without having participated, and if the conditions within the tender are excessive or non-compliant with regulations. (Paras 8, 11, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: A party not participating in a tender process lacks standing to contest the terms of the tender; timely and earnest participation must precede any objections. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s actions indicated a lack of genuine intent to contest the bid process, validating the dismissal of the petition. (Paras 10-18)
Result: Petition dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under article 226 for reliefs (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of the bid and petitioner’s objections (Para 2) |
| 3. petitioner’s arguments challenging bid conditions (Para 3) |
| 4. respondent’s arguments defending bid conditions (Para 4) |
| 5. court’s analysis on locus standi and merits of the petition (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed with costs (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT :
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) Pass a Writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Bid Document vide Bid Number GEM/2025/B/6787623 dated 14.10.2025.
(ii) Pass a Writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the Bid Document vide BID No GEM/2025/B/7024513 dated 22.12.2025.
(iii) Quash and set aside the Response dated 26.11.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1.
(iv) Quash and set aside the Response dated 26.12.2025 issued by the Respondent No.1.
(v) Direct the Respondent to incorporate a condition of required number of Security Supervisors in terms of Rule 2009 and remove the Harsh conditions.
(vi) Direct the Respondent to consider the representation submitted on 7.11.2025 and 08.11.2025.”
2. The petitioner/Gaurav Enterprises is a registered partnership firm engaged in providing security surveillance and other manpower services to various Government Departments and Undertakings.
2.1. Respondent no. 1/GTB Hospital invited a bid on the Government E- Marketplace [‘GeM’] portal vide bid no. GeM/2025/B/678723 dated 14.10.2025 [‘the first bid’] for the work of supply of security services, healthcare, two hundred ninety-four [294] unarmed security guards and thirteen [13] security supervisors for a period of two [2] years with an estimated bid value of Rs. 22,21,63,685/-.
2.2. The petitioner filed a representation dated 22.10.2025 seeking an amendment to the terms and conditions of the bid. This was followed by another representation dated 08.11.2025, wherein it additionally challenged the imposition of the eligibility condition of minimum average annual turnover of Rs. 25 crores as well as the prescription of working days as 26 days in place of 30 days, etc.
2.3. It is stated in the representation dated 08.11.2025, the petitioner pointed out that the provision of thirteen [13] security supervisors for two hundred ninety-four [294] security guards was deficient and not in compliance with the governing law which requires one [1] security supervisors for six [6] guards, in this regard reliance was placed on Rule 8 of the Delhi Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2009 [‘the 2009 Rules’].
2.4. Thereafter, in view of the inaction by respondent no. 1 to the said representations, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) 17151/2025 on 11.11.2025.
2.5. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.11.2025 itself after recording the submission of respondent no. 1 that it shall consider and decide the representations from the petitioner and the other bidders before the technical bids are opened.
2.6. It is stated that the petitioner received a reply dated 26.11.2025 to its representation dated 08.11.2025, from respondent no. 1. The said reply by respondent no. 1 reads as under: -
2.7. It is stated that however, the petitioner was dissatisfied with the said response and made a further representation dated 06.12.2025. In this representation, the petitioner reiterated that forty-nine [49] security supervisors were required to deploy two hundred ninety-four [294] security guards in view of Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules, and therefore, respondent no. 1’s decision to continue with only thirteen [13] supervisors would result in violation of the law. It reiterated that the eligibility condition requiring an annual financial turnover of Rs. 25 crores for a bid estimate value of Rs. 22,21,63,685/- is unreasonable and vitiates the tender documents, and further reiterate
