Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V.KAMESWAR RAO, MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, JJ.
Gaurav Enterprises - Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 18585 of 2025 and CM APPL. 77276 of 2025, CM APPL. 78566 of 2025
Decided On : 02-02-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harshit Singh, Mr. Anant Dev & Mr. Hage Nanya, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC for MCD with Mr. Priyankar Tiwari, Advocate and Mr. K.K. Barman, ADC/HQ, Mr. Gaurav Chaturvedi, Administrative Officer, Mr. Anil Kumar, SO/HQ, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, ASO/HQ, MCD, Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Ms. Rebina Rai, Advs.
Compliance with statutory supervisory ratios is essential in tender processes, and conflicting evaluation criteria must conform to overarching legal standards.
Headnote:(A) Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 - Rule 10 of the Delhi Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2023 - Tender for security services challenged on grounds of non-compliance with supervisory requirements and arbitrary bid evaluation criteria - The court held that the respondent must adhere to statutory obligations in deploying security supervisors as per applicable rules, particularly noting the inconsistency in criteria between the GeM General Terms and Conditions and the Additional Terms and Conditions. (Paras 5.1, 10, 23)
(B) Locus Standi - The objection regarding the petitioner's lack of participation in the bidding process was dismissed, affirming that raising concerns about tender compliance serves public interest by ensuring lawful adherence to statutory regulations. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the tender for security manpower services, alleging non-compliance with supervisor requirements as per statutory provisions and conflicts in evaluation criteria as set forth in the bid documents. The petitioner's arguments center on the insufficiency of security supervisors and an arbitrary bidding process favoring high turnover bidders.
Findings of Court:
The court found the tender's conditions in violation of statutory requirements and directed the respondent to rectify the deficiencies, ensuring compliance prior to awarding the contract. It also held the provisions favoring highest turnover as invalid in light of statutory obligations.
Issues: The primary issues addressed were the non-compliance of tender conditions with statutory supervisory requirements and the conflicting evaluation criteria between GeM rules and the respondent's Additional Terms and Conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that statutory compliance must inform the tender process, setting clear parameters for supervision ratios and rendering any contrary contractual terms invalid. The petitioner, despite not participating, serves a legitimate public interest in ensuring legal compliance.
Result: Petition allowed; deficiencies in the bid document required to be rectified before contract award.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impleadment application rejected. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. challenge to tender compliance with laws. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's position on tender compliance. (Para 7) |
| 4. court's analysis of tender requirements. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. authority can adjust contractor terms. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. gem gtc clauses supersede atc. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. awarding contract to highest turnover is arbitrary. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. petition's validity upholds tender process. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. petition disposed without costs. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
CM APPL. 81246/2025
1. This is an application filed on behalf of M/s MI2C Business Private Limited, seeking impleadment as a respondent in the array of parties.
2. It is stated in the application that the applicant is not challenging the tender conditions and only seeks impleadment for safeguarding its interest. It is stated that the applicant, along with the other seven (7) bidders, has technically qualified and is awaiting the opening of the financial bids, which is scheduled for 31.01.2026.
3. In the considered opinion of this court, the rights of the said parties are not in contest in the present petition. The applicant is not a necessary party, and accordingly, the application is dismissed.
W.P.(C) 18585/2025 and CM APPL. 77276/2025, CM APPL. 78566/2025
4. The present petition lays a challenge to bid number GeM/2025/B/6901498 dated 17.11.2025 (‘the Bid’) for the work of supply of unarmed security guards, security manpower services, security supervisors for a period of three (3) years and one (1) day, with an estimated bid value of Rs. 34,53,79,633/-.
5. The tender stipulates manpower requirements of 260 unarmed security guards, 12 armed security guards (total-272) and 16 security supervisors.
5.1. The petitioner contends that the tender is contrary to the provisions of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (‘PSARA’) and Rule 10 of the Delhi Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2023 (‘2023 Rules’), which mandate the deployment of one (1) security supervisor for every six (6) security guards where the guards are deputed at different premises, and one (1) security supervisor for every fifteen (15) security guards where they are deputed at the same premises. Rule 10 reads as follows: -
10. Provision for Supervisors. — (1) There shall be one supervisor to supervise the work of not more than fifteen private security guards.
(2) In case the private security guards are on security duty in different premises and it is not practical to supervise their work by one supervisor, the agency shall depute more number of supervisors so that at least for every six private security guards there is one supervisor available for assistance, advice and supervision.
(Emphasis Supplied)
5.2. The petitioner also challenges the tender on the ground that, under the Additional Terms and Conditions (‘ATC’), the respondent has prescribed parameters for evaluation of technical and financial bids at Annexure-III, stipulating that only those firms securing more than 60% of the total 100 marks would be considered as technically qualified. However, it further provides that where more than one (1) L-1 agency secures identical marks in the technical bid, the work shall be awarded to the bidder with the highest turnover during the preceding five (5) years. It is contended that this condition for awarding work to the bidder with the highest turnover is arbitrary and unreasonable.
6. Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the stipulation in Annexure-III of the Bid with respect to award of the contract to the L-1 bidder with the highest turnover is contrary to Clause 4(xiii)(h) of the General Terms and Conditions of GeM 4.0 dated 06.11.2025 (‘GeM GTC’), which stipulates that in case of multiple L-1 bidders against a service bid, buyer shall place the contract by selection of a bidder amongst the L1 bidders through a rando
