$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 27.10.2025 % Judgment delivered on: 04.12.2025 + LPA 601/2025, CM APPL. 60598/2025 & CM APPL. 60599/2025 CCS COMPUTERS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Senior Adv with Ms. Pooja Sood and Mr. Rajat, Advs.

versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv for NDMC.

Mr. Sam C. Mathew and Ms. Madhuri Mittal, Advs for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

CHALLENGE

1. This intra-court appeal preferred under Clause X of Letters Patent seeks to challenge the judgment dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, W.P.(C) 11006/2024, filed by the appellant, has been dismissed.

2. At this juncture, we may note that the said writ petition was filed challenging the letter/order dated 07.06.2024, passed by respondent no.1-

New Delhi Municipal Council, whereby the petitioner was blacklisted and debarred from participating in any bid for a period of two years from the date of issue of the said order.

FACTS

3. Respondent no.1 floated a tender on 28.05.2022 for procurement of 4,159 pre-loaded tablets. As per the notice inviting tender, the Original Equipment Manufacturer (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OEM’) or a bidder authorised by the OEM through Manufacturer Authorisation Form (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MAF’) could participate.

4. On 21.06.2022, respondent no.2 – Datamini Technologies (lndia) Limited being an OEM authorised the appellant by means of the letter of the said date to participate in the bidding process on its behalf. The appellant accordingly, submitted its bid on 28.06.2022 and also submitted the requisite documents including a bank guarantee of Rs.18,71,550/- as earnest money deposit.

5. Respondent no.1 vide letter dated 02.09.2022 informed the appellant that the Turnover Certificate (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TOC’) of respondent no.2- OEM submitted by the appellant appeared to be forged and accordingly, it required the appellant to verify the facts and the figures reflected in the said document, namely, the TOC.

6. When the letter dated 02.09.2022 reached the appellant, an inquiry was initiated on 05.09.2022 by the appellant against two of its employees, who, according to the appellant, were entrusted with the responsibility of submitting the bid and it was also resolved to conduct a detailed investigation into the matter.

7. In reply to the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SCN’) issued by the appellant to two of its employees, on 08.09.2022, the employees submitted their apologies for their actions, stating that it was an unintentional mistake committed by them.

8. On 09.09.2022, respondent no.1 issued a SCN to the appellant in respect of the forged document/data submitted by the appellant while participating in the tender process. In the SCN, respondent no.1 also stated that in response to an email communication to the OEM, the OEM submitted that it had not shared the TOC which was submitted by the appellant along with the bid and further that the turnover figure reflected in the said certificate appeared to be manipulated without the knowledge of the OEM. In the meantime, in an in-house inquiry conducted against the two officers of the appellant, it was found that there was some tampering in the TOC which was a result of collusion with the representative of the OEM. It was further found in the said inquiry that the original figure of Rs.28,10,10,671/- was altered to Rs.1,28,10,10,671/-, which was apparently to meet the required turnover of the OEM.

9. The appellant in response to the SCN dated 09.09.2022, submitted a letter to respondent no.1 stating therein that the reply shall be submitted on 21.09.2022, and accordingly, the reply was submitted on 21.09.2022 by the appellant in response to the SCN dated 09.09.2022, along with which a detailed in-house inquiry report was enclo