* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 04.12.2025

Judgment delivered on: 12.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 13990/2023 & CM APPLs 55227-55228/2023

MR. TARUN AGGARWAL .....Petitioner

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Achin Goel and Mr. Vinay Bhardwaj, Advocates

For the Respondents: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC with Ms.

Usha Jamnal, Mr. Mohammad Junaid Mahmood and Ms. Prajna Pandita, Advocates for R-1/UOI. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Rani and Mr. Ritik

Dwivedi, Advocates for R-2/NHAI to R-4/NHLML.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

1. Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking a direction to the respondent no.2/National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as “NHAI”) to cancel the bid submitted by the respondent no.3/M/s Chrishmatic Developers Private Limited (successful bidder) in respect of Request for Proposal bearing tender no. “NHAI/WSA/DBOT/NORTH&EAST/1/2022” dated 26.09.2022 (hereinafter

referred to as “RFP”), and further to restrain NHAI from awarding any tender/contract/work to respondent no.3. He further seeks a direction to award the said tender to him, being the highest bidder.

2. Before we advert to the facts of the case, it would be pertinent to note that the petitioner has incorrectly referred to “NHAI” as the tendering authority, and has directed his reliefs against it, while factually it is the respondent no.4/National Highway Logistics and Management Limited (hereinafter referred to as “NHLML”), which is the tendering authority and the relief ought to be claimed against it. Therefore, our references in the following paragraphs would be to “NHLML”.

3. The brief facts germane to the present lis, leading to the filing of the instant petition, are as follows:

a. The NHLML floated RFP for a specified land at Mathura, Uttar Pradesh, for developing, operating, and maintenance of large and small wayside amenities in accordance with the bid documents, and accordingly, a detailed RFP was published. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner claimed to have offered his bid alongwith all the relevant documents, including the proof of eligibility on 07.01.2023.

b. The tender process was followed by the bidding process, where the petitioner submitted his initial financial bid of Rs. 11,00,000/- on 11.01.2023, while the tender was valid till 17.01.2023. Petitioner further claimed that the time for submitting the revised bid was extended from time to time, the last extension issued on 01.02.2023 being valid till 06.02.2023. Petitioner also claimed to have submitted his revised bid of Rs.62,22,222/- on 01.02.2023 at 05:51 p.m.

c. It was also claimed that though the corrigendum dated 01.02.2023 scheduled the bid opening date and time as 07.02.2023 at 11:30 p.m., however, for some alleged administrative reason, the said bid opening was not held.

d. Petitioner claimed that without issuing a mandatory notice under Clause 6.3 of the RFP, the financial bids were suddenly opened on 08.06.2023. The petitioner also claimed that on account of the non- issuance of notice, the petitioner could not send its representative to participate in the opening of the financial bid held on 08.06.2023 by NHLML. Petitioner further claimed that immediately thereafter, he sent an e-mail on 26.02.2023, requesting NHLML to apprise him about the status of the award. He also claimed that despite such an e- mail and repeated follow ups, NHLML did not provide the requisite information to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have visited the officers of NHLML, however, did not receive any proper response.

e. The petitioner claimed to have submitted a representation on 10.08.2023, pointing out that a serious mistake had occurred in the system of NHLML, whereby his revised bid of Rs. 62,22,222/- was not taken into consideration. Having received no response