Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J
BOTHRA SHIPPING SERVICES PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P.(C) 8397/2025 | CM APPL. 36537/2025 | CM APPL. 57457/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikas Singh, Zoheb Hossain, Himanshu Sachdeva, Namanveer Singh, Sachin Sharma, Pranjal Tripathi, Satyam, Deepika Kalia, Vasudha Singh, Sudeep Chandra, Khushi
For the Respondents: Chetan Sharma, Rakesh Kumar, Sunil, Anurag Ahluwalia, Rukhmini Bobde, Amit Gupta, R.V. Prabhat, Shubham Sharma, Vikramaditya Singh, Yash Wardhan Sharma, Naman, Amlaan Kumar, Jatin Dhamija, Vinayak Aren, Rajesh Jain, Dhirender, K.G.S. Moorty, Shweta Bharti, Tejaswini Chandrasekhar, Sanskruti Jinwal, Jasleen Kaur, Rashi Suri
The court affirmed the mandatory requirement for bidders to submit specific documents, including CA certificates and supporting records, under the RFP, ruling that non-compliance leads to disqualification.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Tender process - Rejection of bid - Rejection order dated 30.05.2025 upheld due to non-compliance with eligibility criteria as per Clause 4.4 (ii) of the RFP - Clause mandates submission of CA certificate and supporting documents. Petitioner failed to provide necessary Letters of Acceptance (LoA) or Work Completion Certificates (WCC) as required under Annexure V of the RFP, leading to technical disqualification. Court emphasizes adherence to stipulated requirements in bidding process. (Paras 17-26)
(B) Writ jurisdiction - Scope - Writ Petition dismissed on grounds of lack of merit, highlighting the necessity of compliance with bidding terms and regulations. (Paras 24-26)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition seeks to challenge bid rejection. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments focus on compliance with rfp requirements. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. respondents argue bid rejection is justified due to missing documents. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. petitioner's rebuttal emphasizes ca's role and documents submitted. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. court clarifies rfp's document requirements and implications. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed; nsic's rejection upheld. (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , 1950, seeking quashing of the rejection order dated 30.05.2025 (hereafter referred to as “impugned rejection order”) passed by the respondent no.2/National Small Industries Corporation Limited (hereafter referred to as “NSIC”) in respect of the subject Request for Proposal bearing No.NSIC/PMV/2023-24/TAILOR/01(R4) dated 10.01.2025 (hereafter referred to as “RFP”). Petitioner further seeks a direction to NSIC to not proceed with the award of the tender/issuance of Letter of Intent in favour of respondent no.4/National Cooperative Consumers’ Federation or respondent no.5/Central Government Employees Consumer Cooperative Society, and to consider and accept the Chartered Accountant (CA) certified GST invoices, purchase orders, delivery reports and other documents submitted by the petitioner through clarification dated 12.02.2025, and representation dated 22.04.2025 as relevant documents for work completion. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the NSIC to declare it technically qualified in the subject RFP.
2. Facts in brief are as under:
a) It is stated that the NSIC invited bid applications pursuant to an RFP for the supply of “Tool Kits” for tailors under the PM Vishwakarma Scheme. It is further stated that the selected bidder would be obliged to supply approximately 8,00,000 tool Kits to artisans across India.
The bidders were required to be enrolled on the Government e- Marketplace (GeM)/respondent no.3 portal for the purpose of submitting their bids. As per Clause 4.4 of the RFP, the bidder or the Original Equipment Manufacturer (hereafter referred to as “OEM”) was required to have sold atleast 2,40,000 units of sewing machines in any of the last financial years commencing FY 2020-21. In cases where bidders had conducted Private/Retail/Institutional Sales, they were required to furnish a CA Certificate to be eligible for the bid.
b) On 01.02.2025, the petitioner submitted its technical as well as financial bid in conformity with the terms and conditions of the RFP and bid document. It is stated that on 07.02.2025, NSIC sought clarifications from the petitioner in respect of its proposal, including issues relating to Manufacturer’s Authorization Form (MAF), the Board Resolution, supporting documents evidencing experience criteria under Private/Institutional sales as per Annexure V, and a complete set of legible financial statements and audit reports of the relevant financial years. In response thereto, the petitioner, by its reply dated 12.02.2025, submitted the clarifications as sought. It is claimed that the said documents established that the petitioner had supplied products not only to M/s Usha International Private Limited but also to several other entities in the market. It is further emphasized that the authenticity of the said documents was corroborated by a certificate issued by a CA.
c) It is claimed that by the communication dated 22.04.2025, NSIC arbitrarily disqualified the petitioner’s bid on the grounds of non-submission of copies of relevant letters of acceptance/award (hereafter referred to as “LoA”) or Work Completion Certificate (hereafter referred to as “WCC”) in respect of Private/Institutional sales. Petitioner claims to have re-submitted all the relevant documents on 23.04.2025 in response to the letter dated 24.04.2025. It is claimed that the NSIC arb
