$~50 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 25^th March, 2026 + W.P.(C) 3876/2026 & CM APPL. 19038/2026 SANJEEV KUMAR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal and Mr. Avneesh Singh, Advocates versus INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED .....Respondent Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhary, Mr. Kiran Devrani and Mr. Samayra Adlakha, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned letter dated 20^th March, 2026 issued by respondent/Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (‘IRCTC’). In terms of the said letter, the Contract awarded in favour of the petitioner for running a Food Plaza at Patliputra Railway Station was terminated along with forfeiture of security deposit remitted by the petitioner in the form of a Bank Guarantee.

2. Briefly stated, the case set up by the petitioner is as under:

i. The respondent/IRCTC issued E-Tender dated 17^th September, 2025 (‘Tender’) for Operation and Management of Food Plaza at Patliputra Railway Station.

ii. As a condition of the Tender, the petitioner paid Earnest Money Deposit (‘EMD’) of Rs. 3,00,000/-.

iii. On 14^th November, 2025, the respondent/IRCTC issued a Letter of Award in favour of the petitioner (‘Letter of Award’) for setting up Operation and Management of the aforesaid Food Plaza.

iv. In terms of the Tender, the petitioner furnished a Bank Guarantee towards 10% security deposit, i.e. ₹8,63,950/- to the respondent/IRCTC.

v. Since the Tender required furnishing of security deposit of the entire tenure of the agreement + additional 180 days, the Bank Guarantee of 5 years given by the petitioner was not acceptable to the respondent/IRCTC.

vi. The respondent called upon the petitioner to submit a revised Bank Guarantee in terms of the tender conditions. However, since the petitioner failed to submit the Bank Guarantee for the aforesaid period, the contract was terminated.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Jitender Mehta, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that there was a general difficulty for the petitioner not being able to furnish a Bank Guarantee for the aforesaid period as under the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises Scheme (‘CGTMSE Scheme’), the Bank Guarantee could be issued by a bank only for a period of five years. Hence, the petitioner being an MSME (Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise), was not in a position to submit a Bank Guarantee for the period of 9 years with additional 180 days, as required under the Tender. There was no justification for the respondent to insist on a Bank Guarantee for the period of 9 years and the respondent should have accepted the Bank Guarantee as furnished by the petitioner.

5. Mr. Mehta further submits that the respondents have terminated the Contract without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner which is in violation of Clause 8.1 of the Tender.

6. Lastly, it is submitted that the respondent could not have forfeited the amount of security deposit given by the petitioner.

7. Mr. Anshuman Chaudhary, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent/IRCTC, submits that since the Contract awarded to the petitioner is yet to be executed, there is no requirement of issuance of a show cause notice.

8. He further submits that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the requirement of furnishing the Bank Guarantee for the requisite period, as stipulated in the Tender. However, the petitioner failed to do so.

9. I have heard the counsel for the parties.

10. In terms of Clause 2.4 of the Tender, licensee was required to submit a Bank Guarantee of 10% of the total contract value. The security deposit could be given through a Bank Guarantee subject to the condition that the Bank Guarantee would be valid up to the period of 180 days beyon