$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 3938/2026 SHRI JITENDRA SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv.

versus DELHI TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS .....Respondent Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs. for R-1 & R-3.

Mr. Shikhar Sardana and Mr. Ajay Singh, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.(ORAL)

CM APPL. 19247/2026

1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3938/2026 CM APPL. 19246/2026

3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayers:

“a) Issue order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for setting aside the consolidated result dated 28.01.2026 of the Technical Bid of the bidders uploaded on GEM Portal of the respondent No.1 b) Issue further order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring clause 2.1 of the NIT to be arbitrary and illegal;

c) Issue further order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for setting aside the award of contract for work dated 02.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the respondent No.2;

d) Issue further direction, order or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for starting fresh bidding process for the work and publishing that on the GEM Portal of respondent No.1 after taking into consideration the directions, orders and writ issued by this Hon 'ble Court e) Pass any other writ, order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents, in the interest of justice.”

4. The case set up the by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is as follows:

4.1. Respondent No.1 issued a Notice Inviting Tender [‘NIT’] on the GeM portal vide Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6867440 dated 07.11.2025, inviting bids for providing sanitation/housekeeping services, sweeping of roads and disposal of garbage at various campuses of Respondent No.1.

4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that in September 2025 and October 2025, Respondent No.1 floated NITs for the same work on similar terms. Many bidders (including Petitioner) participated, but bids were allegedly rejected at the initial technical stage, and the bid was automatically extended, culminating in the present bid dated 07.11.2025.

4.3. He states that on a conjoint reading of the Clause 3.1 of the NIT (Qualification of the Bidder), which states that the bidder should be registered as a Company/Firm/Society/Trust/Nigam and the bid documents dated 07.11.2025 uploaded on GeM, including the requirements reflected at serial no. 15¹, the tender appeared open to registered entities fulfilling the technical requirements and was not confined only to Government sellers.

4.4. He states that although 343 bidders participated in the tender process, the technical bids of 342 bidders, including that of the Petitioner, were rejected at the technical stage.

4.5. He states that only the bid of Respondent No.2, namely Uttarakhand Purv Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited, a PSU², was found technically qualified, as reflected on the GeM portal.

4.6. He states that the disqualification of the Petitioner was communicated to him through a message dated 09.01.2026 uploaded on the GeM portal. The Petitioner thereafter submitted a representation through the portal on

11.01.2026 seeking reasons for disqualification at the technical stage.

4.7. He states that Respondent No.1 responded to the said representation on 27.01.2026 stating that the Petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria under Clause 2.1 of the NIT (Eligible Bidders), which restricts participation to Government agencies or subsi