$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 01.04.2026 Judgment delivered on: 15.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 15.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 12042/2025 & CM APPL. 49146/2025 M/S ANANTAA-MRKR-ARINFRA (JV) PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED (ONGC) & ANR. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Tiku Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Biju P. Raman, Mr. Badri Venkata Reddi, Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhary, Ms. Usha Nandini V, Mr. John Thomas, Ms Nandana Harikrishnan and Mr. Monu Singh, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr. R.V.

Prabhat, Mr. Daksh Pandit, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma, Mr. Naman, Advocates for R-1 Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate for R-3 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

JUDGMENT

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved by the decision of the Respondent No. 1/ONGC dated 29.07.2025 [‘impugned decision’] to disqualify its bid in Tender No. ZV9SC25002, issued on 06.03.2025 for the Jetty Revamping Project. The impugned decision proceeds on the premise that the Petitioner failed to submit a valid GST certificate along with its bid thus non-compliance of Clause No. 10.5.1 of the Instructions to Bidders [‘ITB’] at Annexure-I of the Tender Document and Clause 4 (j) of the Bid Evaluation Criteria [‘BEC’].

Factual Matrix

2. Facts relevant to the adjudication of the present writ petition are as under: -

2.1 The Petitioner is a joint venture company engaged in infrastructure development. Pursuant to the tender issued on 06.03.2025, the Petitioner submitted its bid within the prescribed timelines along with all requisite documents. At the time of submission of the bid on 19.06.2025, the Petitioner’s GST registration was under process, and the Application Reference Number [‘ARN’] dated 03.06.2025 bearing number A360625004822D along with an undertaking dated 03.06.2025 was provided by the Petitioner pursuant to the GST requirements at Clause No. 10.5.1 of ITB and Clause 4(j) of BEC of the bid. Subsequently, the Petitioner obtained a permanent GST Registration Certificate issued on

23.06.2025.

2.2 The Respondent, through emails dated 07.07.2025 and 12.07.2025, disqualified the Petitioner on the ground of non-submission of a valid GST certificate. The Petitioner availed the one-time representation mechanism and submitted a detailed representation dated 15.07.2025, enclosing the permanent GST certificate and an official clarification dated 14.07.2025, by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Government of Telangana, affirming that the ARN is a valid document for tender participation.

2.3 It is stated that despite the Petitioner’s compliance, the Respondent rejected the Petitioner’s bid vide the impugned decision dated 29.07.2025, on the ground that a valid GST certificate was not submitted along with the bid. The Petitioner contends that this finding is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the record, as the ARN constitutes valid interim proof of GST registration under law, and the permanent GST certificate was issued well before the Respondent raised any query.

Submissions by the Petitioner

3. Mr. Rakesh Tiku, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that the rejection is ex facie arbitrary, contrary to the record, violative of the tender conditions, and infringes Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. 3.1 He asserts that Petitioner has complied with all the GST requirements; as it applied for GST registration on 03.06.2025 and obtained an ARN on the same day, which is a statutory acknowledgment of a valid application; and it also furnished an undertaking dated 03.06.2025 to provide the GSTIN and subsequently obtained the GST registration on 23.06.2025, prior to any evaluation or objection by the Respondent.

3.2 He further submits that ARN is statutorily recognized as valid proof of GST application