Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 15098
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
GORKHA SECURITY SERVICES – Appellant
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (DTIDC) – Respondent
W.P.(C) 6915/2026 | CM APPLs. 33903/2026 | 36750/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ramesh Singh, Harshit Singh, Hage Nanya, Anant Dev
For the Respondents: Sanjay Vashishtha, Siddhartha Goswami, Aditya Sachdeva
Tendering authorities have the discretion to consolidate multi-disciplinary services to ensure administrative efficiency; courts will not interfere with such procurement policies unless they are mala fide or perverse, especially when the petitioner lacks the capacity to fulfill the primary requirements of the tender.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged Tender no.13/2026-27 for operation and maintenance services at Maharana Pratap ISBT, alleging it was exclusionary and discriminatory. The challenge was based on the bunching of eight disparate services, exclusion of partnership firms and consortiums, and arbitrary technical and financial evaluation criteria, citing the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and General Financial Rules, 2017. The primary issue was whether the consolidation of eight multi-disciplinary services into a single tender was arbitrary or discriminatory. The court reasoned that the tendering authority is best placed to understand its own requirements and that constitutional courts must defer to this understanding unless there is mala fide or perversity, as held in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited. The court found the respondent's explanation regarding administrative efficiency and accountability persuasive. the writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to consolidated tender for multi-disciplinary services based on exclusionary criteria. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. validity of clubbing multi-disciplinary services to enhance administrative efficiency and accountability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. judicial deference to the tendering authority's understanding of its own requirements. (Para 12) |
| 4. lack of locus standi for a petitioner who cannot meet the primary capacity requirements of a tender. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. observations on the mandatory nature and practical application of the gem portal for procurement. (Para 15) |
| 6. dismissal of petition where the petitioner lacks the capacity to participate in the tender. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. The present petition lays a challenge to the Tender bearing no.13/2026-27 dated 28.04.2026 for the work of ‘Operation and maintenance of electromechanical services, housekeeping, security and allied installations at ‘Maharana Pratap ISBT, Inter State Bus Terminal, Kashmere Gate’ issued by the Respondent [‘impugned Tender’] on the principal ground that it is exclusionary. In addition, the petition challenges the criteria for allocation of marks in the technical evaluation and the procedure for determination of the successful bidder.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
2. Mr. Ramesh Singh, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, stated that the impugned Tender, which is a consolidated tender of several services required at Maharana Pratap ISBT, Kashmere Gate [the ‘Terminal’], is illegal and discriminatory as it excludes entities which provide specialised services in a specific field, if they otherwise do not provide the remaining services.
2.1. He stated that the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Tender on several grounds. It is stated that the requirement of security services as detailed at (III) of Section 6, Clause 2 of the impugned Tender is contrary to the provisions of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 [‘PSARA’] and Rule 10(2) of the Delhi Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2023 [‘2023 Rules’] as it fails to specify deployment of supervisor.
2.2. He stated that Clause 1.8 and Clause 2(a) of Section 3 of the impugned Tender prohibit participation by proprietorships, partnerships, joint ventures [‘JVs’], and consortiums, thereby restricting eligibility exclusively to companies. The said exclusion is contrary to Rule 173 of the General Financial Rules, 2017 [‘GFR Rules’], which mandates that eligibility criteria should not be restrictive. He stated that different entities that provide the services sought under the impugned Tender can come together to form a consortium; therefore, this condition needs to be set aside. It was further stated that prohibiting consortiums from bidding is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478
2.3. He stated that Clause 9.2.2 of Section 3 of the impugned Tender prescribes a technical evaluation framework based on factors including the number of years in operation, annual turnover, manpower strength, and quality-related certifications, assigning 25 marks to each parameter are tailor-made to favour the existing contractor. He stated that the impugned Tender has an estimated cost value of Rs. 23 crores and a manpower requirement of approximately 500. For this requirement, the technical evaluation criteria are disproportionately high, giving an advantage to the existing contractor.
2.4. He stated that, also, the financial bid evaluation and determination process of the successful bidder as per Clause 11 of Section 3 of the impugned Tender is tailor-made to favour the existing contractor. He stated that M/s BVG India Pvt. Ltd. is the existing service provider, which has been serving since August, 2013. This procedure permits the grant of weightage to technical qualifications even post financial bid opening, operates in a manner whereby the
