1. Challenge to disqualification from tender for alleged false declaration regarding suspension by state government. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19985
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Avneesh Jhingan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Vertel Digital Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Central Reserve Police Force – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12845/2026 | CM APPL. 59655/2026 | CM APPL. 63173/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rohan Talwar, Mishi Gupta
For the Respondents: Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Urvashi Basak, Usha Jamnal, Nyasa Shama, Siddhant Nagar, Abhinav Mall, Nishtha Dhall, Ajay Kumar Singh, Binsy Susan, Akshay Sharma, Vishal Hablani, Khushbu Turki
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rohan Talwar, Mishi Gupta
For the Respondents: Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, Urvashi Basak, Usha Jamnal, Nyasa Shama, Siddhant Nagar, Abhinav Mall, Nishtha Dhall, Ajay Kumar Singh, Binsy Susan, Akshay Sharma, Vishal Hablani, Khushbu Turki
A state-specific suspension order does not qualify as a "debarment applicable across Ministries." Consequently, non-disclosure of such a suspension in a tender requiring disclosure only of cross-ministry debarments does not constitute a false declaration.
Headnote:(A) Tender Law - Disqualification - Interpretation of "Debarment" - A suspension order by a State Government restricted to a specific department or tender does not constitute "debarment applicable across Ministries" and thus does not necessitate disclosure if the tender conditions specifically limit disclosure to such cross-ministry debarments. (Para 11, 12)
(B) Tender Law - False Declaration - Non-disclosure of a state-specific suspension, which is not covered by the specific disclosure requirements of the tender, does not amount to submitting a false, forged, or misleading undertaking. (Para 13)
Issues: Whether the petitioner was rightly disqualified for not disclosing a suspension order issued by the Government of Maharashtra.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued suspension not covered by debarment clause; respondents argued false and misleading undertaking was submitted. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Suspension was restricted to State Police Department, not across ministries, per Supreme Court order. No obligation to disclose. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Clause 35(vi) debarment disclosure only covers suspensions applicable across ministries, not state-specific restrictions. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Writ petition allowed; disqualification order set aside, but petitioner not entitled to participate in present tender. (Para 14 , 15 )
6. Does a suspension by a state police department fall under Clause 35(vi) requiring disclosure of debarment by ministries?
No. Debarment in Clause 35(vi) covers only suspensions applicable across ministries, not state-specific restrictions. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 )
7. Does non-disclosure of a state-specific suspension violate Clause 35(i) regarding false documents?
No, because there was no obligation to disclose such suspension under Clause 35(vi), and no false or misleading document was submitted. (Para 13 )
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the disqualification order dated 21.07.2026 and rejection of the representation vide communication dated 28.08.2026.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of secure digital and analogue radio communication equipment under the brand name ‘Vertel Digital’. On 31.12.2025, respondent no.1 invited bids (GEM/2025/B/6982301) for ‘Digital VHF Repeater Sets’ as per the MHA QR (Q2) and enclosed Additional Terms and Conditions (for short ‘T&C’) to be complied with by all bidders including disclosure of whether the firm was debarred by the CRPF, GeM, MHA or any other Ministry (in case debarment order was applicable across Ministries) on the date of tender opening. The relevant portion of Clause 11.xlii S. no. 35 of the GeM Bid T&C (hereinafter ‘Clause 35’) is reproduced below:
“xlii. This Tender/Bid is subject to Indian Laws. New Delhi is the place of performance and jurisdiction of this tender is the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of any dispute during the currency of contract/CAMC.
[…]
35)Firms declaration/undertaking that:
i) I/We/Firm have/has not submitted any false/ forged/manipulated/ misleading document in the instant or in any TE in the last 3 years.
ii) Central/State Govt, organization/PSU/Public listed company has not found firms document to be fake/misleading in the last 3 year.
iii) I/We/Firm am/are/is not insolvent/bankrupt, or subject to liquidation, court receivership or similar proceeding.
iv) Contract of firm has not been terminated before completion of the contract due to their fault within the last 3 year.
v) Firm (including partner firm) has not refuse the accept the contract during the bidding in the last 3 year.
3.
vi) Firm (including associate firm, partner, proprietor, directors) is not under debarment (black listed/banned/suspended etc) by CRPF, GeM, MHA or other ministry (in case debarment order is applicable across ministries) on the date of TE opening.
” Two separate bids i.e. technical and financial bids were submitted by the petitioner on 29.01.2026. The technical bid was opened on 31.01.2026. Upon receipt of an anonymous complaint, the respondents vide letter dated 10.02.2026 sought information from the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra (for short ‘Government of Maharashtra’) regarding the proceedings pending against the petitioner. The respondents were supplied with the decision dated 13.01.2026 whereby during the pendency of the enquiry, the petitioner-firm was suspended by the Government of Maharashtra. The relevant portion of the decision dated 13.01.2026 is reproduced below:“GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
HOME DEPARTMENT
*** *** ***
Accordingly, the matter of suspending M/s Vertel Infotal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, (CIN No. U32201DL2008 PTC 178267) and M/s. Vertel Digital Pvt. Ltd., Noida, (UP), (CIN No. U64204DL2007PTC 165775), the supplier companies, from participating in the tender process for purchases by the Police Department, as proposed by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai office vide proposal no. 2 vide reference was under the consideration of the Government.GOVERNMENT DECISION:As proposed by the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, Mumbai office, regarding the misconduct of the supplier companies M/s Vertel Infotal Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, (CIN No. U32201DL2008 PTC 178267) and M/s. Vertel Digital Pvt. Ltd., Noida, (UP), (CIN No. U64204DL2007PTC165775), related to the purchase of various machinery and equipment for the wireless department of the State Police Force, an order of suspension is being issued against both these supplier companies as per the provisions of rules 5.1 (b) and (c) of Chapter 5 of the revised rulebook attached with the Industry, Energy and Labour Department, No. Bhankhas-20147/Pr. Kr. 82/Part- III/Industry-4, dated 01/12/2016, until the inquiry is completed as per rule 5.4.
2. The said suspension order shall come
