No Injunctions for Infrastructure Projects: Delhi HC Upholds DMRC's Contract Award for 5G Upgrade, Citing Specific Relief Act - 2025-09-04

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Backs DMRC's 5G Upgrade, Dismisses Plea Against Contract Award to Second Vendor

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Crest Digitel Private Limited challenging the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation's (DMRC) decision to award a contract for in-building mobile solutions (IBS) on the Airport Express Line to a second vendor, Indus Towers Limited, on a nomination basis. Justice Sachin Datta, while disposing of the petition, emphasized the critical need for upgrading telecom infrastructure to 5G and pointed to the statutory bar on granting injunctions that could impede infrastructure projects.

The court's decision clears the way for DMRC to enhance mobile connectivity, particularly 5G services, for commuters on one of its busiest lines, underscoring the judiciary's reluctance to interfere in essential public infrastructure development.

Background of the Dispute

Crest Digitel, the petitioner, was awarded a contract in 2019 through a competitive tender process to provide IBS services, ensuring mobile coverage in the tunnels and underground stations of the Airport Express Line. The company filed a writ petition after DMRC issued a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to Indus Towers in February 2025 for similar IBS work, but without a public tender and at a substantially lower license fee.

Petitioner's Arguments: Arbitrariness and Discrimination

Crest Digitel argued that DMRC's action was arbitrary and discriminatory. The primary grievances were:

• Unfair Pricing: DMRC awarded the work to Indus Towers at a license fee of ₹5,500 per square meter, while Crest Digitel was paying a current escalated rate of ₹11,088 per square meter for identical services.
• Improper Process: The work was awarded on a "nomination basis" instead of through a competitive bidding process, which Crest Digitel alleged was against public procurement norms.
• Scope Creep: The petitioner contended that the original contract with Indus Towers was only for outdoor towers and masts, and impermissibly extending its scope to include indoor solutions (IBS) was illegal.
• Discriminatory Terms: Crest Digitel was mandated to take a minimum area of 20 sq. m. per station, whereas Indus Towers was allocated a smaller area of 12 sq. m.

DMRC's Rebuttal: Poor Performance and Public Need

DMRC fiercely contested the petition, justifying its decision by citing the petitioner's own "gross inability" to meet its contractual obligations. The key arguments presented by DMRC were:

• Service Deficiencies: DMRC produced evidence of Crest Digitel's persistent failure to ensure uninterrupted mobile coverage, leading to numerous penalties, complaints from commuters, and a cure notice being issued.
• Failure to Upgrade: Despite the nationwide rollout of 5G, Crest Digitel had failed to upgrade its infrastructure to provide 5G services, even seeking a 25% rebate on the license fee to do so.
• Urgent Public Need: The engagement of Indus Towers was compelled by the need to ensure seamless connectivity, a critical aspect of passenger safety and operational efficiency, and to expedite the 5G rollout.
• Contractual Justification: DMRC argued that its existing agreement with Indus Towers allowed for the allocation of additional areas at negotiated rates to enhance mobile connectivity, making the new LOA a "seamless and logical continuation" of the prior contract.

Court's Reasoning and Final Decision

The High Court found no merit in Crest Digitel's petition, dismissing its contentions for several reasons.

A pivotal moment in the hearing occurred when Indus Towers agreed to match the license fee being paid by Crest Digitel (₹11,088 per sq. m.), which the court noted "redressed the primary grievance of the petitioner."

The court then addressed the remaining arguments, highlighting the following points from the judgment:

• Public Interest in Infrastructure: The court underscored the importance of upgrading telecom infrastructure, stating, "There can also be no cavil with the proposition that ensuring uninterrupted and seamless mobile connectivity, especially in the underground tunnel section of the Airport Metro Express Line, is a necessary imperative... It is also imperative to upgrade infrastructure to support 5G services."
• Bar on Injunctions: Justice Datta invoked the principles of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, particularly Sections 20A and 41(ha), which bar courts from granting injunctions that would impede or delay infrastructure projects. The judgment noted that telecommunication services are explicitly listed as infrastructure projects. The court stated, "it would be inappropriate to issue directions which would impede or inhibit the Respondent No. 1 from taking requisite steps for upgradation of such crucial infrastructure."
• Petitioner's Conduct: The court took into account DMRC's extensive documentation of the petitioner's poor performance and its failure to roll out 5G services more than three years after the technology's launch.
• Alternative Remedy: The court concluded that even if the award to Indus Towers constituted a breach of contract, Crest Digitel's remedy would lie in claiming damages through civil proceedings, not in seeking to quash the decision via a writ petition.

The petition was ultimately disposed of, with the court taking on record the understanding that Indus Towers would pay the same license fee as Crest Digitel, thereby leveling the financial playing field but allowing DMRC's infrastructure upgrade to proceed.