TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CGSC, Mr. Kunal Raj Adv. Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Ms Devanshi Singh, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Ms Kunika Bansal, Ms Aaliya Waziri, Advs. Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv for Applicant/ Intervenor. JUDGMENT V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. CM APPL. 9877/2026(to file additional documents) in W.P.(C) 1893/2026 1. For the reasons stated in the application, the additional documents are taken on record. 2. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 10365/2026 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 2131/2026 3. Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions. 4. The application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 1562/2026 CM APPL. 7584/2026 CM APPL. 9785/2026; W.P.(C) 1032/2026 CM APPL. 5013/2026 CM APPL. 8771/2026; W.P.(C) 1181/2026 CM APPL. 5768/2026; W.P.(C) 1847/2026 CM APPL. 8931/2026; W.P.(C) 1893/2026 CM APPL. 9186/2026; W.P.(C) 2131/2026 CM APPL. 10366/2026; W.P.(C) 2215/2026 CM APPL. 10741/2026; W.P.(C) 2243/2026 CM APPL. 10823/2026; W.P.(C) 2244/2026 CM APPL. 10825/2026; and W.P.(C) 2804/2026 CM APPL. 13565/2026. 5. These captioned petitions have been filed assailing the decisions of the respondents whereby the bids of the petitioners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he same issue. We issued notice in the petition, which was duly accepted. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we reserved the matter for judgment along with the other matters. The respondent no.1 in this petition is the Union of India through the Ministry of External Affairs and the respondent no.2 is the High Commission of India, London, United Kingdom (UK). 10. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents on various dates issued various Request for Proposal (RFP) for the outsourcing of Consular/Passport/Visa (CPV) services at the respective Indian Embassies and High Commissions. The RFPs provide for a two tier tender process consisting of technical bids and financial bids. Chapter XV: Selection of Bidders/Award of Contract, Clause B (II) (a) of the RFPs, specifically provided that the bidding companies that do not qualify in the technical bid stage shall be informed of the reasons for their disqualification by email. 11. The petitioners submitted their technical bids and financial bids on various dates. The technical bids were opened, pursuant to which, the results were published and the petitioners were informed that they have failed to achieve the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TRAV Tech Limited London, UK LON/PPT/415/0 1/2025-Vol (III) dated 20.11.2025. 20.02.2026 65.63 Cumulative Marks will be given Financial Bid not opened 13. We note that the tender processes are at the stage of security clearance/verification, except in W.P.(C) 1032/2026 and W.P.(C) 2131/2026 (the Australia tender), wherein financial bids have been opened. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS 14. Mr Parag P. Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted at the outset that tender processes are subject to judicial review within the parameters of interference which have been laid down by the Courts. Therefore, any construction of the RFPs that insulates technical evaluation from meaningful scrutiny would be inconsistent with the principle of judicial review and merits rejection. 15. He stated that the tendering process has been deliberately made opaque by the respondents for three main reasons:- i) The breakup of marks for each criteria of technical evaluation has not been provided by the respondents; ii) No reasons have been provided to the petitioners to justify the evaluation / marks awarded; and iii) Ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of transparency. This is also essential, so as to enable the Petitioner, to resolve the deficiencies in its documents to participate in the future tender" 20. He has also drawn our attention to a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Amit Brothers v. Chief Engineer, W.P(C)292/2012 wherein it was stated as under:- "We may note that we have repeatedly emphasized in various orders/judgments that whenever a tender is rejected or tender documents are not issued and a party enquires reasons, it is necessary that the reasons be communicated to such a party to avoid unnecessary litigation as otherwise the first round of litigation is to find out the reasons and the second round of litigation is to challenge the reasons. Despite this, the authorities persist in keeping silent over such representations, which we strongly deprecate. We call upon the learned standing counsel for UOI to ensure that all the Government departments are circulated a communication to disclose reasons in such cases where enquiries are made by a contracting party to avoid unnecessary litigation and a compliance report be filed within two weeks. A copy of this order be circulated along with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia 1a (location of Indian Consular Application Centers) [ICAC]); b) Criteria 2b (layout and physical infrastructure of the ICACs); c) Criteria 3b (operational efficiency of submission process); d) Criteria 4a (provision for application facilities at ICACs); e) Criteria 4b (quality of organizational structure ); f) Criteria 6 (call centers); g) Criteria 7a (online enterprise web application and innovative web design); h) Criteria 7b (grievance redress mechanism arrangement and analysis); i) Criteria 9 (reputation of the bidding company) 24. Mr. Tripathi submitted that there is no issue of State interest or official secrets in the information which is supplied by the bidders with regard to the technical specifications of the ICACs, which are being proposed to be developed. The information on the basis of which the technical evaluation is made by the respondents is also not confidential. In any case, the information relating to the area / layout of the incumbent ICACs would be known once the tender process is completed. It is his contention that once the decision is taken as regards the matter relating to the g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....services for an additional two years at 5AUD as per mutually agreed extensions. The CPV services for Australia were re-tendered in March, 2025. VFS Global quoted 50 AUD and was declared as L3, while the L1 bidder quoted a price less than 5 AUD. However, the tender was subsequently annulled due to the non-execution of the contract by the L1 bidder. From November 2025, the CPV works are up for re-tendering, which has been impugned in a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 1203/2026. He stated that as per rumors in the market, the present bid of VFS Global has increased the quotation upto 25 times the current CPV service fee. In the Australia tender, out of 6 participants, 4 have been disqualified and VFS Global and another firm namely IVS Global are the only parties that have qualified. This reflects a sharp and unexplained escalation, nearly 30 times the last approved service fee of 5 AUD, and raises a strong prima facie inference of cartelisation and bid rigging. 27. It is also stated that out of 24 locations where the respondents have outsourced CPV services, 8 are presently being operated by VFS Global and 4 by IVS Global. Thus, the two bidders together control 50% of the total outso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iality. 30. In support of his submissions that reasons for disqualification must be provided to the petitioners, he has referred to the following judgments:- a) Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer and Ors, (2024) 15 SCC 461; b) Insituform Pipeline Rehabilitation Private Limited v. New Delhi Municipal Council, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 73; c) PKF Sridhar and Santharaman v. Airport Economic Regulatory Authority of India, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 122; d) BLS International Services Limited v. Union of India & Anr. WP (C) 15997/2023, Order dated 12.12.2023; e) Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan,(2010) 9 SCC 496; and f) S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594. 31. Further, to demonstrate the importance of transparency and fairness in State tenders, he has referred to the following judgments:- i) Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v . Bharat Coking Coal Limited & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2700; ii) Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Mercantiles Pvt.Ltd, (1997) 1 SCC 53; and iii) Siemens Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Directorate General of Health Services, Central Proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the petitioners technically non-qualified is perverse and unsustainable. 35. He submitted that Part III: Technical bid Evaluation Performa at Sr. no. 1a provides for technical evaluation parameters relating to "location of ICACs" and prescribes relative marking based on what is perceived as the "best offer", without defining any reference area, geographical limits, or objective benchmarks against which accessibility, proximity, or primeness are to be assessed. In the absence of a disclosed reference zone or uniform geographical frame, bidders are left to make assumptions as to the Mission's expectations, rendering inter se comparison inherently subjective and arbitrary. Further, relative marking without pre-defined spatial parameters confers unfettered discretion on the evaluating authority to decide post facto, what constitutes a "prime location", "convenient access", or "proximity", in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the absence of any disclosed scoring or reasons, it is inexplicable how the petitioners could have been awarded anything less than the highest marks under this parameter, which itself demonstrates the opacity and arbitrariness of the evalu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is by necessity the reasons for rejections of the petitioners. In other words, the success of other bidders is the reason that animates the failure of the unsuccessful participants. 39. He has also contested the reliance placed by the respondents on the pre-bid clarifications, by stating that any response to anonymous queries at the pre-bid conference is not determinative of the issue. No waiver can be inferred from the same for the following reasons: 1. The response is inconsistent with the wordings of the tender. 2. The tender does not stipulate any response to queries at the pre-bid stage. 3. In respect of the pre-bid query for the same RFPs with regard to the Abu Dhabi tender, the Indian Embassy has given a contrary clarification that marks obtained by the bidder in each of the respective items will be communicated to the concern bidder. 4. The GFR 2017, permits modifications or clarifications to bidding documents only in the same mode and manner adopted for issuance of the RFPs. 5. The Government of India, who is the author of the RFP has issued no clarifications/ modifications. 40. Further, Mr. Krishnan submitted that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the total technical scores would be communicated to the bidders. He has referred to AnnexureE of the RFPs titled "Declaration by the Bidding Company" wherein, Clause G states that the bidding company fully understands the provisions of Annexure-K (financial bid), Annexure-D (mandatory criteria) and Annexure-J (technical bid) and shall abide by the same. As such, it is clear that the petitioners have accepted all terms and conditions of the RFPs, and are now seeking to challenge the result of the technical bid after being unsuccessful. 44. It has been submitted that any challenge to the terms and conditions prescribed in the RFPs after participation in the tender process invites the principle of 'approbate and reprobate' and constitutes violation of the undertaking provided by the petitioners. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Karunesh Kumar and Ors, 2022 SSC OnLine SC 1706. 45. The primary grievance raised by the petitioners is with regard to the alleged non-disclosure of parameter-wise or section-wise score breakups, evaluation criteria and detailed reasons for the scores. These issues were expli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion contexts, and cannot be used to infer inconsistency or malafide, more so when the petitioners have failed to substantiate any specific error, deviation or non-compliance in the evaluation process with evidence. 47. Further, he has stated that Chapter XV: Selection of Bidders/Award of Contract of the RFPs states that the bids will be opened in two stages i.e. Stage 1 - Technical Bid and Stage 2 - Financial Bid. The Chapter further elucidates the Technical Bid Evaluation Criteria and how the technical bids will be examined and evaluated by the Outsourcing Committee and those technical bids that do not fulfill the mandatory eligibility criteria will be disqualified. The bidders are also required to make presentations at the time of the evaluations of technical bids so as to evaluate the bidding company's understanding of the requirements of the tender and to assess the company's ability to meet them through the solutions proposed in the bid. Clause (f) of Chapter XV categorically states that marks will be given as per the Mission's judgment on the basis of the information provided by the bidding company in Annexure-J and the explanation provided during the presentation made by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a of urgency and irreparable harm raised by the petitioners, he submitted that financial bids have not yet been opened (except in the Australia tender), pending necessary security verifications of qualified bidders. The petitioners have suffered no immediate prejudice, and granting any interim relief would unduly delay the outsourcing of critical CPV services, causing greater harm to public interest, applicants in the Missions, in particular the Indian Diaspora in those countries, which need to be given more regard than the commercial interests of the petitioners. He stated that therefore, the present petitions do not establish a case for interference, lacks balance of convenience, and would cause irreparable injury to public interest if entertained. 53. With respect to the pre-bid queries for the RFP for the Mission at Abu Dhabi, in particular "S.No. 51", he stated that the Outsourcing Committees which are constituted in the Indian Embassies where RFPs for outsourcing of the CPV are floated, are independent tendering authorities. The reply to the pre-bid query situated at "S.No. 51" is interpreted by the Outsourcing Committee that the section-wise marks shall be provided to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ma stated that the respondents are willing to release the detailed breakup of the marks of the petitioners, however, such an exercise may only be carried out once the tender process is complete and a successful bidder has been selected. Halting the tender process now would have serious ramifications, and would be detrimental to public interest, especially with regard to the Indian Diaspora in the Mission countries, who are being adversely affected by the delay in CPV services. Commercial interests of the petitioners cannot be allowed to trump larger public interest, and as such, the petitioners cannot claim to have any vested rights to receive the complete breakup of their marks or the reasons for their rejection, at this stage of the tender process. 57. According to him, the present petitions do not establish a case for interference, lacks balance of convenience, and would cause irreparable injury to public interest if entertained, and they need to be dismissed with exemplary costs to deter frivolous litigation in contractual matters. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION 58. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the issues which arise for consideration are whether the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review should pose to itself the following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (except in the Australia tender). Successful bidders have not been identified in any of the bids (including the Australia tender), and as such, no comparative examination can be made between the bids of each of the petitioners herein and the bid of the successful/selected bidder. So in that sense, challenge made to the disqualification on the grounds urged above are premature at this stage. 63. Having said that, one of the submissions of Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Ahluwalia is that the respondents, except giving the final cumulative marks secured by each of the petitioners, have not provided the reasons for their disqualification, or the breakup of the marks on each of the parameters. They have heavily relied upon Clause B(II) of Chapter XV of the RFPs to contend that the tender conditions provide that reasons for any disqualification shall be communicated to the bidders who have not been shortlisted. They have also heavily relied upon Rule 173 of the GFR 2017, to contend that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to disclose the reasons for disqualification to the petitioners. 64. We must state, it is a law well settled that recording of reasons acts as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o is the author of the tender documents, and this Court shall not interfere with the same. 66. As noted above, judicial review of administrative action is no doubt intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafide. However, if the decision relating to the award of contracts is bonafide and in public interest, Courts would not interfere with the same in exercise of powers of judicial review, as such interference either at interim or final stage may hold up public work for years or delay relief or succor to millions of people and may increase the project cost manifold, defeating public interest. 67. At this stage, we may refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Construction Ltd and Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 492, wherein while dealing with an interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay, the Court interpreted 'public interest' in matters of tender inter-alia to mean timely fulfillment of the contract so that services become available to the public expeditiously. The Court after much discussion held that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only warranted when there is an overwhelming....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertaining a writ petition and passing any interim orders in such petitions, the court must carefully weigh conflicting public interests. Only when it comes to a conclusion that there is an overwhelming public interest in entertaining the petition, the court should intervene." 68. While we agree that the petitioners do have a right to know the reasons for their disqualification, to answer the question as to whether any direction from this Court to disclose the detailed breakup of marks is warranted at this stage, we need to weigh the commercial interest of the petitioners against public interest at large. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Sharma that any interference by this Court at this stage would disrupt and further delay the tender process. This we say so, for the reason that the impugned RFPs have been floated for a critical purpose, i.e., to serve the Indian Diaspora in the respective countries. Allowing the prayers of the petitioners and the halting the tender processes at this stage when even the financial bids have not been opened (except in the Australia tender), would cause great harm to the interests of the Indian expatriates in these countries. We are fortified....