WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 1 of 40

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 17.02.2026

Judgment delivered on: 10.03.2026

Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~

+ W.P.(C) 1562/2026 CM APPL. 7584/2026 CM APPL. 9785/2026

E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr Parag P. Tripathi, Senior

Advocate with Mr Nakul Sachdeva,

Mr Shreyansh Rathi, Mr Sagar Arora,

Ms Shrinkhla Tiwari, Mr Abhinandan

Sharma, Mr Karan Sharma, Advs

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Shashank Dixit, Adv. 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.

+ W.P.(C) 1032/2026 CM APPL. 5013/2026 CM APPL. 8771/2026

E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr Advocate

with Mr Nakul Sachdeva, Mr

Shreyansh Rathi, Mr Sagar Arora, Ms

Shrinkhla Tiwari, Mr Abhinandan

Sharma, Mr Karan Sharma, Advs

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ......Respondents

Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Shashank Dixit, Adv. CGSC, Mr.

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 2 of 40

Kunal Raj Adv.

Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv for

Applicant/Intervenor

+ W.P.(C) 1181/2026 CM APPL. 5768/2026

E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr Advocate

with Mr Nakul Sachdeva, Mr

Shreyansh Rathi, Mr Sagar Arora, Ms

Shrinkhla Tiwari, Mr Abhinandan

Sharma, Mr Karan Sharma, Advs

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ......Respondents

Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Shashank Dixit, Adv. CGSC, Mr.

Kunal Raj Adv.

Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv for

Applicant/Intervenor

+ W.P.(C) 1847/2026 CM APPL. 8931/2026

E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr Advocate

with Mr Nakul Sachdeva, Mr

Shreyansh Rathi, Mr Sagar Arora, Ms

Shrinkhla Tiwari, Mr Abhinandan

Sharma, Mr Karan Sharma, Advs

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ......Respondents

Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Shashank Dixit, Adv. CGSC, Mr.

Kunal Raj Adv.

Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv for

Applicant/Intervenor

+ W.P.(C) 1893/2026 CM APPL. 9186/2026

AL HIND TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT LTD .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, Mr. Zulfiker

Ali P.S., Mr. Ashwin Joseph and Ms.

Lebina Baby, Advs.

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 3 of 40

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ......Respondents

Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms.

Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy, CGSC,

Ms. Usha Jamnal, ⁠Ms. Nyasa Sharma,

⁠Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms. Akshi Bali, LC

for MEA, Mr. Ashique Karattil, OSD,

MEA, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 2131/2026 CM APPL. 10366/2026

M/S VERASYS LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Mr. Bhuvnesh

Satija, Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr

Yash Baraliya, Mr. Aniket Khanduri,

Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ......Respondents

Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Dev Pratap

Shahi, GP, Mr. Varun Pratap, Mr.

Yogya Bhatia, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 2215/2026 CM APPL. 10741/2026

M/S VERASYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VERASYS

TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED) .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Harmeet Singh, Adv.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ......Respondents

Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Dev Pratap

Shahi, GP, Mr. Varun Pratap, Mr.

Yogya Bhatia, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 2243/2026 CM APPL. 10823/2026

M/S VERASYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VERASYS

TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED) .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Mr Bhuvnesh

Satija, Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr

Yash Baraliya, Mr. Aniket Khanduri,

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 4 of 40

Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR ......Respondents

Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Dev Pratap

Shahi, GP, Mr. Varun Pratap, Mr.

Yogya Bhatia, Advs.

+ W.P.(C) 2244/2026 CM APPL. 10825/2026

M/S VERASYS LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Mr Bhuvnesh

Satija, Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr

Yash Baraliya, Mr. Aniket Khanduri,

Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.

Rohan Jaitley, CGSC, Mr. Dev Pratap

Shahi, GP, Mr. Varun Pratap, Mr.

Yogya Bhatia, Advs

+ W.P.(C) 2804/2026, CM APPL. 13565/2026

E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Sagar Arora

Shreyansh Rathi, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh Rudy,

CGSC with ⁠Mr. Ankit Khatri, Ms.

Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma,

Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 5 of 40

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 in various tenders floated

by the respondents have been declared as non-qualified at the technical bid

stage, without assigning any reasons. Since all the petitions raise a common

issue, we shall proceed to decide them together.

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 6 of 40

FACTUAL MATRIX

6.The petitioner in W.P.(C) 1562/2026, W.P.(C) 1032/2026, W.P.(C)

1181/2026, and W.P.(C) 1847/2026, E TRAV Tech Limited, is a B2B

Travel Tech platform providing flights, hotels, holiday packages, Visa,

cruises and advance technology solutions including API and white label

services. The respondent no.1 in all four petitions is the Union of India,

through the Ministry of External Affairs. The respondent no.2 in W.P.(C)

1562/2026 is the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates

(UAE); in W.P.(C) 1032/2026 is the High Commission of India, Canberra,

Australia; and in W.P.(C) 1181/2026 is the Embassy of India, Riyadh,

Saudi Arabia and in W.P.(C) 1847/2026 is the Embassy of India, Kuwait.

7.The petitioner in W.P.(C) 1893/2026, Al Hind Tours and Travels

Private Limited, is a B2B and B2C Travel tech platform providing flights,

hotel, holiday packages, Visa, cruises, and also advance technology

solutions including API and white label services. The respondent no.1 is the

Union of India, through the Ministry of External Affairs and the respondent

no.2 is the Embassy of India, Kuwait.

8.The petitioner in W.P.(C) 2215/2026, W.P.(C) 2243/2026, W.P.(C)

2244/2026, and W.P.(C) 2131/2026 is Verasys Limited, a specialised IT

enabled service provider, and a licensed certified authority under Section 21

of the Information and Technology Act, 2000. It has been engaged in

critical e-governance projects for the Government of India primarily in the

form of issuance, authentication and life cycle management of Digital

Signatures Certificates and e-sign services. The respondent no.1 in all four

petitions is Union of India, through the Ministry of External Affairs. The

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 7 of 40

respondent no.2 in W.P.(C) 2215/2026 is the Embassy of India, Riyadh,

Saudi Arabia; in W.P.(C) 2243/2026 is the Embassy of India, Kuwait; in

W.P.(C) 2244/2026 is the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi, UAE and in

W.P.(C) 2131/2026 is the High Commission of India, Canberra, Australia.

9.After we reserved judgment in the above matters, a fresh writ petition

being W.P.(C) No.2804/2026 filed by E-TRAV Tech Limited came up for

hearing on 27.02.2026, agitating the 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 minimum qualifying score of 70% and as such were not

qualified to the financial bid stage of the tender process. The case of the

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 8 of 40

petitioners is that even though they were informed of the overall marks

obtained by them, no reasons or the breakup of marks for each criteria of the

technical evaluation were provided by the respondents, which they were

obligated to do under the conditions the RFPs.

12.A chart detailing the concerned RFPs, and the marks obtained by the

respective petitioners in the technical evaluation is produced hereunder:

S.

No

W.P.(C)

No.

Petitione

r

Location RFP Impugned

order/

communic

ation

Marks

obtain

ed

Statements

made by

respondent

s in pre-bid

queries

Status

1. 2215/2026 Verasys

Limited

Riyadh,

Saudi

Arabia

RIY/CONS/551/

02/2025 dated

21.11.2025

11.01.2026 51.11 Cumulative

Marks will

be given

Financial

Bid not

opened

2. 2243/2026 Verasys

LimitedKuwait

KUW/CONS/41

5/03/2025 dated

20.11.2025

04.02.2026 54.5 Cumulative

Marks will

be given

Financial

Bid not

opened

3. 2244/2026 Verasys

Limited

Abu

Dhabi,

UAE

ABU/CONS/41

5/17/2025 dated

20.11.2025

30.01.2026 61.5 Breakdown

will be

given

Financial

Bid not

opened

4. 1562/2026 E TRAV

Tech

Limited

Abu

Dhabi,

UAE

ABU/CONS/41

5/17/2025 dated

20.11.2025

30.01.2026 67.5 Breakdown

will be

given

Financial

Bid not

opened

5. 1032/2026 E TRAV

Tech

Limited

Canberra,

Australia

CAN/CONS/41

5/02/2025 dated

17.11.2025

09.01.2026 62.2 Cumulative

Marks will

be given

Financial

Bid

opened

6. 1181/2026 E TRAV

Tech

Limited

Riyadh,

Saudi

Arabia

RIY/CONS/551/

02/2025 dated

21.11.2025

12.01.2026 59.96 Cumulative

Marks will

be given

Financial

Bid not

opened

7. 1847/2026 E TRAV

Tech

Limited

Kuwait

KUW/CONS/41

5/03/2025 dated

20.11.2025

04.02.2026 55.5 Cumulative

Marks will

be given

Financial

Bid not

opened

8. 1893/2026 Al Hind

Tours &

Travels

Pvt

Limited

Kuwait KUW/CONS/41

5/03/2025 dated

20.11.2025

04.02.2026 60 Cumulative

Marks will

be given

Financial

Bid not

opened

9. 2131/2026 Verasys

Limited

Canberra,

Australia

CAN/CONS/41

5/02/2025 dated

17.11.2025

06.01.2026 61.25 Cumulative

Marks will

be given

Financial

Bid

opened

10. 2804/2026 E 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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 9 of 40

clearance/verification, except in W.P.(C) 1032/2026 and W.P.(C) 2131/2026

(the Australia tender), wherein financial bids have been opened.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONERS

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)There is no disclosure of the marks which have been awarded

to the competitors of the petitioners, or the reasons thereof.

16.It is his case that the respondents were obligated under the RFPs to

provide reasons for rejection of technical bids. Clause 6 of the RFPs clearly

provide for the applicability of the General Financial Rules, 2017 (GFR) to

the RFPs. As such, the respondents were bound to follow Rule 173(iv) of the

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 10 of 40

GFR 2017 which reads as under:-

“(iv) Suitable provision should be kept in the bidding

document to enable the bidder to question the bidding

conditions, bidding process and /or rejection of its bid. The

reasons for rejecting a tender or non-issuing a tender

document to a prospective bidder must be disclosed where

enquiries are made by the bidder.”

17.That apart, Clause B(II) of Chapter XV of the RFPs specifically

provides that “the bidding companies that do not qualify the technical bid

stage, shall be informed of the reason(s) for the disqualification by email.”

18.Mr. Tripathi submitted that the impugned communications declaring

the petitioners non-qualified at the technical bid stage are completely non-

speaking and bereft of reasons. No explanation, evaluation details or score-

wise break up has been provided to demonstrate how the petitioners failed to

meet the qualifying threshold of 70% marks in the technical bid evaluation.

19.He has stated that this Court has held that the tendering authority is

required to explain the reasons for rejection of the technical bids in the case

titledGMDB Enterprises v. Sr Deputy CGDA AM, 2024 SCC OnLine 4281

(co-authored by one of us, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.) wherein the

petitioner’s bid for providing security manpower services was rejected at the

technical evaluation stage. In the online portal, the remark ‘not evaluated’

was found against the name of the petitioner. However, no information was

provided/communicated to the petitioner. This Court directed that the

tendering authority is required to supply information to the petitioner as

regards the reason for the rejection of their bid. Relevant part of the

judgment as relied upon by Mr. Tripathi is reproduced as under:-

“7…The Petitioner having participated in the impugned

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 11 of 40

tender process is entitled to know the reasons for the

disqualification of its bid and not providing these answers

is contrary to the requirement 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 inAmit Brothers v. Chief Engineer, W.P(C)292/2012wherein

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 communication.

Insofar as the present case is concerned, learned standing

counsel for UOI states that the reasons why tender

documents have not been issued to the petitioner shall be

communicated on or before 16.04.2012 through a written

communication with a copy being handed over to learned

counsel for the petitioner.”

21.Pursuant to the orders of this Court inAmit Brothers (supra), the

Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, issued Office Memoranda

dated 25.04.2013 and 20.05.2013 requiring all Ministries and government

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 12 of 40

departments to follow Rule 160 (ii) of the GFR, 2005 [which is now Clause

173 (iv) of the GFR, 2017].

22.He stated that even in cases where the bid documents specified that

the tendering authority will have complete discretion in rejecting the bids,

the reasons for such rejection are to be mandatorily communicated. In this

regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court inStar

Enterprises v. CIDCO, (1990) 3 SCC 280.It is his submission that the

petitioners are entitled to ‘reasons sufficient to indicate the stand of the

appropriate authority’ which would enable the petitioners to exercise their

right of judicial review against the decision of the respondents. This would

necessarily include information regarding the marks awarded to all the

bidders criterion-wise, the benchmark / best offer reference used for relative

criteria and also the evaluation committee’s recorded remarks/reasons. It

must also explain the manner in which the petitioners’ bid have been

evaluated, as merely giving the breakup of the marks obtained in each

individual criteria would not be sufficient to indicate the reasons for

evaluation.

23.He has drawn our attention to the Annexure J of the RFPs to contend

that the nature of evaluation contemplated under Part III thereof, makes it

clear that the petitioners must be provided with the reasons on the basis of

which, other bidders were not disqualified. As per Part III of Annexure J of

the RFPs, the marks to be provided for different criteria at the technical

evaluation stage are based on ‘Mission’s judgment’.On several other

criteria, the marks are awarded on comparative / relative basis, related to the

‘best’ offer in those particular criteria. In this regard, our attention has been

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 13 of 40

drawn to the following criteria contained in Annexure J of the RFPs.

a)Criteria 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)Criteria7a (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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 14 of 40

the grant of tender, there is no justification to keep it secret. In this regard,

he has relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand inState of

Jharkhand & Others v. Navin Kumar Sinha & Another, 2007 SCC

OnLine Jhar 221.Even assuming that there is a State interest/

confidentiality attached to the reason, justifying the manner of evaluation of

the bids, the same should nevertheless be provided to the petitioners in a

redacted form. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, (2023) 13 SCC 401

wherein it was held that even in cases where issues of national security are

involved, there is no blanket immunity from disclosure of all investigative

reports/reasons. Any non disclosure on the ground of confidentiality/national

security must satisfy the test of proportionality. Even where documents are

fairly excluded on such grounds, the Court may always permit disclosure of

the same, after redacting confidential portions.

25.He stated that though the respondents in the pre-bid responses

provided that the breakup of the marks of the technical bid evaluation shall

not be provided to the bidders, such bid clarifications cannot be relied upon

as a means to override the statutory position as well as specific mandate of

the tender conditions. Any response given by the respondents to a pre-bid

query raised by a bidder cannot preclude this Court from exercising the

power of judicial review. Such a clarification, at best, may bind the bidders

inter se, but it cannot shield an arbitrary, discriminatory or opaque

evaluation process from scrutiny under Article 14 and Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. In this regard, he has referred to the judgment of this

Court inIndian Hotels Company Limited v. Union of India, 2022 SCC

OnLine Del 912.

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 15 of 40

26.It is also submitted that the petitioners have a reasonable suspicion of

cartelisation on the part of certain bidders participating the bidding process,

which further necessitates the need for a fair disclosure of the reasons for

rejection of the bids. Presently, a firm namely VFS Global is providing CPV

services in Australia for the price of 5 AUD, which has been the benchmark

from the year 2020 till 2025. The term of the contract with the bidder is

specified at Clause 25(i) and extension of the term would be as per mutual

consent. VFS Global provided CPV 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 strongprima facieinference 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

outsourced operations. Such concentration of market share, in the hands of

only two entities, particularly in a competitive tendering frame work,

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 16 of 40

strongly indicates the existence of a cartel or at the very least, a coordinated

understanding between them to retain and consolidate control over the

outsourced locations. The continued dominance of these two bidders, across

multiple locations demonstrates a pattern that undermines genuine

competition. It is also submitted that one of the bidders that failed to qualify

at the technical stage, was TCIL, which is presently contracted by the

Ministry of External Affairs to manage passport services across India. The

disqualification of such an entity on account of failure to meet the requisite

technical criteria is absurd, which further makes the petitioners doubt the

evaluation process carried out by the respondents.

28.While acknowledging that the scope of judicial review in matters of

tender is limited and Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with technical

and commercial decisions of the procuring authority, Mr. Tripathi stated that

the present cases squarely cross the threshold for judicial interference

inasmuch as the disqualification of the petitioners is non-speaking, contrary

to contractual obligations to record and disclose reasons, and violative of

settled procurement norms of transparency. The continued refusal to

disclose the reasons, coupled with the obstinate stands of the respondents

raise serious doubts about the fairness of the tender process.

29.Mr. Tripathi has submitted that transparency in public procurement is

a universally recognised principle. He has referred to the manner in which

tender processes are carried out in Brazil, where bidding procedures are

governed by the ‘publicity principle’ ensuing societal participation,

regulatory oversight and proportionality. While proposals remain

confidential until opening of the bids, they become public thereafter for

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 17 of 40

scrutiny by the participants and the public. Similarly, he has drawn our

attention to the European Union procurement laws, which place

transparency at the core of the award process. The contracting authorities are

remained to promptly inform bidders of award decisions, and upon request,

provide reasons for rejection and details of the successful tenders,

reinforcing accountability while maintaining limited safeguards for

confidentiality.

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:-

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 18 of 40

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 Procurement Agency & Ors,

(2021) SCC OnLine Del 216.

32.Mr. Tripathi has contested the reliance placed by the respondents on

the judgment of the Supreme Court inAgmatel India Pvt Limited v.

Resoursys Telecom, (2022) 5 SCC 362,by stating that the petitioner therein

was disqualified from the tender for the supply of Tablets for school

children. The past performance criteria therein included a mandatory

requirement that the bidder should have supplied ‘similar category products’

for 80% of the bid quantity. Since the petitioners had previously only

supplied smart phones, the tendering authority decided the same would not

constitute ‘similar category products’ for the purpose of the bid. The

Supreme Court held that the author of the tender was the authority best

placed to interpret the tender requirements. He stated that the present case

has nothing to do with the interpretations of the conditions of the RFPs. The

challenge of the petitioners is to the manner in which the respondents have

evaluated technical qualification criteria as per the terms of the RFPs. He

has stated that where there have been allegations ofmala fideor

arbitrariness in the bid process, the Supreme Court has permitted bidders to

inspect the records of the tendering authority. Reference in this regard has

been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court inRochem Separations

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 19 of 40

Systems v. Mazagon Boch Limited, (2006) 12 SCC 439.

33.He has prayed this Court direct the respondents to:

1)Communicate the criterion/sub criterion-wise technical scores

awarded to the petitioners;

2)Communicate brief recorded reasons/re-evaluation remarks

forming the basis of the technical disqualification and the scoring

of the petitioners;

3)Disclose the criterion-wise marks of all technically evaluated

bidders and the benchmarks/best offer references used for relative

criteria subject to redaction of commercially sensitive particulars,

if any.

34.Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has

adopted the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi. Additionally, he stated that

the petitioners have complied with all mandatory and essential requirements

of the RFPs and there exists no material breach or deviation that could

justify the award of marks below the qualifying threshold of 70% marks. In

the absence of any identified non-compliance, the decision to declare 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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 20 of 40

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, renderinginter secomparison inherently subjective and

arbitrary. Further, relative marking without pre-defined spatial parameters

confers unfettered discretion on the evaluating authority to decidepost 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

evaluation process. He stated that such an open-ended criterion permits

shifting and undisclosed standards to be applied during evaluation, depriving

bidders of a fair and level playing field and making the evaluation incapable

of objective or judicial scrutiny.

36.He has contended that Part III: Technical Bid Evaluation Performa of

the RFPs at Sr. no. 8 provides for technical evaluation based on “record of

past performance with the Mission”, which inherently disadvantages new

entrants and, if applied mechanically, creates an impermissible entry barrier

in a public tender. The petitioners, being first-time bidders for the respective

Missions, could not have any prior performance record. However, the

petitioners cannot be penalised or awarded lesser marks solely on the ground

of them being newcomers, for such an approach would have the effect of

structurally favouring incumbents or entrenched players and defeats the very

object of competitive public procurement.

37.Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 21 of 40

1893/2026 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Tripathi and Mr.

Ahluwalia. Additionally, he stated that the conditions of the RFPs have been

drawn up by the Government of India embodying the binding GFR 2017

which indicates that:

1.There must be transparency, fairness and elimination of arbitrariness in

the procurement process (Rule 173), in that:

a)The text of the biding documents must be self contained and

comprehensive.

b)Notification or clarification to bidding documents should be

published in the same manner as the initial bidding documents.

c)Reasons for rejection of the tender must be disclosed when

enquiry is made by the bidder.

2.Technical bids must be analysed by the committee which should

record reasons for accepting or rejecting technical proposals (Rule

189).

38.He stated that Annexure-J to the RFPs provide nine parameters for

which the scoring criteria is prescribed such that the evaluation happens on a

relative basis- almost every criterion involves negative marking where the

best or the optimal bid is given a higher score and the rest are given

relatively lower marks. The respondents have admitted that the marks

awarded were on a relative basis. Going by the scoring mechanism

prescribed in the tender, the reasons for acceptance of the successful

candidates 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.

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 22 of 40

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 can be no prejudice caused

to the Government of India or other bidders by the disclosure for the

following reasons:-

a)The disclosure will bepost-factoand cannot enable the bidder to

now improve its bid.

b)It is meant to enable the bidder to improve for the future and

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 23 of 40

also for the purpose of a potential judicial review.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHERESPONDENTS

41.Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing

for the respondents has stated at the outset that the power of judicial review

in matters of tender is very limited, inasmuch as Courts would only examine

whether the decision making process is lawful, and would not venture into

the merits of the decision taken. Any interference by Courts in tender

matters would be warranted only when perversity is writ so large in a

decision that it results in unreasonableness or arbitrariness.Reliance in this

regard is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases ofTata

Motors Limited v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport

Undertaking and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 3897/2023andUflex Ltd. v.

Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors, Civil Appeal 4862-4863/2021.

42.He has outlined the following five issues that need determination in

these petitions:

(i)Whether the respondents are obligated to provide a breakup of

the marks along with reasonings rendered with respect to the

technical evaluation of the technical bid submitted by the

petitioners in the absence of any such provisions/mandate in the

RFP.

(ii)Whether the petitioners are entitled to disclosure of the

corresponding breakup of marks awarded to the technically

qualified bidders.

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 24 of 40

(iii)Whether the petitioners can challenge the entire tender process

after being declared not qualified by the tendering authority at the

technical bid stage for not meeting the prescribed criteria expressed

in the RFP.

(iv)Whether the petitioners can side-step the undertaking

(Annexure E of the RFP) submitted by them along with the bid to

the tendering authority.

(v)Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the

respondents to freshly re-evaluate the technical bid.

43.He stated that the petitioners by participating in the bidding process

impliedly accepted all the terms and conditions of the RPFs including the

evaluation methodology and the stipulation that only the total technical

scores would be communicated to the bidders. He has referred to Annexure-

E 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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 25 of 40

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case ofState 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

explicitly addressed during the pre-bid query stage, when a query was raised

regarding Chapter XV, Clause B(II)(c) of the RFPs which states“Before the

opening of the Financial Bids, the marks obtained by the various bidders in

the Technical Bid stage will be communicated by e-mail. For the sake of

transparency, will the mission also provide the score provided to the bidder

for each of the respective sections in the technical bid?”In response, the

respondent no.2 clarified that“Total scores of technical evaluation only will

be shared.”The petitioners had full knowledge of this clarification and

without any objections proceeded to submit their bids, thereby, waiving any

right to challenge the non-disclosure of detailed breakups at this stage.

46.He submitted that the decision to share only the total technical score is

a policy choice embedded in the RFPs to maintain the integrity and

confidentiality of the evaluation process, to prevent undue influence and

ensure efficiency in tender proceedings. This approach is neither arbitrary

nor opaque but is consistent with standard practices in government tenders,

where detailed internal evaluations are not routinely disclosed unless

expressly required by the tender document itself. The technical evaluation

was conducted by a duly constituted committee comprising of experts

familiar with CPV services, in a fair, objective, and non-discriminatory

manner. The parameters for evaluation, as detailed in Part III of the RFPs

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 26 of 40

(Technical Bid Evaluation Performa), include aspects such as the location of

ICACs, offered area, records of past performance, manpower deployment,

software and technical solutions, call centre setup, biometric equipment,

value-added services, and experience in CPV services. The marks under

these parameters were awarded on a relative basis, comparing each bidder’s

proposal against the best offer received, as explicitly provided in the RFPs to

foster competition and select the most suitable service provider for sensitive

diplomatic services. The scores of the petitioners in the technical evaluation

reflect their comparative performance across these parameters and do not

indicate any unwarranted deduction or bias; rather, they demonstrate that

other bidders presented better proposals in certain areas. Each Mission’s

RFP is tailored to local requirements, involves different bidders, proposals,

and evaluation 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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 27 of 40

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 the bidder. It further notes that the detailed scoring

criteria can be found in the Technical Evaluation Proforma in Part-III of

Annexure-J. Clause (g) states that bidding companies that do not obtain a

minimum 70% qualifying marks (i.e. 70 marks out of total 100 marks) in the

technical evaluation as per Annexure-J will not be considered for

qualification to the financial evaluation stage.

48.Mr. Sharma also submitted that marks are awarded based on relative

quality and suitability of the proposal of the bidding company, which can be

assessed only by the Outsourcing Committee formed by the respective

Indian Embassy, as it is fully apprised of the local conditions and

operational requirements prevailing in the country where the ICAC is to be

established.

49.He has contested the allegation that the evaluation criteria are vague

or subjective, particularly regarding ICAC location (‘prime location’ and

‘proximity’) and area offered (beyond minimum without specified

gradation), by stating that the RFPs provide clear guidelines, and relative

marking allows for flexible yet fair assessment based on the proposals

submitted. Such criteria are standard in service-oriented tenders to ensure

practicality and applicant-centric setups, and they do not vest unfettered

discretion but are guided by the overarching objective of efficient CPV

service delivery.

50.He has also sought to controvert the issue raised by the petitioners

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 28 of 40

with respect to the parameter of past performance, which the petitioners

claim as a disadvantage for new entrants, by stating that this criterion

rewards proven reliability in handling sensitive consular services, which is

essential for public interest and national security. The RFPs do not bar new

bidders but evaluates them holistically; the petitioners were not disqualified

solely on this ground but based on overall comparative scoring.

51.It is his submission that while the respondents do not allege any

specific violations of the RFP conditions by the petitioners; the non-

qualification stems purely from failing the minimum score threshold after

fair evaluation. No opportunity for clarification or hearing is mandated

under the RFPs for technical evaluations in a competitive bidding, and the

principles of natural justice are satisfied through the transparent pre-bid

process and communication of total scores.

52.As regards the plea 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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 29 of 40

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 respective

bidders after the conclusion of the tender process, with the objective of

providing an opportunity to the bidding companies to improve their

technical bids in subsequent tenders in the future. This approach is neither

arbitrary nor opaque but is consistent with the standard practices in

government tenders, where detailed internal evaluations are not routinely

disclosed before the conclusion of the tender process, unless expressly

required by the tender document itself.

54.Mr. Sharma has submitted that the terms and conditions of the RFPs

are in consonance with the GFR 2017, and conform to the measures

enshrined in Rule 173- Transparency, competition, fairness and elimination

of arbitrariness in the procurement process. The text of the RFPs is self

contained, comprehensive and without any ambiguities. As per Clause (xii)

of Rule 173, bids received should be evaluated in terms of the conditions

already incorporated in the bidding documents. The technical bids of the

petitioners were evaluated as per the criteria mentioned in Annexure J of the

RFPs, making the same in congruence with Rule 173 of the GFR 2017.

55.He has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case ofAgmatel India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), to contend that interpretation of

the terms and conditions of the RFP squarely falls in the domain of the

tendering authority, and this Court may not interfere with the same, more so

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 30 of 40

when no case of arbitrariness, unreasonableness, bias ormala fidehas been

made out by the petitioners. Relevant part of the judgment reads as under:

“The High Court, while supporting its process of reasoning,

has referred to such principles which, with respect, we find

entirely inapposite and beyond the periphery of the question

involved in the present case. As noticed, in such matter of

contracts, the process of interpretation of terms and 6

conditions is essentially left to the author of the tender

document and the occasion for interference by the Court

would arise only if the questioned decision fails on the

salutary tests laid down and settled by this Court in

consistent decisions, namely, irrationality or

unreasonableness or bias or procedural impropriety." The

Impugned actions fully comply with these tests, exhibiting

no irrationality, unreasonableness, bias, or impropriety.”

56.During the course of oral arguments, Mr. Sharma 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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 31 of 40

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 petitioners having secured less than

70% marks in the technical evaluation of their bids, have been rightly

disqualified, and whether they are to be provided detailed breakup of their

marks along with reasons for the disqualification.

59.At the outset, we may state that the law with regard to the scope of

judicial review in matters of tender has been well settled by the Supreme

Court in a multitude of judgments. InTata Cellular v. Union of India,

(1994) 6 SCC 651,the Supreme Court weighed the need for administrative

discretion and judicial intervention, and observed as under:

“94. (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in

administrative action.

(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely

reviews the manner in which the decision was made.

(3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the

administrative decision. If a review of the administrative

decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision,

without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible.

(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to

judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm

of contract.

(5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other

words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for

an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere

or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 32 of 40

only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of

reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but

must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated

by mala fides.

(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative

burden on the administration and lead to increased and

unbudgeted expenditure.”

60.Following this decision, the Supreme Court inJagdish Mandal

(supra),held as under:

“22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to

prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and

mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is

made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is

“sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in

matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain

special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a

commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding

contracts are essentially 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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 33 of 40

should pose to itself the following questions:

(i)Whether the process adopted or decision made by the

authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;

OR

Whether the process adopted or decision made is so

arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: “the

decision is such that no responsible authority acting

reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could

have reached.”;

(ii)Whether public interest is affected.

If the answers are in the negative, there should be no

interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or

imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or

distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of

licenses, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different

footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in

action.”

Going by the law laid down above, we shall now decide the instant

controversy.

61.Though the petitioners had initially raised a challenge to the terms of

the RFPs, during oral submissions, Mr. Tripathi stated that the petitioners

shall not press the same and would limit their contentions to disclosure of

the detailed breakup of marks and the reasons for their disqualification.

62.It is not the case of the petitioners that the respondents have

disqualified them formala fideor extraneous reasons. Their case is

primarily that the evaluation of theinter-semerit undertaken by the

respondents resulted in shortlisting of some bidders and disqualification of

the petitioners and the reasons for the disqualification were not

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 34 of 40

communicated to the petitioners. In that sense, the ground for challenge is

not that the impugned technical evaluations undertaken by the respondents

areex-facieillegal and arbitrary, but as stated above is primarily on the

inter-semerit of the bidders in the evaluation carried out by the respondents.

Keeping in mind the narrow scope of judicial review in matters of tender, it

is not for this Court to venture into evaluating relative merits and marks of

the biddersinter-se,more so, when nomala fide, discrimination or

arbitrariness has been demonstrated. Further, the challenge to the

disqualification of the petitioners has been made primarily by drawing a

comparison between the petitioners and the shortlisted bidders. It is a

conceded fact that as of now, the financial bids of the shortlisted candidates

have not been opened (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

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 35 of 40

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 safeguard against arbitrariness in actions of the State. It ensures that the

decision taken by an authority is not arbitrary or actuated by extraneous

reasons. It also makes it possible for the entity against whom the decision

has been taken to move the court by way of judicial review. It is to serve

such salutary purposes that the Ministry of Finance, Government of India,

has issued the Office Memoranda dated 20.05.2013 and 25.04.2013 pursuant

to observations of this Court in the case ofAmit Brothers (supra), requiring

all Ministries and government departments to followinter-aliaRule 160 (ii)

of the GFR 2015 (which is now Rule 173 (iv) of GFR 2017). Even Clause B

(II) of Chapter XV of the RFPs in the instant case clearly states that the

companies that do not qualify the technical bid stage shall be informed of

the reasons for their disqualification, making such disclosure a contractual

requirement. As such, the submission of Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Ahluwalia

that the respondents are bound to provide reasons for the disqualification of

the petitioners cannot be contested.

65.However, on this issue, the submission of Mr. Sharma is that the

respondents are ready and willing to disclose the breakup of the marks

received by each of the petitioners, but only after all the financial bids are

opened and the successful bidders are identified. According to him, any

disclosure of marks at this present stage would jeopardise the tendering

process and shall not be in public interest. The tenders having been floated

for important CPV services, there are many expatriate Indians, living in the

countries for which the tenders have been issued, who are waiting for the

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 36 of 40

commencement of the services so that they can apply for Consular Visa and

Passport services to travel to their homeland India. In that sense, time is of

the essence and any challenge mounted by the petitioners before identifying

the successful bidder would further delay the said process and defeat public

interest. That apart, it is his contention that while the RFPs provide that

reasons of disqualification shall be communicated to the bidders, it does not

stipulate a time period within which the communication is to be made. He

has heavily relied upon the judgment inAgmatel India Pvt Limited (supra)

to submit that interpretation of the said provision on the RFPs should be left

to the tendering authority who 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

bonafideand 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-aliato mean timely fulfillment of the contract so that services become

available to the public expeditiously. The Court after much discussion held

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 37 of 40

that interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only

warranted when there is an overwhelming public interest requiring such

intervention, or whenmala fidehas been established. Relevant part of the

judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“10. What are these elements of public interest? (1) Public money

would be expended for the purposes of the contract. (2) The goods or

services which are being commissioned could be for a public

purpose, such as, construction of roads, public buildings, power

plants or other public utilities.(3) The public would be directly

interested in the timely fulfilment of the contract so that the

services become available to the public expeditiously.(4) The public

would also be interested in the quality of the work undertaken or

goods supplied by the tenderer. Poor quality of work or goods can

lead to tremendous public hardship and substantial financial outlay

either in correcting mistakes or in rectifying defects or even at times

in redoing the entire work — thus involving larger outlays of public

money and delaying the availability of services, facilities or goods,

e.g., a delay in commissioning a power project, as in the present

case, could lead to power shortages, retardation of industrial

development, hardship to the general public and substantial cost

escalation.

11.When a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging the

award of a contract by a public authority or the State, the court

must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest

involved in entertaining such a petition. If, for example, the dispute

is purely between two tenderers, the court must be very careful to

see if there is any element of public interest involved in the

litigation. A mere difference in the prices offered by the two

tenderers may or may not be decisive in deciding whether any

public interest is involved in intervening in such a commercial

transaction. It is important to bear in mind that by court

intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed

thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the court

would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in

favour of one tenderer or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 38 of 40

court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public

interest, or the transaction is entered into mala fide, the court

should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two

rival tenderers.

….

13. Hence before entertaining 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 in our view also by the fact that the petitioners have not

alleged anymala fideon part of the respondents and have failed to

demonstrate any arbitrariness in their actions, for this Court to intervene at

this stage.

69.One of the submissions of Mr. Sharma is that one of the pre-bid

queries put forth by the bidders raised a question as to whether the marks of

each of the respective sections will be provided, to which the respondent no.

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 39 of 40

2 clarified that only the total score of the technical evaluation will be

provided. However, in the Abu Dhabi tender, the respondents replied that

they shall provide the marks in respect of each of the items. We find that this

issue has been answered by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of

Indian Hotels Company Limited (supra)relied upon by Mr. Tripathi and

Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, wherein it was held that an answer to a pre-bid

query cannot be said to override or amend the terms of the RFP, and cannot

be interpreted to be part of the substantial terms and conditions of the tender.

70.Another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that

the petitioners have a reasonable suspicion of bid-rigging and cartelisation

by two entities-VFS Global and IVF Global. However, this submission

appears premature, as the tender processes are not yet complete and no

successful bidder has been selected in any of the tenders.

71.Even the allegation with regard to the escalation of CPV service fee in

the Australia tender is not substantiated by any evidence. Further, it is not

the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the opening of the financial bids,

the amounts, for which the bids have been submitted, have been put in the

public domain.

72.Another plea that was taken by Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Ahluwalia

during the course of the hearing is that the criterion-wise marks of other

bidders and the benchmark/best offer references used for relative criteria

also be provided to the petitioners. The plea was opposed by Mr. Saurabh

Kirpal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the interveners in some of the

petitions, by stating that the marks received by the bidders are commercial

confidentialities, and cannot be disclosed to third parties. To this, Mr.

WP(C) No.1562/2026 and connected matters Page 40 of 40

Tripathi submitted that the disclosure may be subject to redaction of any

commercially sensitive particulars. In any case, we are of the view that this

plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also liable to be rejected at

this stage in view of our conclusion above, and also as no successful bidder

has been identified for the petitioners to compare their marks.

73.Even the submission of Mr. Krishnan that there can be no prejudice

caused to the respondents or other bidders by the disclosure of the breakup

of marks is liable to be rejected in view of our finding that such disclosure at

this stage would be contrary to public interest.

74.That being said, we take on record the submission of the learned

Additional Solicitor General that the reasons for disqualification and the

detailed breakup of the marks of the petitioners shall be provided to them

once the tender processes are complete. If the petitioners are aggrieved by

the reasons or marks so provided, they shall be at liberty to seek any remedy

available in law.

75.In view of the discussion above, we find no merit in the writ petitions.

They are dismissed.

76.Interim orders, wherever passed stand vacated.

77.All pending applications are dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

MARCH 10, 2026/M