Dismissed¶24

Maisur Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC11 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/5133/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi of non-participating bidder to challenge tender; quashing of NIT sought; Rule 149 and Rule 147 General Financial Rules 2017; GNCTD OM dated 26.04.2017 mandatory GeM procurement; GeM Availability Report 'category not available on GeM'; DTIDC security and sanitation services tender NIT No.94/2023-24; NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd. (2018) 8 SCC 243 applied; Primatel Fibcom; Jai Ambey Emergency Services; Forsta Meditech; petition dismissed; tender awarded to L-1 respondent M/s Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd.

What did the court decide?

Court was not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention, in light of the admitted fact that the petitioner did not participate in the tender process. ¶18

Maisur Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether petitioner, a non-participant in the tender process, has locus standi to move the petition challenging the tender (NIT No.94/2023-24) and the proceedings emanating therefrom. +2 more

¶17

Court's answer

Court was not inclined to accept the petitioner's contention, in light of the admitted fact that the petitioner did not participate in the tender process.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

Court applied the principle articulated by the Supreme Court in NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd. ((2018) 8 SCC 243) — that a person who does not participate in a tender process cannot object to it, especially where the validity of the underlying terms of the tender documents has not been challenged — to conclude that the petitioner, having stayed away from the tender process, could not raise grievances about the tender.

¶19

Key takeaways

On the substantive GeM objection, Court recorded respondent no.2's Counter Affidavit position (supported by the GeM Availability Report & Past Transaction Summary showing search result 'category not available on GeM') that the tendered services were not available on the GeM portal, and noted Rule 147 of the Rules empowers Ministries/Departments to make their own arrangements for procurement of goods and services not available on GeM; the tender was accordingly published on the government procurement portal after approval of the Competent Authority DTIDC and the Transport Department, and due evaluation by the Committee. This endorsement supplemented, but the formal dismissal did not turn upon, this point.obiter¶16
The petitioner, being a non-participant in the tender process, has no locus standi to challenge the tender document, especially as the entire tender process stood completed, the tender had already been awarded to respondent no.6 (L-1 bidder, M/s Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd.) on 01.04.2024 and the work had commenced; hence the petition could not be entertained at the petitioner's instance and stood dismissed.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maisur Projects Pvt Ltd v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., W.P.(C) 5133/2024 & CM APPL. 21013/2024 (Delhi HC; Coram: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal; order dated 11.07.2025): Petition seeking quashing of NIT No.94/2023-24 issued by the office of the Executive Engineer, DTIDC, for 'Security and Sanitation Services' at Zonal offices, Head office, 06 Nos. Automated Driving Test Tracks (ADTTs), ISBT Anand Vihar and ISBT Sarai Kale Khan (estimated cost Rs. 19,68,27,722/-), DISMISSED. Petitioner, admittedly a non-participant in a tender process in which five agencies took part, alleged violation of Rule 149 of General Financial Rules, 2017 and of the GNCTD Finance (Expenditure) Department Office Memorandum dated 26.04.2017 mandating procurement through the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal, contending the services were available thereunder as 'Manpower Outsourcing Services- Minimum wage'. Respondent no.2's Counter Affidavit, supported by the GeM Availability Report & Past Transaction Summary, showed the search result 'category not available on GeM'; Rule 147 of the Rules empowers Ministries/Departments to make their own arrangements for procurement of goods/services not available on GeM, and the tender was published on the government procurement portal after approval of the Competent Authority (DTIDC) and the Transport Department and Committee evaluation. Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 243 (subsequently relied upon in Primatel Fibcom Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4278; Jai Ambey Emergency Services (I) (P) Ltd. v. Commr., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4000; and Forsta Meditech (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2708) that only participants in a tender process can complain of its terms where the tender documents' validity is unchallenged, the Court held the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the tender, the process being complete, the award having been made to L-1 respondent no.6 (M/s Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd.) on 01.04.2024 and the work commenced; pending applications, if any, rendered infructuous.

¶1

$~19

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5133/2024& CM APPL. 21013/2024

¶4

MAISUR PROJECTS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himalaya Singh, Ms. Panchajanya Batra Singh and Mr. Mahavir Singh, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amiet Andlay, Adv. for R-2. Mr. Anant Dev, Adv. for R-6.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶8

O R D E R % 11.07.2025

¶9

This petition has been filed seeking quashing of Notice Inviting Tender (‘ NIT ’) No.94/2023-24 (‘ the tender ’), issued by office of the Executive Engineer, Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (‘ DTIDC ’) and proceedings emanating, therefrom.

¶10

The tender was issued for providing ‘ Security and Sanitation Services ’ at Zonal offices , Head office , 06 Nos. Automated Driving Test Tracks (ADTTs) , ISBT, Anand Vihar and ISBT Sarai Kale Khan .

¶11

The estimated cost put to the tender was Rs. 19,68,27,722/- ( Rupees Nineteen Crores Sixty-Eight Lakhs Twenty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty-Two Only ); the last date of submission of bid was 01^st March 2024. 4. After approval of NIT by Competent Authority of DTIDC and

¶12

W.P. (C) 5133/2024 Page 1 of 6

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 13:06:09

¶15

Transport Department, the said tender was floated on “ http://govtprocurement.delhi.gov ”.

¶16

A Committee was constituted for tender evaluation vide order dated 15^th February 2024; five agencies participated in the tender process. 6. It is an admitted position that petitioner did not participate in the tender process.

¶17

The technical bids were opened and scrutinized on 06^th March 2024 and 07^th March 2024 and all the bidders were recommended as ‘ technically qualified ’.

¶18

The financial bids were opened on 08^th March 2024 after deliberation by the Committee and the most competitive rate had been quoted by M/s Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd . ( respondent no.6 ). The Committee, therefore, recommended that the work be awarded to respondent no.6 by virtue of it being the L-1 bidder.

¶19

Performance Guarantee was submitted on 11^th March 2024 and Letter of Award was issued on the same day. As per respondent’s counsel, respondent no.6 has since, taken charge of work.

¶20

The challenge by petitioner is to the effect that the tender was issued in violation of Rule 149 of General Financial Rules, 2017(‘ the Rules ’), as also, Office Memorandum dated 26^th April 2017, issued by Finance (Expenditure) Department, GNCTD,

¶21

It was contended that as per Office Memorandum dated 26^th April 2017, procurement of goods and services by Ministries/ Departments will be mandatorily made through the Government e-Marketplace (‘ GeM ’) portal for goods and services available, thereon.

¶22

Petitioners’ contention was that the said services were available under

¶23

W.P. (C) 5133/2024 Page 2 of 6

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 13:06:09

¶26

the head ‘ Manpower Outsourcing Services- Minimum wage’ on GeM portal and Ministries/Departments are availing such services through the said portal. 13. It was contended that the petitioner could not participate in the tender process since the tender had not been invited through the GeM portal. 14. This aspect was suitably responded to, by respondent no.2, in the Counter Affidavit filed by them. The services which were the subject matter of the tender, were not available on the portal. In this regard, reliance is placed on the GeM Availability Report & Past Transaction Summary , appended to the said Counter Affidavit. 15. Further, reference was made to Rule 147 of the Rules, which empowers Ministries/Departments to make their own arrangements for procurement of goods and services, which were not available on the GeM portal. 16. The said tender was therefore published on http://govtprocurememnt.delhi.gov.in , after taking approval of the Competent Authority DTIDC and the Transport Department, as also, due evaluation by the Committee set up by the Competent Authority. 17. Upon being queried by the Court, as to how the petitioner had locus standi to move this petition ( the petitioner being a non-participant in the tender process ), no satisfactory response was received. 18. In any event, the Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner, in light of the fact that they did not participate in the tender process. 19. At this juncture, it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd.¹ , wherein the Court opined that a person who does not participate in the tender process, cannot object to the same, especially when the validity of the underlying

¶27

1 (2018) 8 SCC 243

¶28

W.P. (C) 5133/2024 Page 3 of 6

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 13:06:09

¶31

terms of the tender documents has not been challenged:

¶32

“20. While considering the relief claimed by the respondent (claimant), the same should have been tested on the touchstone of the principle governing the tender process, especially when the validity of the tender document has not been put in issue or challenged before any competent forum. Going by the terms and conditions in the tender documents, as already alluded to in para 10 above, there is no tittle of doubt that the right of the claimant (respondent) to match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR would come into play only if the respondent was to participate in the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting tenders from the interested parties. The objective of tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent mechanism but to encourage competition and give equal opportunity to all tenderers with the end result of getting a fair offer or value for money. The plain wording of the eligibility clause in the tender documents and the incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent was required to participate in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid (technical and financial). The fact that a deeming clause has been provided in the tender document that if the respondent was to participate in the bidding process, it shall be deemed to fulfil all the requirements of the tender Clauses 3 to 6 of RFP, being the existing concessionaire of the project, does not exempt the respondent from participating in the tender process; rather the tenor of the terms of the documents made it obligatory for the respondent to participate in the tender process to be considered as a responsive bidder, along with others. Having failed to participate in the tender process and, more so, despite the express terms in the tender documents, validity whereof has not been challenged, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever. Only the entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about the

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 13:06:09

¶35

W.P. (C) 5133/2024 Page 4 of 6

¶36

non-fulfilment or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the tender documents concerned. The respondent who chose to stay away from the tender process, cannot be heard to whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of the written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the respondent had not participated, in law, the offer submitted by the eligible bidders is required to be considered on the basis of the stated terms and conditions. Thus, if the claim of the respondent was to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the terms and conditions specified in the subject tender document, the respondent has no case whatsoever.

¶37

The observations made by the Supreme Court in Gwalior-Jhansi Expressway Ltd. ( supra ) were subsequently relied upon in, Primatel Fibcom Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd.² , Jai Ambey Emergency Services (I) (P) Ltd. v. Commr.³ and Forsta Meditech (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra⁴ .

¶38

The petitioner did not participate, despite the tender having been listed on the government procurement site and five (5) bidders having had participated in the process.

¶39

Even otherwise, it was stated in the Counter Affidavit that services were required for, “ Providing security and sanitization services along with the supply of mechanized road sweeping machine, pressure machine, vacuum machine & high pressure jet type cleaning machine. ”

¶40

As per GeM Availability Report & Past Transaction Summary , appended to the Counter Affidavit, the search result was, “ category not available on GeM ”.

¶41

2 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4278

¶42

3 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 4000

¶43

4 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2708

¶44

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 13:06:09

¶45

W.P. (C) 5133/2024 Page 5 of 6

¶46

This is a digitally signed order.

¶47

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed, as the petitioner did not participate in the tender process, thus, in our opinion, the petitioner will have no locus to challenge the tender document, especially when the entire tender process has been completed, the tender has already been awarded to respondent no.6 on 1^st April 2024 and the work has already commenced. For these reasons we are of the opinion that at the instance of the petitioner, this petition cannot be entertained.

¶48

Pending applications, if any, be rendered infructuous.

¶49

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶50

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

¶51

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶52

JULY 11, 2025/RK / sp/kp

¶53

W.P. (C) 5133/2024 Page 6 of 6

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 13:06:09

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No.94/2023-24 ('the tender') issued by the office of the Executive Engineer, Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. ('DTIDC'), and proceedings emanating therefrom; challenged as violating Rule 149 of General Financial Rules, 2017 and the GNCTD Finance (Expenditure) Department Office Memorandum dated 26.04.2017 mandating procurement through the GeM portal.¶1
Executive Engineer, Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DTIDC)
Prior proceeding
Tender was for providing 'Security and Sanitation Services' at Zonal offices, Head office, 06 Nos. Automated Driving Test Tracks (ADTTs), ISBT Anand Vihar and ISBT Sarai Kale Khan.¶2
Prior proceeding
Estimated cost of tender: Rs. 19,68,27,722/-; last date of submission of bid was 01.03.2024.¶3
Prior proceeding
NIT approved by Competent Authority of DTIDC and Transport Department.¶4
Prior proceeding
Approved tender floated on the government procurement portal http://govtprocurement.delhi.gov.¶4
Prior proceeding
Committee constituted for tender evaluation vide order dated 15.02.2024; five agencies participated in the tender process.¶5
Prior proceeding
Admitted position: petitioner did not participate in the tender process.¶6
Prior proceeding
Technical bids opened and scrutinized on 06.03.2024 and 07.03.2024; all bidders recommended as technically qualified.¶7
Prior proceeding
Financial bids opened on 08.03.2024; most competitive rate quoted by respondent no.6 (M/s Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd.), recommended as L-1 bidder for award of work.¶8
Prior proceeding
Performance Guarantee submitted and Letter of Award issued on 11.03.2024; respondent no.6 has since taken charge of the work.¶9
Prior proceeding
Petitioner's challenge: tender issued in violation of Rule 149 of General Financial Rules, 2017 and the Office Memorandum dated 26.04.2017 issued by Finance (Expenditure) Department, GNCTD.¶10
Prior proceeding
Petitioner contended the services were available on the GeM portal under the head 'Manpower Outsourcing Services- Minimum wage' and that Ministries/Departments avail such services through that portal.¶12
Prior proceeding
Petitioner contended it could not participate in the tender process since the tender had not been invited through the GeM portal.¶13
Prior proceeding
Respondent no.2's Counter Affidavit: services subject matter of the tender were not available on the portal; reliance placed on the GeM Availability Report & Past Transaction Summary appended thereto.¶14
Prior proceeding
Rule 147 of the Rules referenced: empowers Ministries/Departments to make their own arrangements for procurement of goods and services not available on the GeM portal.¶15
Prior proceeding
Tender published on the government procurement portal after approval of Competent Authority DTIDC and the Transport Department, and due evaluation by the Committee set up by the Competent Authority.¶16
Prior proceeding
Services required included supply of mechanized road sweeping, pressure, vacuum and high-pressure jet-type cleaning machines; per the GeM Availability Report & Past Transaction Summary the search result was 'category not available on GeM'.¶23
Prior proceeding
Tender already awarded to respondent no.6 on 01.04.2024 and work has already commenced.¶24

Maisur Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maisur Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parvesh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Pfizer Limited through Constituted Attorney Mr Samir Kazi Vs Government of National Capital Territory, Delhi & Ors.

Davinder Pal Singh Vs Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee & Ors.

Cdr Yogesh Mahla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Jat Vs Commissioner of Customs

Ushodaya Enterprizes Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

August Attorneys LLP Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sh. Vineet Airy & Anr. Vs Delhi Cantonment Board

Prashant Tandon Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shujaat Ali Vs Union of India and Ors.

Upendra Nath Dalai Vs Union of India

Rohit Goyat Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Ciss Services Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

National Testing Agency Vs Nishu Maurya & Ors.