Swift Events Vs Archaeological Survey of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

Swift Events Vs Archaeological Survey of India and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn; liberty to avail remedies under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to gather information on the alleged allotment of the Cafeteria to Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, and to file a fresh Petition in accordance with law if material information substantiating its stand is gathered; pending applications closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order rejecting the Petitioner's bid for the tender for 'Operating the Cafeteria at Qutub Minar Parking Complex' on a license fee basis ought to be quashed by writ of Certiorari, and the consequential award of the tender to the successful bidder set aside. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The present Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Key takeaways

Clarified that if the Petitioner gathers material information substantiating its stand that the allotment of the subject Cafeteria was made in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, it may, if so advised, file a fresh Petition in accordance with law.obiter¶¶18
The pending applications stand closed.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan), order dated 12.05.2026 in W.P.(C) 2160/2026: Swift Events filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash the Order rejecting its bid for the tender for 'Operating the Cafeteria at Qutub Minar Parking Complex' on a license fee basis, and alternatively a direction to set aside the consequential award of the tender to the successful bidder. The Petitioner contended that the subject Cafeteria had been allotted collectively in favour of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, which was impermissible and contrary to the tender terms; the Respondents contended the allotment was made exclusively in favour of Respondent No. 4. Before adjudication, counsel for the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the Petition with liberty to pursue remedies under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to obtain information on the alleged joint allotment. The Court dismissed the Petition as withdrawn, clarified that a fresh Petition may be filed in accordance with law should the Petitioner gather material information substantiating its stand, and closed the pending applications. The merits were not adjudicated.

$~3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 2160/2026, CM APPL. 10499/2026 and CM APPL. 18522/2026

SWIFT EVENTS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D.P Singh, Ms. Ishita Bedi, Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh, Advs.

versus

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA AND ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, SPC with Mr. Yash Agrawal, Ms. Sanjana Chib, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Narender Kumar, Ms. Vanshika Gupta, Mr. Prithvi G Nair, Advs. for R-4.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R % 12.05.2026

By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks issuance of writ in nature of Certiorari, for quashing the Order rejecting its bid submitted in relation to the tender for ‘Operating the Cafeteria at Qutub Minar Parking Complex’ on a license fee basis. In the alternative, the Petitioner also seeks issuance of direction to set-aside the consequential award of the tender in favour of the successful bidder.

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that the subject Cafeteria has been allotted in favour of the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 collectively, which, according to the Petitioner, is not permissible

This is a digitally signed order.

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 14/05/2026 at 12:43:34

in law and runs contrary to the terms governing the tender process. 3. Per contra , learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that the allotment of the subject Cafeteria has been made exclusively in favour of the Respondent No.4 and not jointly in favour of the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, as alleged.

At this stage, learned counsel representing the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present Petition with liberty to avail remedies under the Right to Information Act, 2005, in order to gather the relevant information regarding the alleged allotment of the subject Cafeteria in favour of the Respondent Nos.4 to 6.

Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

It is clarified that in the event the Petitioner is able to gather the material information substantiating its stand that the allotment of the subject Cafeteria has been made in favour of the Respondent Nos.4 to 6, the Petitioner, if so advised, may file a fresh Petition in accordance with law.

The pending applications also stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

MAY 12, 2026 jai/hr

This is a digitally signed order.

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 14/05/2026 at 12:43:34