Ms Velocis Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated Nicsi

Delhi HC10 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/3019/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tender/empanelment rejection dispute: NICSI rejected petitioner's bid on ground of false blacklisting undertaking (technical evaluation report and e-mail dated 06.03.2026); APEDA blacklisting of 09.12.2025 stayed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 19821/2025 (order dated 29.12.2025); tender submitted 30.12.2025; Court converted writ petition into representation to NICSI, to be decided within two weeks; interim direction that financial bids not be opened meanwhile; exemption application allowed; pending application disposed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of by treating it as a representation to be decided by the respondent (NICSI) within two weeks; financial bids not to be opened until the representation is decided. ¶¶35

Ms Velocis Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated Nicsi — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by treating it as a representation to be decided by the respondent (NICSI) within two weeks; financial bids not to be opened until the representation is decided.

¶¶35

Issue for consideration

Whether NICSI's rejection of the petitioner's bid for empanelment (Summary of Technical Evaluation Report and e-mail dated 06.03.2026) on the ground of submitting a false undertaking for blacklisting was justified, given that a learned Single Judge had stayed APEDA's blacklisting of the petitioner.

¶¶24

Court's answer

This writ petition shall be considered as a representation on behalf of the petitioner for a decision by the respondent.

¶¶32

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition, treated as a representation, is to be decided within two weeks, and till such time the representation is decided, the financial bids shall not be opened.

¶¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.; oral) disposed of W.P.(C) 3019/2026 filed by M/s Velocis Systems Pvt Ltd challenging the Summary of Technical Evaluation Report dated 06.03.2026 and order vide e-mail dated 06.03.2026 of respondent NICSI rejecting its bid under RFE Ref No. NICSI/OFFICE SUPPORT and PMS /2025/14 for empanelment of agencies for deployment of resources for office support, project management support and roll out, on the ground of submitting a false undertaking for blacklisting. Background per counsel: APEDA had blacklisted the petitioner on 09.12.2025 (received by petitioner on 22.12.2025); a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 19821/2025 (order dated 29.12.2025) had stayed that blacklisting; NICSI was stated to have been a party there; the petitioner submitted its tender to NICSI on 30.12.2025. Noting the respondent's stand calling disqualified bidders to submit representations, the Court treated the writ petition as a representation on behalf of the petitioner for decision by the respondent within two weeks, and directed that till such decision the financial bids shall not be opened. Exemption application (CM APPL. 14560/2026) was allowed subject to just exceptions; the pending application (CM APPL. 14559/2026) was disposed of as infructuous.

¶1

$~113

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision : 10.03.2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 3019/2026

¶5

MS VELOCIS SYSTEMS PVT LTD .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Rajesh Mohan Sinha, Mr. Prateek Mohan Sinha, Ms. Namita Sinha, Ms. Nandini Harsh, Mr. Krishnendu Das, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE SERVICES

¶9

INCORPORATED NICSI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi (SPC) Mr. Madhav Bajaj, Mr. Ranjan Mazumdar, Advs.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

¶12

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )

¶13

CM APPL. 14560/2026(exemption)

¶14

Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶15

The application is disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(C) 3019/2026 CM APPL. 14559/2026

¶17

This petition has been filed with the following prayers:

¶18

“It is, therefore, expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus, certiorari or any other writ or direction or order whereby quashing THE SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT DATED 06.03.2026 AND ORDER VIDE E-MAIL 06.03.2026 passed by respondent whereby not accepting the

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.03.2026 15:45:56

¶21

W.P.(C) 3019/2026 Page 1 of 3

¶22

bid of the petitioner for further evaluation, being arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the order dated 29.12.2025 passed in writ petition (civil) bearing number 19821/2025 And may further be pleased to direct the respondent to consider the bid of the petitioner for tender vides Ref No. NICSI/OFFICE SUPPORT and PMS /2025/14 request for empanelment (RFE) of agencies for deployment of resources for office support, and project management support and roll out.

¶23

Such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

¶24

In effect the challenge in this writ petition is to an email dated 06.03.2026 issued by the respondent/NICSI herein whereby the tender of the petitioner for empanelment of agencies for deployment of resources for office support and project management support and rollout was rejected on the ground of submitting a false undertaking for blacklisting.

¶25

The Submission of Mr. Rajesh Mohan Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner is that though APEDA has blacklisted the petitioner on 09.12.2025, the same was received by the petitioner only on 22.12.2025. According to him, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of a writ petition whereby the learned Single Judge has stayed the blacklisting by APEDA.

¶26

It is pursuant thereto that on 30.12.2025, the petitioner had submitted his tender with the respondent and because of the fact that the undertaking on which much reliance has been placed by the respondents was lying in his office, the same could not be corrected before the tender was submitted to the respondents. He would submit there was no reason once the Court has granted the stay for the petitioner not to communicate the same to the

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Signed By:PRADEEP SHARMA Signing Da te:2 3.03.2026 15:45:56

¶29

W.P.(C) 3019/2026 Page 2 of 3

¶30

respondents. According to him, when the stay was granted, NICSI was a party in the said writ petition, the NICSI should have accepted the bid.

¶31

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has justified the impugned communication in the facts of this case.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and also noting the stand of the respondent calling the disqualified bidders to submit their representation, we are of the view that appropriate shall be that this writ petition shall be considered as a representation on behalf of the petitioner for a decision by the respondent.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondent states that the representation shall be decided within two weeks.

¶34

If that be so, we dispose of the writ petition by making it clear that the writ petition shall be treated as a representation to be decided within two weeks from today and till such time the representation is decided, the financial bids shall not be opened.

¶35