Dismissed¶¶18

M/S Indraprastha Services v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC7 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/3101/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: tender cancellation; GeM contract GEMC-51168773897096; Bid GEM/2025/B/6712650; unsuccessful bidder; writ of mandamus; hiring of 64 vehicles; vehicles manufactured prior to 2023; vehicles not in successful bidder's name; violation of contract terms; complaint examined and found without merits; Railways employees' vehicles; Union of India; assurance to examine future complaints; writ petition dismissed. Useful for: procurement/tender disputes where a losing bidder seeks cancellation of an award on compliance grounds and the court declines absent demonstrated merit.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; petition dismissed. Recorded assurance from Respondents' counsel that future complaints will be promptly looked into and appropriate action taken in accordance with law. ¶¶18

M/S Indraprastha Services Vs Union of India & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; petition dismissed. Recorded assurance from Respondents' counsel that future complaints will be promptly looked into and appropriate action taken in accordance with law.

¶¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the contract awarded by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 should be cancelled on the ground that Respondent No.2 supplied vehicles manufactured prior to 2023 which were not in Respondent No.2's name, i.e., that the terms of the contract were violated.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

Keeping in view the Respondents' submission that the Petitioner's complaint had been examined and found without merits, the Court dismissed the writ petition seeking cancellation/withdrawal of the tender awarded to Respondent No.2.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

In lieu of further orders, learned counsel for the Respondents, on instructions, recorded an assurance that any complaint received in future would be promptly looked into and appropriate action in accordance with law taken; the Court thereafter held no further order was required.obiter¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Civil) dismissed — Petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder in a tender floated on 01.10.2025 for hiring 64 vehicles for two years, sought cancellation/withdrawal of Contract No. GEMC-51168773897096 dated 02.12.2025 (Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6712650) awarded by Respondent No.1 (Union of India) to Respondent No.2, without challenging the correctness of the award itself. Allegation: Respondent No.2 supplied vehicles manufactured prior to 2023 and not in its own name, violating the contract terms. Respondents submitted the complaint had been examined and found without merits, the Petitioner having wrongly presumed parked Railways employees' vehicles to be those supplied by Respondent No.2. Court dismissed the petition; Respondents' counsel assured prompt action on future complaints. No statute or precedent discussed. (Delhi HC, Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ., 07.04.2026.)

¶1

$~11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 3101/2026 & CM APPL. 14956/2026 M/S INDRAPRASTHA SERVICES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv.

¶4

versus

¶5

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

¶6

Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley CGSC along with Mr. Akshay Sharma GP, Mr. Dev Shahi and Mr. Yogay Bhatia, Advocates for Respondent No.1

¶7

Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sachdeva & Mr. Ashish Garg, Advs. for R2

¶8

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

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 07.04.2026

¶11

The present petition is filed praying for cancellation/ withdrawal of the tender awarded by Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.2 bearing Contract No. GEMC-51168773897096 dated 02.12.2025 (Bid No. GEM/2025/B/6712650, dated 01.10.2025).

¶12

The Petitioner is an unsuccessful bidder in a tender which was floated on 01.10.2025 for hiring 64 vehicles on monthly basis for a period of two years.

¶13

The Petitioner does not challenge the correctness of award of tender in favour of Respondent No. 2. It prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents to cancel the contract awarded to Respondent No. 2 on the ground that Respondent No. 2

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 09/04/2026 at 13:26:16

¶16

has supplied vehicles which were manufactured prior to 2023 and the vehicles are not in the name of Respondent No. 2 (‘the successful bidder’). It is the Petitioner’s contention that the terms of the contract have been violated.

¶17

Learned counsel representing the Respondents submit that the complaint submitted by the Petitioner has been examined and found without merits. It is submitted that the Petitioner has given the list of vehicles belonging to the employees of Railways which were parked outside the office. He submits that the Petitioner has wrongly presumed the vehicles to have been supplied by Respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that even with regard to second grievance, the matter has been examined and found without merits.

¶18

Keeping in view the aforesaid position, the writ petition is dismissed. Learned counsel representing the Respondents, on instructions, assures the Court that if any complaint is received in future, the same shall be promptly looked into and appropriate action in accordance with law shall be taken.

¶19

In view of the aforesaid, no further order is required to be passed.

¶20

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

¶21

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

¶22

APRIL 7, 2026 “SS”

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 09/04/2026 at 13:26:16

M/S Indraprastha Services v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Indraprastha Services v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ex Ct Ashok Kumar Sahoo Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ravinder Singh Vs Indian Bank & Anr.

Nuraisa Khatoon Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sh Dinesh Kumar Vs State Bank of India and Others

Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appraisement)

Durgam Santoshini Vs National Testing Agency Nta & Ors.

Tata Play Ltd. Vs Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs & Ors.

M/S Supreme Build-Cap Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle (5), Delhi

Ex Ct Ashok Kumar Sahoo Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Sahaj Solar Limited Vs Border Security Force & Ors.

M/S Sahaj Solar Limited Vs Border Security Force & Ors.

Nb Sub Ramakant Singh Vs Union of India

M/S Rajender Tourist through Its Proprietor Mr Ajay Vashisht Vs Directorate of Education & Anr.

Lt Col Jerin Kuruvilla Vs Union of India & Ors.