Mds Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dbocwwb — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Mds Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Dbocwwb — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief in the writ; the petitioner is expressly noted to have liberty to file a civil suit for damages or any other appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition should succeed in quashing the Competent Authority's order dated 10.03.2026 cancelling the tender dated 29.09.2025 qua empanelment of agencies for management of Aadhaar centres under the UIDAI Scheme. +1 more

Court's answer

Judicial review is strictly limited where the Competent Authority has already determined that the award of the previous tender involved significant shortcomings and a failure to adhere to guidelines of the appropriate authority; in the absence of specific mala fide allegations, the court defers to the administrative findings and corrective measures and does not second-guess technical evaluations or procedural rectifications.

Ratio / Principle

The appropriate remedy for a claim of damages suffered pursuant to participation in a cancelled tender is a civil suit rather than a writ petition, because adjudication of such claims involves disputed questions of fact requiring full trial and evidentiary examination.

Key takeaways

No writ can be issued directing the authorities to act contrary to applicable rules and memorandums.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Anil Kshetarpal & Amit Mahajan, JJ.; order dated 17.04.2026) dismisses W.P.(C) 5085/2026 filed by MDS Solutions Pvt Ltd against DBOCWWB, challenging the Competent Authority's order dated 10.03.2026 cancelling the petitioner's tender dated 29.09.2025 qua empanelment of agencies for management of Aadhaar centres under the UIDAI Scheme. The cancellation rested on seven enumerated deficiencies (paras 2, 10-24), including non-incorporation of the revised UIDAI rate list notified 19.09.2025, discrepancies in age slabs for biometric updates, deviation from the UIDAI Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2022 on the in-house model, mixing of technical and financial parameters, camp-organisation clauses deviating from UIDAI guidelines, non-consideration of the UIDAI circular dated 12.03.2025, and inadequate data-protection safeguards. The Court holds (para 4) that damages claims arising from investments made pursuant to a cancelled tender raise disputed questions of fact fit only for a civil suit; that judicial review is strictly limited once the Competent Authority has found significant shortcomings, and, absent mala fide allegations, courts must defer to administrative findings and corrective measures rather than second-guess technical evaluations (paras 4-5); and that no writ can direct authorities to act contrary to applicable rules and memorandums (para 5). Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of; petitioner left free to pursue a civil suit for damages or other lawful remedy (paras 6-7).

$~25

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(C) 5085/2026 & CM APPL. 24957/2026, CM APPL. 24958/2026

MDS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Tripathi, Mr.Upender Kumar Nagar, Mr.Paritosh Kumar Gupta, Ms.Vaishnavi Rathoer, Ms.Sakshi Singh, Advocates.

versus DBOCWWB .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhay Dixit and Mr.Harish, Advocates.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN O R D E R

% 17.04.2026

Through this writ petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing of order passed by the Competent Authority on 10.03.2026, cancelling the tender DATED 29.09.2025 qua empanelment of agencies for management of Aadhar Centres under Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) Scheme.

The Competent Authority has found various deficiencies/short comings in award of previous tender qua empanelment; hence, the tender has been cancelled. The same are reproduced herein below: -

“And whereas, upon such examination, the following shortcomings and deficiencies have been observed in the tender document and bid submitted by you:

1. Non-incorporation of revised UIDAI rate list notified on 19 .09 .2025;

2. Discrepancies in age slabs for mandatory biometric updates;

Page 1 of 3

W.P.(C) 5085/2026

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 20/04/2026 at 15:42:58

3. Alleged deviation from UIDAI Office Memorandum dated 14.10.2022 regarding the In-house Model;

a) Aadhaar centres must be operated under the direct control and supervision of the Government department/registrar. Private vendors cannot independently run Aadhaar centres.

b) The department must provide or ensure: Premises/space for the Aadhaar centre, Required infrastructure and equipment, Secure network connectivity and compliance with UIDAI standards.

c) Agencies engaged for support services cannot treat Aadhaar centres as commercial projects. They cannot charge fees beyond the rates prescribed by UIDAI.

4. Mixing of technical and financial parameters in evaluation;

5. Clauses relating to role of empanelled agency in organizing Aadhaar camps;

a) In the tender document certain clauses appear to allow or imply that the empanelled private agency would organize Aadhaar camps independently, which creates ambiguity and potential deviation from UIDAI guidelines. 6. Non-consideration ofUIDAI Circular dated 12.03.2025; and

a) These circulars contain updated procedures, technical requirements, service charges, operational standards, and compliance conditions that must be followed by all Registrars and agencies operating Aadhaar centres.

7. Inadequate provisions concerning data protection and privacy safeguards.”

(emphasis in original)

The learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the issuance of tender, the Petitioner invested substantial financial resources, manpower and infrastructure for execution of the project and has thus, suffered damages.

The appropriate remedy for claiming damages lies in filing a civil suit rather than a writ petition, as the adjudication of such claims inevitably involves disputed questions of fact that require a full trial and evidentiary examination. Furthermore, the scope of judicial review is strictly limited in instances where the Competent Authority has already determined that the award of a previous tender involved

Page 2 of 3

W.P.(C) 5085/2026

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 20/04/2026 at 15:42:58

significant shortcomings and a failure to adhere to guidelines issued by the appropriate authority. In the absence of any specific allegations of mala fide , the court must defer to the administrative findings and the corrective measures taken by the Authority, as it is not the role of the judiciary to second-guess technical evaluations or procedural rectifications.

No writ can be issued directing the authorities to act contrary to applicable rules and memorandums.

Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

Needless to observe that the Petitioner, shall have the liberty to file a civil suit for damages or any other appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

APRIL 17, 2026

DU

Page 3 of 3

W.P.(C) 5085/2026

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 20/04/2026 at 15:42:58