Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 08.07.2026
M/S RAINBOW .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Parth Yadav, Ms. Mani Munjal and Ms. Nikita Sukheja, Advs.
Through: Mr. Rajinder Wali, Adv.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the communication / order / decision dated 11.06.2026 as mentioned in the tender summary report as downloaded from eProcurements System, Government of India so far as it relates to the Petitioner firm at Serial Number 4 as contained in
ANNEXURE P-1 to the present Petition; b) Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent to reconsider the bid offer of the Petitioner before finalising the tender bids; c) Allow the Petition with costs; d) Pass any such further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper;
2. The facts which can be noted from the pleadings are that the petitioner firm is in the business of providing golf carts on rent, having an office in New Delhi. In this regard emphasis is supplied on various documents including GST registration and a brochure outlining the firm’s profile at annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively.
3. The respondent on 15.05.2026 issued a tender notice inviting bids for empanelment of an agency for providing low floor battery operated golf carts on hiring basis for various events at the Bharat Mandapam. The petitioner submitted its bid on 28.05.2026 along with the requisite documents. The petitioner firm received an acknowledgment and confirmation on the same date being 28.05.2026.
4. However, the bid of the petitioner was rejected for not fulfilling the technical eligibility criteria.
5. Mr. Parth Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit, this petition in effect challenges the action of the respondent rejecting the bid. It is his case that the sole ground for rejection of the bid of the petitioner firm is the fact that it is not based in Delhi/New Delhi which according to him is erroneous.
6. According to him as per the GST registration certificate dated 27.05.2026 annexed at P-4 would show that the address of the firm is at Kasturba Gandhi Marg in New Delhi, which is sufficient to meet the requirement of clause 11(1) of the tender.
7. Mr. Yadav has also drawn our attention to the communications between the parties at annexures P-7 and P-8 wherein clarification had been sought from the petitioner firm by the respondent regarding the address of the former. Vide letter dated 06.06.2026 the petitioner firm clarified that its address is of Kasturba Gandhi Marg.
8. Mr. Rajinder Wali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent at the very outset stated that the petitioner firm is not based in Delhi. In this regard he has drawn our attention to the registration certificate issued to the petitioner firm by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises which would show that the petitioner firm is located in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. He further argued that the GST certificate which is being relied upon by the petitioner firm to establish that it is based in Delhi is dated 27.05.2026 i.e., issued one day before the petitioner firm submitted its bid on 28.05.2026.
9. Further he argued that the tender conditions are clear. It clearly stipulate that the address of the firm must be in Delhi / New Delhi and if the same is not met then the bid of the said applicant shall be summarily rejected.
10. Mr. Yadav in his rejoinder submission has argued that the petitioner firm meets all the necessary eligibility criteria. According to him, the documents submitted by the petitioner firm along with the tender bid would also show the petitioner’s address in Delhi, being Plot No. 6-B Jonapur, Chattarpur, Delhi 110047. He has drawn our attention to the invoice dated 06.09.2025 at page 115 of the paperbook as well as the Service Agreement between the petitioner firm and a third party at page 133 of the paperbook to argue that the address of the petitioner firm is in Chattarpur, Delhi. Further he has argued that this Chattarpur address finds mention in the communication dated 06.06.2026 issued by the petitioner firm to the respondent at annexure P[7].
11. He has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his submissions:i. Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 (3) SCC 489; ii. Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 449; iii. M/S Star Enterprises and Others v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Others, 1990 (3) SCC 280 1994; iv. Tata Cellular v. Union of India 1994 (6) SCC 651; v. Montecarlo Ltd. and Anr. v. National High Speed Rail Corporation Ltd, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 494; and vi. Eva Agro Feeds Pvt. Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank and Anr,
12. In substance, the contention of Mr. Yadavis the action of the respondent is in violation of Rule 144 and 173 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, which mandate a fair and transparent procurement procedure. The same is also in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, more so since the communication dated 11.06.2026 is a non-speaking one.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we are not impressed by the submissions made by Mr. Yadav. Concedingly, there is no challenge to the stipulation in the tender notification being Clause 11(i), which reads as under: “(i) The registered business office of bidding firm/agency (i.e. the bidder) should be located in Delhi/New Delhi. The bidder is required to upload the proof of office address along with telephone number during the online bid submission. In case, the firm/agency located outside of Delhi or New Delhi, their online bid application should be summarily rejected.”
14. The case of the petitioner as contended by the counsel is that the petitioner has an office at Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. He also states it has a GST registration on that address and as such the respondent could not have rejected the bid of the petitioner as being not eligible on that count.
15. On a specific query to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since when the petitioner is occupying the aforesaid address, he states that the same is from 27.05.2026 which is immediately before the submission of the bid. On a further query, on the issue of the date of issuance of the GST certificate, he stated the same was on 27.05.2026.
16. The reason given by Mr. Wali for the respondent to stipulate the Clause 11, is as the subject matter of the tender concerns providing golf carts, for usage at Bharat Mandapam, it was deemed appropriate that the bidder must be situated in New Delhi, to meet the eventuality if there is a breakdown of a cart, the awardee is able to replace the Golf Cart on a short notice. We find this submission of Mr. Wali appealing.
17. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has also submitted documents along with tenders to show that the petitioner has an address also at Chattarpur, Delhi does not really appeal us for the simple reason, that the petitioner does not have a GST certificate on the said address and as such, the presence is doubtful. In any case, the depiction of an address which is a mere warehouse and not a registered business office of the petitioner firm, would not meet the requirement of the technical eligibility criteria. Similarly, the address at Kasturba Gandhi Marg as represented by the petitioner was depicted by the petitioner for the purpose of qualifying the tender conditions only. Hence, it is clear that the petitioner did not have a registered office in Delhi/New Delhi to meet the criteria.
18. The judgments which have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no applicability in the facts of this case. We are of the view that the petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. We order so. The pending application is dismissed as having become infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J JULY 08, 2026 rt