* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 10.01.2018
+ W.P.(C) 10931/2017
SARVESH SECURITY SERVICE PVT. LTD. ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aastha Jain, Adv.
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Bansal with
Ms. Seema Dolo Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha,
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
1. Issue notice.
2. Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel accepts notice for the
University of Delhi.
3. With consent, the application is taken up for disposal.
4. On 08.12.2017, this Court by its judgment had set aside
the tender rejection of the Delhi University, which had sought
recourse to Clause 6.2 of the NIT and Clause 7 of the
Instructions to Bidders. The Court had concluded in the
W.P.(C) No.10931/2017 Page 1 of 5
judgment that the stipulation with respect to considering of
tenders did not spell out qualifying conditions except stating
that an entity having been blacklisted, would be debarred.
University had relied upon Rule 151 of the General Financial
Rules, which is of bar of entering into contracts, with parties or
individuals, who are convicted for any offence punishable under
the Prevention of Corruption Act or Indian Penal Code. In the
present case, one of the petitioner’s Directors has been charged
for an offence under Section 354 IPC.
5. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the petitioner’s
representation was considered by the University and rejected by
a detailed reasoned order. The said order of 05.01.2018 inter
alia reads as follows:
“Accordingly, the Committee has
considered your representation and has come to a
conclusion that your technical disqualification has
been rightly carried out based on the following
A. The University deals with the education of
young students, including female students. Along
with hostels for girls and other students including
foreign national which require round the clock
security services for their safety and well being.
Any such allegation, serious in nature, which puts
doubts in the minds of public authorized involved
not only in providing education but also for their
physical well being in and around the campus,
raises apprehensions on credibility of such bidders
W.P.(C) No.10931/2017 Page 2 of 5
and thus, such bidders cannot be permitted in the
University considering the larger public interest.
B. Further, as per the extant terms conditions of
the Tender Document including but not limited to
Clause 7.06, 7.07 and 7.12. The representation
made by M/s. Sarvesh Security Services Pvt. Ltd. is
not tremble and the University reserves the right to
cancel / withdraw / disqualify or reject the bidder.
C. Further, since the complaint was filed after
opening of the financial Bid on 05.12.2017 at
03.00 pm cannot be considered by the University.
Moreover based on similar and indexical ground
other hiders the presents Tender have also been
According, after perusal of your
representation, the committee floured no meant in
the representation, as the same does not establish
the credibility beyond doubt, which is a necessity
because the University deals with the education of
young students, including female students decide
the employers of the University and being funded
from public money. Thus any such apprehension
which puts doubts in the credibility, cannot be
neglected in view of the larger public interest.
Hence, it is informed that your
representation cannot be considered.”
6. The Court is of the opinion that the rejection of the
petitioner’s tender on a facial consideration, as it were, is
entirely unwarranted. While the Court was circumspect and did
W.P.(C) No.10931/2017 Page 3 of 5
not grant the relief by a direction to the University to take the
bid and consider it on its merits in the first instance, that did not
mean that the observations made by it with respect to the
eligibility or mandatory conditions, nowhere spelt out any
disqualification of the kind, now used by the University, in any
way, are not final. In other words, those observations are, in
fact, findings which bind the University. All that the University
was asked to do was to take a second look and decide for itself
whether to consider the tender on the merits. Today, this Court
in Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. University of Delhi
W.P.(C) No.252/2008 has, in almost identical circumstances,
held that the mere implication of a party in a First Information
Report per se would not disqualify it and that the condition in
Clause 6.2 – relied by the University in this case, relates to
ascertainment or verification of the particulars mandated in
Clause 3. Furthermore, the Court also held that Clause 7 is to
operate at the stage of offer of evaluation of the various rival
bids. In this case, concededly that stage has not arisen.
7. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that the
rejection of the petitioner’s representation and consequently, its
tender, are arbitrary. The University is directed to evaluate it
technically and if found otherwise eligible, proceed to evaluate
its financial bids. Like in Orion Security Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v.
University of Delhi (supra), the University is at liberty to take a
final decision on whether to award or not award the tender
W.P.(C) No.10931/2017 Page 4 of 5
having regard to Clause 7 and the circumstances of the case,
after evaluating all the facts and in the light of the offer of
evaluation and the merits of all tenders.
The application is accordingly allowed.
Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
JANUARY 10, 2018
W.P.(C) No.10931/2017 Page 5 of 5