High Court Refuses To Interfere In Delhi Govt's Sports Equipment Tenders, Says Belated Challenge By Non-Bidders Not Maintainable
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with multiple tender processes initiated by the Directorate of Education for procurement of sports and outdoor gym equipment, holding that a belated challenge by non-participating bidders is not maintainable.A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan dismissed a writ petition filed by GeM-registered sellers and MSME...
The Delhi High Court has refused to interfere with multiple tender processes initiated by the Directorate of Education for procurement of sports and outdoor gym equipment, holding that a belated challenge by non-participating bidders is not maintainable.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan dismissed a writ petition filed by GeM-registered sellers and MSME entities challenging various tender conditions, including requirements relating to experience, turnover, sample submission and the stipulation of having a functional office and warehouse in Delhi/NCR.
The Court noted that the impugned tenders were floated between November 2025 and January 2026, whereas the petition was filed only in April 2026, by which time the procurement process had substantially progressed.
Emphasising that challenges to tender conditions must be made with promptitude, the Bench held that interference at such a stage would disrupt ongoing public procurement and adversely affect public interest, particularly where the goods were intended for use in government schools and sports facilities.
“A challenge to tender conditions is ordinarily expected to be laid with due expedition. Where a party, being aware of the terms of a tender, stands by and approaches the Court only after the process has substantially advanced, it would not be right to intervene in an ongoing procurement, particularly where third-party rights may have intervened or where public interest in timely completion of procurement would be seriously affected. This consideration assumes added significance where the challenger did not participate in the tender process,” it observed.
At the same time, the Court clarified that non-participation is not an absolute bar but in such cases the burden lies heavily on the petitioners to show that the impugned conditions themselves foreclosed meaningful participation.
On merits, the Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, observing that formulation of tender conditions and eligibility criteria falls within the domain of the procuring authority.
It held that unless the conditions are shown to be manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory or lacking rational nexus, the Court would not substitute its view for that of the authority.
The Bench also accepted the respondents' explanation that conditions such as sample submission, experience thresholds and service support requirements were linked to quality, safety and operational considerations, particularly given that the equipment was intended for use by schoolchildren.
The Court however declined to examine the validity of certain conditions, including the requirement of a functional office and warehouse in Delhi/NCR, noting that the petitioners had approached the Court belatedly and had not participated in the bidding process. It left these issues open to be considered in an appropriate case.
As such, the Court dismissed the plea.
Appearance: Ms. Diya Kapur, Senior Advocate with Ms. Aanchal Basur, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr. Devvrat Yadav (SPC) with Mr. Kush Garg and Mr. Girish Kumar, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Sameer Vashisth Standing Counsel for GNCTD, (Civil) alongwith Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Ms. Harshita Nathrani and Ms. Priyanka Jindal, Advocates and Mr. Ajay Kumar, LA (Sports) & Mr. Sandeep Dabas, OSD, PE & NI.
Case title: M/S Utkarsh Enterprises & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 4487/2026