Interim Protection Against Blacklisting Does Not Dispense With Bidder's Obligation Of Disclosure In Tender: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that interim protection granted against a blacklisting order does not dispense with a bidder's obligation to make complete and candid disclosure about pending action in a tender process.

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan observed,

“The tendering authority, being the author of the RFE, is entitled to insist upon complete disclosure of any order of blacklisting together with all subsequent developments, including interim judicial orders. Whether such interim protection diluted, suspended or neutralised the effect of the blacklisting order was a matter for the tendering authority to assess in terms of the tender conditions. The bidder could not unilaterally proceed on the assumption that grant of interim protection dispensed with the obligation of disclosure itself.”

The Court made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by M/s Velocis Systems Pvt. Ltd. challenging its technical disqualification from a tender floated by the National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated (NICSI).

Petitioner had participated in a tender process for empanelment of agencies for deployment of resources for office support and project management services. Its bid was rejected on the ground that it had furnished incorrect and incomplete information regarding blacklisting.

Petitioner argued that although it had been blacklisted by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) on December 9, 2025, the operation of the blacklisting order had been stayed by the Delhi High Court on December 29, 2025.

Since the bid was submitted on December 30, 2025, after the grant of interim protection, the petitioner contended that the allegation of incorrect disclosure was misconceived.

NICSI however argued that the declaration-cum-undertaking submitted by the petitioner regarding blacklisting was ambiguous and failed to candidly disclose the existence of the APEDA blacklisting order.

It relied on Clause 8.1(c) of the Request for Empanelment (RFE), which permitted summary rejection if any information furnished by the bidder was found to be false or incorrect.

The Court noted that the petitioner's declaration stated that it “has not been blacklisted or not under active blacklisting period/active debarred list,” which, according to the Court, was not a “clear or unequivocal assertion” regarding its blacklisting status.

“Once it is found that the declaration furnished by the Petitioner did not clearly and unambiguously conform to the requirement prescribed under the RFE, the Respondent cannot be faulted for treating the same as non-compliant,” the Court said.

It added that in matters of public procurement, where eligibility is determined on the basis of self-declarations, strict adherence to the prescribed format assumes critical importance.

“Any ambiguity in a material declaration going to eligibility cannot be treated as a mere technical irregularity, particularly where the consequences under the tender document provide for summary rejection. Such assessment lies squarely within the domain of the tendering authority,” it said.

The Court further reiterated that constitutional courts do not sit in appeal over decisions of tendering authorities unless it is arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to tender conditions.

As such, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Appearance: Mr. Rajesh Mohan Sinha, Mr. Prateek Mohan Sinha, Ms. Namita Sinha, Ms. Nandini Harsh and Mr. Krishnendu Das, Advs. for Petitioner; Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, SPC along with Mr. Pravar Dennison and Mr. Ranjan Mozumdar, Advs. for Respondents

Case title: M/S Velocis Systems Pvt. Ltd v. National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated (NICSI)

Case no.: W.P.(C) 3987/2026

Click here to read order