Authority: High Court of Delhi (Delhi High Court)

Order Date: 15 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Gorkha Security Services (petitioners, a registered partnership firm providing security services) versus Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DTIDC, respondent, a Delhi government corporation).
  • Petition: Challenges Tender No.13/2026‑27 dated 28‑04‑2026 for "Operation and maintenance of electromechanical services, housekeeping, security and allied installations" at Maharana Pratap ISBT, Kashmere Gate.
  • Grounds Raised by Petitioner:
  • Alleged exclusionary nature: Clause 1.8 and Clause 2(a) of Section 3 restrict participation to companies, barring proprietorships, partnerships, JVs, and consortiums, allegedly contravening Rule 173 of the General Financial Rules, 2017.
  • Violation of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and Delhi Rules 2023 for not specifying a supervisor in security services.
  • Technical evaluation framework (Clause 9.2.2) assigns 25 marks each to years of operation, annual turnover, manpower strength, and certifications, totalling 100 marks, purportedly favouring the incumbent BVG India Pvt. Ltd.
  • Financial bid evaluation (Clause 11) permits technical scores to override the lowest‑price (L1) bidder, allegedly tailored to benefit the incumbent.
  • Tender published on https://govtprocurement.delhi.gov.in/nic instead of the Government e‑Marketplace (GeM), claimed to bypass GeM rules (Rule 149 GFR) and allow “allied” activities not permissible on GeM.
  • No exemption for MSMEs or start‑ups on experience/turnover criteria, unlike GeM provisions.
  • Estimated contract value Rs 23 crores, manpower requirement ~500 staff.
  • Respondent’s Submissions:
  • GeM mandatory only for goods/services listed on the portal; the eight services (electromechanical, housekeeping, security, etc.) are not available on GeM, per the GeM Availability Report (Annexure R‑2).
  • Single‑entity procurement justified for efficiency, accountability, and clear chain of command at a high‑footfall terminal.
  • Companies provide a regulated hierarchical structure; partnerships/proprietorships lack perpetual succession, potentially affecting contract continuity.
  • Cited precedent (Top Edge Security & Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi) that exclusion of certain entities is a procurement policy matter, not judicially reviewable.
  • Adopted Quality‑Cost‑Based Selection (QCBS) methodology under Rule 192 GFR, with a 70:30 technical‑financial weightage, deemed permissible.
  • Stressed that compliance with PSARA and 2023 Rules is the contractor’s responsibility.
  • Noted that three bidders qualified technically, two scoring full 100 marks, indicating the criteria were met.
  • Court’s Findings:
  • Bundling eight distinct services in a single tender is reasonable to achieve seamless efficiency and administrative control; not arbitrary.
  • The petitioner, being a partnership firm offering only security services, lacks capacity to provide the other seven services, thus has no locus to challenge the tender.
  • Even if the tender were posted on GeM, the petitioner would remain ineligible due to inability to meet the multi‑service scope.
  • The GeM report submitted by the respondent was deemed “cryptic” and did not conclusively prove non‑availability; however, the court refrained from intervening as the petitioner could not bid anyway.
  • Challenges to exclusion of consortiums and partnership firms are academic because the petitioner did not demonstrate any consortium arrangement.
  • The court declined to comment on other contested tender conditions, leaving them open for future proceedings if appropriate.
  • The decision and observations will be placed before the DTIDC Board for consideration.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit; pending applications are disposed of. DTIDC is directed to present the court’s observations to its Board before final award.

Topics: Public Procurement, Tender Evaluation