Authority: High Court of Delhi

Order Date: 15 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: E‑TRAV Tech Limited and Verasys Limited filed seven writ petitions (W.P.(C) 6844/2026, 6846/2026, 6848/2026, 6849/2026, 8039/2026, 8045/2026, 8046/2026 and related CM applications) challenging technical disqualification in four separate Requests for Proposal (RFP) issued by the Union of India (Ministry of External Affairs) and the respective Indian Embassies/High Commissions for outsourcing Consular/Passport/Visa (CPV) services at missions in Kuwait, Abu Dhabi (UAE), Singapore and Canberra (Australia).
  • The RFPs required a two‑stage bidding process: a technical‑bid stage (minimum qualifying score 70 %) followed by a financial‑bid stage. The petitioners were informed they failed to achieve the 70 % threshold and were therefore excluded from the financial stage.
  • After a prior High Court judgment dated 10 Mar 2026 and a Supreme Court order dated 16 Apr 2026 directing the respondents to furnish a parameter‑wise breakup of marks within ten days, the respondents disclosed only the numerical marks, without any reasons or comparative benchmarks.
  • The petitioners alleged that the technical evaluation was arbitrary, opaque, and violated Rule 173(iv) of the General Financial Rules 2017, clauses of the Manual of Procurement of Non‑Consultancy Services 2025, and Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Submissions – Petitioners

  • Argued that the disclosed marks showed no justification for deductions; comparative criteria (e.g., Criteria 1(a), 2(b), 4(a), 6, 7(a), 7(b), 9) required a “best offer” benchmark which was never disclosed.
  • Demonstrated compliance with objective criteria (parking facilities, area of ICACs, number of counters, appointment‑slot availability, turnaround time, call‑centre facilities) yet received disproportionately low or zero marks (e.g., 0 marks for Criterion 5(b) in Canberra despite proposing a 30‑minute turnaround).
  • Highlighted inconsistent scoring across missions for identical documentation (e.g., E‑TRAV received 4/7 marks in Abu Dhabi and Canberra, 3/7 in Singapore, 0/7 in Kuwait for Criterion 9).
  • Presented financial‑bid comparison showing E‑TRAV as the L‑1 bidder in all four missions (e.g., AUD 38 vs. successful bid AUD 114 in Canberra).

Submissions – Respondents

  • Counsel Chetan Sharma (Additional Solicitor General) contended the petitions were barred by res judicata, as the earlier High Court judgment and Supreme Court order had already addressed the matter.
  • Asserted that the technical evaluation was conducted by expert committees in accordance with the RFP and GFR 2017, and that the petitioners were merely dissatisfied with the outcome.
  • Emphasised that the RFPs allowed discretion and that other bidders also received zero marks on some criteria; no procedural illegality was established.

Analysis – Court

  • Determined that the present petitions raise a fresh cause of action because the parameter‑wise marks were disclosed only after the Supreme Court order; earlier judgments could not have examined the merits of the technical evaluation.
  • Applied constitutional principles: evaluation must be fair, transparent, non‑arbitrary, and must satisfy Article 14’s “level playing field”.
  • Found that the respondents failed to disclose the basis for marks, violating Rule 173(iv) GFR 2017, Rule 189, and specific clauses of the Manual 2025 requiring reasoned debriefing.
  • Noted multiple instances of arbitrary deductions and inconsistent scoring for identical proposals, undermining the legitimacy of the tender process.
  • Concluded that the lack of recorded reasons rendered the technical evaluation unsustainable.

Final Outcome

  • The Court set aside the technical‑evaluation‑based disqualification and the award of the tender to the private respondents.
  • Directed the Union of India (Ministry of External Affairs) and the concerned Indian missions to issue fresh RFPs for CPV services in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra within one month of the judgment.
  • Permitted the existing incumbents to continue providing CPV services at all four missions until the fresh tender process is completed, to avoid service disruption.
  • Declared all pending applications in the present petitions closed.

Topics: Procurement Transparency, Constitutional Law, Public Service Outsourcing