Delhi High Court - Orders
Nand Kishor Goyal vs Union Of India And Others on 11 March, 2026
Author: V. Kameswar Rao
Bench: V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~82
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2941/2026 CM APPL. 14193/2026 CM APPL. 14194/2026
NAND KISHOR GOYAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Piyush Vatsa, Mr Rahul Raj
Mishra and Mr Avinash Ankit, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC
with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr.
Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Varun Pratap
Singh, Advs. and Dev Pratap Shahi,
GP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
ORDER
% 11.03.2026 CM APPL. 14194/2026 (for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2941/2026
3. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:
"(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the communication dated 23.02.2026 issued by the Respondent No.1; and/or
(b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to allow the Petitioner's firm to participate in the financial bid of the Tender 2025_MES_744987_1 dated 17.12.2025 for Special Repairs to BLDG No. B-06 and NC -01 (Type II & Type III) Block and D-06 (Type-IV) Blocks, BLDGS of Residential Area at Deal Under GE(I) R&D Dehradun; and/or
(c) Any other appropriate writ/order/direction may also be passed in favour of the petitioner against the respondents which this This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 21:16:29 Hon'ble Court deems fit proper in the facts and circumstances stated herein above."
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned communication rejects the bid of the petitioner for certain works at Dehradun as the petitioner's firm is said to have been banned by the HQ ADG (NEI) on the ground of cancellation of the Shillong Contract. This according to the petitioner is not sustainable as a challenge to the action of the said authority i.e., HQ ADG (NEI) was made in the arbitration proceedings and the petitioner has succeeded in those proceedings inasmuch as cancellation of the Shillong contract has been held as illegal. Thus, the basis of the alleged ban does not survive any further.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the said award is under challenge in a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
6. On a specific query from the Court, whether the award has been stayed, the answer is in the negative.
7. If that be so, appropriate shall be for us to issue notice.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent states that till the next date of hearing, the financial bid of the subject tender shall not be opened.
9. As requested by the counsel for the respondent to take instructions, re- notify on 13.03.2026.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J MARCH 11, 2026/msh This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/03/2026 at 21:16:29