Delhi High Court - Orders
Sgivs Global Llc vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~114
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 15948/2025
SGIVS GLOBAL LLC .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Mr. Sandeep
Sethi, Sr. Advocates, Mr. Siddharth
Dharamadhikari, Ms. Devanshi
Singh, Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh,
Mr. Naman Tandon, Ms. Charu
Trivedi, Mr. Aditya Krishna, Ms.
Shivangi Agarwal and Ms.
Shambhavi Singh, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Mr. Akash
Mishra, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Ms. Akshi
Bali, Legal Consultant, Mr. Mayank
Sansanwal for MEA and Mr. Adhiraj
Singh, GP, Advs. for R-1 and 2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
ORDER
% 16.10.2025 CM APPL.65249/2025 (Exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 15948/2025 and CM APPL.65248/2025 (Stay)
3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing an order dated 26.09.2025, whereby the petitioner has been debarred from participating in all future tenders of Respondent No. 1/Ministry of External Affairs and Indian Missions abroad for a period of two years.
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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a reputed company with a significant track record and has been an established partner of the respondents, having handled a substantial portion of the work covered by the tender which led to the issuance of the impugned debarring order.
5. The factual matrix put forth by the petitioner is that respondent no.2 issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) dated 31.01.2025, bearing Tender No. Abu/Cons/415/09/2024 for selection of a Service Provider to provide Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) services on behalf of the Indian Mission in Abu Dhabi.
6. The petitioner submitted its technical and financial bid on 01.03.2025 and emerged as the L-1 bidder upon opening of the bids on 28.03.2025, having obtained the highest marks in the technical evaluation.
7. Subsequently, a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 4181/2025 was filed by BLS International Services Ltd., a rival bidder on 01.04.2025.
8. Certain interim orders came to be passed in the said writ petition. In particular, attention is drawn to an order dated 03.04.2025 whereby it was, inter alia, directed as under:
"3. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 22.07.2025. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Let an affidavit in reply be filed by the respondents within three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.
4. In the meantime, we provide that the award of tender shall be subject to further orders that may be passed by the Court in this writ petition. We further direct that the entity to whom a letter of intent is issued shall be intimated by the tendering authority about the pendency of the present proceedings as well as the interim order passed by the Court.
5. We further provide that the successful tenderer or the party to whom the letter of intent is issued shall not claim any equity in its favour.
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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00
6. List on 22.07.2025."
9. The aforesaid order was followed by order dated 09.05.2025 which, inter alia, directs as under:
"4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the report, what we find is that in the application, certain averments have been made disclosing certain FIRs having been lodged against representative of the respondent no.6. Even otherwise, considering the nature of work that would be performed on award of the tender finally and the sensitivity involved therein, it would be more appropriate for the respondents to verify the antecedents/criminal antecedents of the party concerned before final award is made."
10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the circumstances that arose after the declaration of the petitioner as L-1 bidder were unanticipated and led to uncertainty. Therefore, various correspondences were exchanged between the parties, inter alia, seeking clarity on the implications of the Court's order. At one stage, the petitioner also sought indemnity protection on account thereof.
11. The petitioner is stated to have made various representations, dealing with the difficulties created by the pendency of the present petition and that the consequential impact on the upfront costs and the risk assumed by the petitioner under the tender.
12. Although a Letter of Intent ('LOI') dated 17.04.2025 was issued to the petitioner, it was subject to the observations/directions issued vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Division bench of this Court.
13. It is notable that on account of all the aforesaid circumstances, ultimately, vide notice dated 26.06.2025 issued by the Counsellor, Embassy of India, the tender process itself was annulled. The notice dated 26.06.2025, reads as under:
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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00
14. Significantly, the petitioner's Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was also returned by the respondent on 07.07.2025. It was only thereafter that a show cause notice dated 28.07.2025 was issued by respondent no.1 seeking to debar the petitioner. The petitioner, as regards the said show cause notice, submitted an elaborate response which annexed as Annexure P-39 to the present petition.
15. The following contentions have been raised in the show cause notice dated 28.07.2025:
(i) that the petitioner/company failed to sign the contract/agreement within the stipulated period of 30 days or during the extended period so granted, despite being declared the lowest bidder (L1).
(ii) that the said conduct amounts to violation of the bid terms, to non-
performance and disruption of the procurement process.
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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00
(iii) that the petitioner's conduct has undermined the sanctity and credibility of the entire tendering process.
(iv) that the petitioner with its aforesaid conduct has deprived other bidders of a fair opportunity and thereby stalled critical improvements in CPV services.
16. Ultimately, the impugned debarment order dated 26.09.2025 was issued by respondent no.1. The said order reads as under :
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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00 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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00
17. Issue notice.
18. Learned counsel as aforesaid accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Let reply be filed within a period of 4 weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of 4 weeks thereafter.
19. Respective counsel for the parties have been heard at some length on the aspect of interim relief. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner have contended that in the given factual background, the debarring/ blacklisting action is arbitrary, disproportionate and wholly unjustified given the difficulties surrounding the tender process, for which the petitioner was in no way responsible. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently 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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00 opposed the said contentions and the petitioner's prayer for interim relief.
20. A preliminary appraisal of the factual conspectus and perusal of the material placed on record, prima facie reveals the following:
(i) The difficulty in concluding the tender process was on account of the uncertainties and the frequent impediments arising from the pendency of W.P.(C) 4181/2025 and the orders passed therein.
In M/s Techno Prints Vs. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 343, the Supreme Court observed as under:
"30. Therefore, the Authority is expected to be very careful before issuing a show cause notice. It is expected to understand the facts well and try to ascertain what sort of violation is said to have been committed by the contractor. As noted above, there is always an inherent power in the Authority to blacklist a contractor. But possessing such inherent power and exercising such power are two different situations and connotations. There may be a power but there should be reasonable ground to exercise such power.
31. To put it by way of an illustration, the Police has the power to arrest but it is not necessary that in all cases arrest must be effected. The Police should know whether at all arrest is necessary.
32. We may put it in a slightly different way. Take for instance, the show cause notice in the present case is the final order of blacklisting. The final order in any case cannot travel beyond the show cause notice. Therefore, we take the show cause notice as the final order. Whether it makes out a case for blacklisting? This should be the test to determine whether it is a genuine case to blacklist a contractor or visit him with any other penalty like forfeiture of EMD, recovery of damages etc. We say so because once an order of blacklisting is passed the same would put an end to the business of the person concerned. It is a drastic step. Once the final order blacklisting the Contractor is passed then the Contractor is left with no other option but to go to the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenge the same. If he succeeds before the Single Judge then it is well and good otherwise he may have to prefer a writ appeal or LPA as the case may be. This again would lead to unnecessary litigation in the High Courts. The endeavour should be to curtail the litigation and not to overburden the High Courts with litigations of the present type more particularly when 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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00 the law by and large is very well settled and there is no further scope of any debate.
33. As observed by this Court in Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B., (1975) 1 SCC 70, an order of blacklisting casts a slur on the party being blacklisted and is stigmatic. Given the nature of such an order and the import thereof, it would be unreasonable and arbitrary to visit every contractor who is in breach of his contractual obligations with such consequences. There have to be strong, independent and overwhelming materials to resort to this power given the drastic consequences that an order of blacklisting has on a contractor. The power to blacklist cannot be resorted to when the grounds for the same are only breach or violation of a term or condition of a particular contract and when legal redress is available to both parties. Else, for every breach or violation, though there are legal modes of redress and which compensate the party like the Corporation before us, it would resort to blacklisting and at times by abandoning or scuttling the pending legal proceedings.
34. Plainly, if a contractor is to be visited with the punitive measure of blacklisting on account of an allegation that he has committed a breach of a contract, the nature of his conduct must be so deviant or aberrant so as to warrant such a punitive measure. A mere allegation of breach of contractual obligations without anything more, per se, does not invite any such punitive action.
35. Usually, while participating in a tender, the bidder is required to furnish a statement undertaking that it has not been blacklisted by any institution so far and, if that is not the case, provide information of such blacklisting. This serves as a record of the bidder's previous experience which gives the purchaser a fair picture of the bidder and the conduct expected from it. Therefore, while the debarment itself may not be permanent and may only remain effective for a limited, pre-determined period, its negative effect continues to plague the business of the debarred entity for a long period of time. As a result, it is viewed as a punishment so grave, that it must follow in the wake of an action that is equally grave."
In the present case, the debarment of the petitioner, given the circumstances surrounding the tender process, does not satisfy the touchstone of the principles laid down in Techno Prints (supra). The annulment of the tender 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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00 process cannot be said to be on account of any egregious conduct or any fraud committed by the petitioner; the same was largely an outcome of the uncertainty surrounding the tender process occasioned by the litigation initiated by a third party. Further, the debarment is also inconsistent with the respondent's own conduct in returning the EMD to the petitioner.
(ii) Also, importantly, a bare perusal of the impugned debarment order reveals that the same is unreasoned, inasmuch as it fails to address the contentions raised by the petitioner in its response (Annexure P-39) to the show cause notice dated 28.07.2025.
21. In the circumstances, considering the aforesaid circumstances, the operation of the impugned order dated 26.09.2025 is stayed till the next date of hearing.
22. List on 03.02.2026.
SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 16, 2025/at/ ss 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 31/10/2025 at 22:26:00