Delhi High Court - Orders
Bls International Services Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 7 May, 2025
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4215/2025
BLS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashank Garg, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Naman Joshi,
Ms. Amber Tickoo, Mr. Shivam
Gera, Ms. Nishtha Jain, Ms. A.
Chaturvedia, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.
Arnav Mittal, GP and Mr. Akash
Mishra, Advoccate with Ms. Akshi
Bali, LC for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, Mr. Udit
Sharma, Ms. V. Malhotra, Mr.
Aniket Khanduri, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 07.05.2025 CM APPL. 27818/2025 (Stay on execution of contract)
1. This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner seeking a direction to restrain respondent no.1 and 2 from taking any further steps qua the subject RFP dated 04.02.2025 including but not limited to execution of contract with respondent no.3/Alankit Assignment Ltd., until the present matter is pending adjudication before this Court.
2. Mr. Shashank Garg, learned senior counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the financial and technical viability of the bids and the financial profile of respondent nos.3 and 4 with regard to their participation W.P.(C) 4215/2025 Page 1 of 4 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 29/06/2025 at 20:29:13 in the subject RFP dated 04.02.2025 issued by respondent no.2/High Commission of India, Singapore. He states that it has now come to the knowledge of the applicant/petitioner that the respondent no.3 has concealed material information from respondent nos.1 and 2 and has therefore violated the mandatory pre-verification and eligibility criteria under the subject RFP, specifically, that the respondent no.3 has participated in the tender process without disclosing criminal antecedents pending against it.
3. Mr. Garg contends that despite the express mandatory conditions under Clause (ii) and (iii) of Chapter IV and Clause 1(iv) and (v) of Chapter V of the RFP, the respondent no.3 has failed to make any such disclosures regarding the multiple proceedings, civil and criminal, pending against it and/or its key managerial personnel. Reliance is placed on an order dated 17.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 4674/2025 titled M/s IVS Lanka Private Limited vs. Union of India & Anr., wherein this Court had prima facie upheld the findings of non-disclosure against respondent no.3. It is further stated that a review of publicly available records revealed that several proceedings, including criminal, are pending against respondent no.3. On this basis, learned senior counsel contends that deliberate concealment of the relevant information by respondent no.3 is not only a grave violation of the RFP but also constitutes misrepresentation, which warrants immediate cancellation of the award made in its favour and disqualification of respondent no.3 under the subject RFP. It is also submitted that the respondent no.1 has, on prior occasions, disqualified the respondent no.3 qua similar tenders, out of which one such rejection stood challenged by the respondent no. 3 before this Court in M/s Alankit Assignments Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) 10872/2023, and vide judgment dated 12.10.2023, the same stood W.P.(C) 4215/2025 Page 2 of 4 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 29/06/2025 at 20:29:13 dismissed against the respondent no.3. Thus, it is prayed that similar interim directions, as passed in the order dated 17.04.2025 in M/s IVS Lanka Private Limited (supra) be issued in the present matter to maintain parity and uphold the integrity of the tender process in the subject RFP as well.
4. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC for respondent no.1 Union of India and Mr. Bhuvnesh Satija, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in regard to the application seeking stay on the execution of contract, we are inclined to grant the prayer keeping in view the facts obtaining in the present case.
6. There is no dispute that the bidding companies were required to fill up their organizational profile in terms of the provisions contained in Chapter IV-pre-verification of the RFP to ensure that during the tendering process, if any adverse report on account of security or involvement of the bidder in illegal or unlawful activities or pendency of criminal investigation etc., comes to the notice, the bidder may be liable to be disqualified. Equally, it is further provided that if such information comes to the notice after the contract is entered into and the agreement is signed, the agreement may also be liable to be terminated.
7. It is apparent that the provisions of Chapter IV of the RFP contemplates action to be initiated by the tendering authority at two different points of time, namely, (i) pre-contract stage and (ii) post contract stage. In the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by this Court in M/s. IVS Lanka Pvt. Ltd.(supra), this Court had noted in that case the petitioner therein had placed on record certain public record indicating complicity of the Director as well as respondent no.2 therein in criminal cases and which company was declared as L-1. On that basis, on a prima facie view, this W.P.(C) 4215/2025 Page 3 of 4 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 29/06/2025 at 20:29:13 Court had provided that unless the antecedents of respondent no.2 (company) therein, particularly the criminal antecedents are verified, the contract shall not be awarded. It is pertinent to note that the respondent no.2 in that case is the same company which is L-1 in the present case and has been arrayed as respondent no.3
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 company refutes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
9. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid submissions, we are of the considered opinion, that till the antecedents of respondent no.3, especially the criminal antecedents are verified, the contract shall not be awarded.
10. In view of the aforesaid, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 4215/2025
11. In the meanwhile, the respondent may file their counter affidavit in compliance of the order dated 03.04.2025.
12. List on the date fixed i.e. 22.07.2025.
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MAY 07, 2025/rl W.P.(C) 4215/2025 Page 4 of 4 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 29/06/2025 at 20:29:13