Can't Interdict Ongoing Procurement Process On A Challenge Instituted At A Belated Stage: Delhi High Court
The Court left the larger legal questions regarding the validity of restrictive "local office" clauses open to be examined in an appropriate case.
The Delhi High Court has held that a challenge to tender conditions raised months after bid publication and after the procurement process has materially advanced justifies a refusal of relief on the grounds of delay and laches. It observed that interference at an advanced stage would unsettle ongoing procurements, delay essential supplies for government schools, and adversely impact public interest, particularly when the petitioners failed to approach the Court with due expedition regarding both the Outdoor Gym and Sports Equipment Tenders (SET).
The dispute pertained to the validity of "exclusionary" tender conditions, including a mandatory three-year local office/warehouse requirement in Delhi-NCR, pre-bid sample submissions, and the denial of experience relaxations for MSEs, which the Petitioners claimed violated the Public Procurement Policy. The Court was called upon to decide whether these stipulations were tailored to favor specific bidders or were necessary to ensure the quality and maintenance of sports equipment for government schools.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan while refusing to interfere with the procurement process, observed, “The SET challenge is, therefore, liable to fail on the grounds of delay, laches, non-participation of the Petitioners and the advanced stage of the procurement process. In the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, this Court is not persuaded to interdict an ongoing procurement on a challenge instituted at such a belated stage by parties who admittedly did not participate in the Tender process”.
Senior Advocate Diya Kapur appeared for the petitioners, Devvrat Yadav, SPC appeared for the respondent.
The dispute involved seven tenders issued by the Directorate of Education for the procurement of outdoor gym equipment and various sports goods. The Petitioners, who are MSME entities, challenged several conditions as being "exclusionary," including requirements for a three-year established office and warehouse in Delhi/NCR, the physical submission of samples before bid deadlines, and the denial of certain relaxations for Micro and Small Enterprises regarding turnover and experience.
The sports equipment tenders (SET) were published on December 22, 2025, and the Outdoor Gym Tender followed on January 23, 2026. While the Petitioners submitted pre-bid representations, they filed the writ petition only on April 2, 2026. By that stage, the Outdoor Gym Tender had reached the financial evaluation phase, and the other tenders had progressed to the physical demonstration of samples.
The Court noted that for the Outdoor Gym Tender, conditions such as service-support and experience thresholds had a rational nexus to the safety and maintenance of equipment intended for children. Regarding the sports equipment tenders, the Court noted that since the Petitioners had not participated in the bid process, they faced a heavier burden to prove manifest arbitrariness. Ultimately, the Court found the delay of over two months fatal, noting that time is of the essence in public procurement.
“That said, non-participation is not always fatal or conclusive. A challenge by a non-participating entity may still require examination where the case set up is that the impugned condition itself operated as an exclusionary barrier and thereby foreclosed meaningful participation. In such a case, however, the burden on the Petitioner is necessarily heavier”, the Bench noted.
“…Regarding the SET, this Court is not persuaded to interfere in the exercise of Writ Jurisdiction, due to the substantial delay in approaching this Court, the Petitioners‟ non-participation and the advanced stage of the Tender process. The larger questions concerning the validity of Clause 2.17 and the allied impugned conditions in the SET are left open to be examined in an appropriate case”, it further noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, refusing to interfere with the ongoing procurement. However, it left the larger legal questions regarding the validity of restrictive "local office" clauses open to be examined in an appropriate case brought with promptness.
Cause Title: M/S Utkarsh Enterprises & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3610-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Diya Kapur, Senior Advocate, Aanchal Basur, Advocate.
Respondents: Devvrat Yadav (SPC), Kush Garg, Girish Kumar, Advocates, Sameer Vashisth, Standing Counsel for GNCTD, Sumit K. Batra, Harshita Nathrani and Priyanka Jindal, Advocates.