Tekram Enterprises vs Delhi Development Authority

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 08.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 8289/2026 CM APPL. 39119/2026
TEKRAM ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Deepak Mehra, Mr. Vikas Kumar
and Mr. Nikhil Shukla, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Mr. Aditya
Verma, Mr. Nishant Anshul with Mr.
Sumit Chaudhary, RE(DDA) and Mr.
Vishwajeet Kumar, RE (DDA)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Respondent’s
1
decision to cancel the earlier tenders issued for providing of lifeguards and
medical attendants for running of deck area services of swimming pool(s) at
the ‘Hari Nagar Sports Complex’ and ‘Yamuna Sports Complex’ vide
communications dated 17.06.2026 and 18.06.2026, respectively, and also
1
NIT No. 09/HNSC/DDA/2025-26 dated 23.12.2025 for Hari Nagar Sports Complex and NIT No.
12/YSC/DDA/2025-26 dated 26.02.2026 for the Yamuna Sports Complex (earlier tenders).
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 1 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

2
the consequential issuance of fresh tenders for the same services.
2. The Petitioner submits that it had already been declared the successful
bidder in both the technical and financial bids for the earlier tenders.
However, the earlier tenders have been cancelled without issuance of any
show cause notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without
assigning any cogent reasons, save for a vague reference to ‘administrative
reasons’. The Petitioner contends that it has vested right to be awarded
contracts in furtherance of the earlier tenders. The reliefs prayed for in this
petition are as under:
“a) Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the cancellation e-mail dated
17.06.2026 and Corrigendum dated 17.06.2026 and 18.06.2026;
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to restore and
complete the tender process in accordance with law and award the
contracts to the Petitioner as per the earlier judgments of this Hon'ble
Court;
c) Restrain the Respondents from Re issue of Tenders creating any
third-party rights till disposal of WP (C) 832/2026.”
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PETITIONER
3. The Petitioner contends that the earlier tenders have been cancelled by
the Respondent by placing wrongful reliance on the blacklisting order dated
04.07.2025 issued by Municipal Corporation of Delhi (‘MCD’). It contends
that the said blacklisting order has been challenged in W.P.(C.) No.
832/2026, which is pending before a learned Single Judge of this Court. The
Petitioner relies upon orders dated 21.01.2026 and 20.05.2026 passed
therein to contend that Respondent has been restrained from cancelling the
2
NIT floated on 18.06.2026 for the Yamuna Sports Complex and NIT floated on 17.06.2026 for Hari
Nagar Sports Complex (fresh tenders)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 2 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

earlier tenders due to the reason of the blacklisting order dated 04.07.2025
issued by MCD.
3.1 It is alleged that the Respondents have acted in wilful disregard of the
learned Single Judge’s orders in W.P.(C.) No. 832/2026 by cancelling the
earlier tenders and issuing fresh tender notices.
3.2 The Petitioner further submits that the impugned action constitutes a
colourable exercise of power and has been taken in excess of jurisdiction
during the pendency of judicial proceedings in W.P.(C.) No. 832/2026, with
the object of circumventing and frustrating the binding orders passed by
learned Single Judge in the earlier writ petition and connected contempt
proceedings.
3.3 The Petitioner challenges the impugned cancellation orders primarily
on the ground that they are arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles
14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, having been passed without any valid
reasons or public interest justification. It is further contended that the
cancellation was affected in violation of the principles of natural justice, as
no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded before
cancelling the earlier tenders in which the Petitioner had already emerged as
the successful bidder. The Petitioner also invokes the doctrines of legitimate
expectation and level playing field, contending that the arbitrary cancellation
deprived the Petitioner of the legitimate expectation of award of the
contracts after being declared the lowest and successful bidder. It is lastly
contended that the repeated cancellation and re-tendering have caused
substantial financial prejudice to the parties as the tenders relate to the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 3 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

operation and maintenance of swimming pool facilities for a limited
seasonal period.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE RESPONDENT
4. The Respondent submits that the present writ petition is not
maintainable as it challenges the cancellation of two separate and distinct
tenders, namely earlier tender dated 23.12.2025 pertaining to the ‘Hari
Nagar Sports Complex’ and earlier tender dated 26.02.2026 pertaining to the
‘Yamuna Sports Complex’, by way of a single writ petition despite each
cancellation constituting an independent cause of action.
4.1 Additionally, the Respondent contends that the Petitioner has
approached the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts. It is
submitted that the Petitioner has failed to disclose its earlier filed CM
Application No. 34680/2026 in W.P.(C.) No. 832/2026 for relief identical to
prayer clause (b) in this writ petition, wherein learned Single Judge, by order
dated 20.05.2026, merely issued notice and declined to grant any relief as
prayed for. Thereafter, on 15.06.2026, the Petitioner filed CM Application
No. 39025/2026 in W.P.(C.) No. 832/2026, again, seeking directions to
Respondent to award the Hari Nagar Sports Complex and Yamuna Sports
Complex contracts to the Appellant pursuant to the earlier tenders, and to
restrain the Respondents from cancelling and reissuing the tenders. The said
application was heard by the learned Single Judge on 17.06.2026, but no
interim protection was granted. It is contended that the filing of the said
application and the order dated 17.06.2026 has been deliberately concealed
in the present proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 4 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

4.2 On merits of the cancellation of earlier tenders, the Respondent
submits that the Petitioner had been blacklisted by MCD vide order dated
04.07.2025 and it was subsisting on the date of submission of bids in
pursuance to the earlier tenders. The bidders were required to submit an
undertaking to the effect that it has not been blacklisted or debarred by any
Government Department, Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) or Autonomous
Body. However, the Petitioner knowingly and wrongly submitted
undertakings dated 18.01.2026 and 02.03.2026 respectively, falsely
declaring that it had not been blacklisted or debarred by any Government
Department, PSU or Autonomous Body so as to remain eligible under the
tender conditions.
4.3 It is submitted that the aforesaid concealment came to light only after
the Respondent received a complaint dated 03.04.2026, alleging that the
Petitioner had secured the earlier tenders by suppressing its blacklisted
status. Acting upon the complaint, the Respondents sought clarification from
the MCD through an e-mail dated 15.04.2026, whereupon the MCD, by e-
mail dated 23.04.2026, confirmed that the Petitioner continued to remain
blacklisted. It is stated that the Petitioner was blacklisted by MCD due to an
unfortunate incident of drowning of a six-year-old boy child on 13.06.2025
at the swimming pool for FU Block, Pitampura, New Delhi. Following such
confirmation, the Respondents issued a clarification notice dated
24.04.2026, to which the Petitioner replied on 25.04.2026, admitting that it
had not disclosed the blacklisting order and characterising the omission as a
‘bona fide omission’. The Respondents, therefore, contend that the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 5 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to explain its conduct in filing a false
undertaking, however, its explanation was not found reasonable and that the
principles of natural justice stood complied with.
4.4 The Respondents rely upon Clauses 40 and 41 of the NIT, which
expressly prohibits participation by a blacklisted or debarred agency. It is
submitted that the Petitioner stood disqualified under the tender conditions
not only because of the subsisting blacklisting order but also because it had
fraudulently suppressed the same by filing false undertakings. According to
the Respondent, had the blacklisting been disclosed, the Petitioner would
have been disqualified at the threshold.
4.5 With regard to the Hari Nagar Sports Complex tender, the Respondent
submits that although a Letter of Intent [‘LOI’] dated 22.04.2026 was issued
requiring the Petitioner to furnish a Performance Guarantee of Rs. 89,718/-
within seven days, however, the Petitioner failed to submit the Performance
Guarantee. Consequently, no enforceable contractual right accrued in its
favour. As regards the Yamuna Sports Complex tender, it is submitted that
no LOI was ever issued.
Relying on State of Himachal Pradesh v. OASYS Cybernetics (P)
3
Ltd. , the Respondents contend that a LOI by itself does not create any
vested or contractual right unless all stipulated preconditions are fulfilled.
4.6 The Respondents further contend that the cancellation of the earlier
tenders became necessary because the bid validity period under Clause 6 of
the NIT was only 75 days. The validity period for the Hari Nagar Sports
3
(2026) 3 SCC 348, at paras 34-36
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 6 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

Complex tender expired on 03.04.2026, while the validity period for the
Yamuna Sports Complex tender expired on 18.06.2026. According to the
Respondents, the complaint regarding suppression of blacklisting, the
verification process with the MCD, the issuance of clarification notices, and
the processing of the matter consumed considerable time, resulting in the
expiry of the bid validity period before the contracts could be awarded.
Consequently, the Respondents were compelled to cancel the existing
tenders and issue fresh NITs on 17.06.2026 (Hari Nagar Sports Complex)
and 18.06.2026 (Yamuna Sports Complex).
4.7 The Respondents also submit that the cancellation was necessitated by
overriding public interest. It is contended that the swimming pools at both
sports complexes remained non-operational in the interregnum, due to the
absence of lifeguards and medical attendants, causing substantial financial
losses to the DDA and inconvenience to approximately 23,000 members and
their dependants. Since swimming pools operate substantially only during
the period April to September, any further delay would defeat the purpose of
the contracts. It is further pointed out that the Petitioner chose not to
participate in the fresh tenders, while simultaneously seeking to stall the new
tender process through litigation. According to the Respondents, the
evaluation of the fresh tenders is at an advanced stage, the technical bids
having been opened on 29.06.2026, and therefore any interference at this
stage would seriously prejudice public interest.
4.8 The Respondents submit that judicial review in tender matters is
limited and that courts should ordinarily not interfere with administrative
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 7 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

decisions cancelling tenders, particularly where such decisions are
consequent to the L1 bidder’s concealment of material facts, ineligibility
under the tender conditions, and overriding public interest. Accordingly, the
Respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
4.9 It is also submitted that the Petitioner is a contractual employee with
the Respondent and initially the Petitioner’s bid was technically disqualified
on this ground by referring to Clauses 47 and 77 of the NIT, which
precludes an employee from participating in the bidding process. It is stated
however, that the said disqualification was set aside by coordinate Bench of
this Court in W.P. (C) 3989/2026 vide judgement dated 16.04.2026 and led
to processing of the Petitioner’s financial bids in the earlier Tenders.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
6. Since the challenge in this petition is to the cancellation of two
separate and distinct tenders, we intend to examine the legality of the
cancellation of each tender separately.
I. Hari Nagar Sports Complex
7. A Tender for providing lifeguards and medical attendant for running
of deck area services of swimming pool at Hari Nagar Sports complex was
issued on 23.12.2025 and the last date for submission of the bid was
18.01.2026. It was the condition of the Tender that the bidder had to file an
undertaking declaring that it has not been blacklisted or debarred by any
Government Department, PSU or Autonomous Body.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 8 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

7.1 The Petitioner has been blacklisted by MCD on 04.07.2025 on
account of an unfortunate incident of the drowning of a six-year-old boy at
FU Block, Pitampura Swimming Pool Complex, managed by this agency.
The said blacklisting order was in force as on 18.01.2026, however, the
Petitioner in the undertaking dated 18.01.2026 filed along with its bid
documents made a false declaration that it has not been blacklisted or
debarred by any Government Department, PSU or Autonomous Body.
7.2 Withholding of the information pertaining to the blacklisting order
dated 04.07.2025 led to incorrect inclusion of the Petitioner in the list of
technically qualified bidders and consequently led to opening of its financial
bids on 29.03.2026. Pursuant to draw of lots amongst the technically
qualified bidders, the Petitioner was declared a winner and this led to
issuance of an LOI on 22.04.2026.
7.3 As per the LOI, the Petitioner had to submit its Performance
Guarantee of Rs. 89,718/- within seven days, however, the Petitioner failed
to submit the same. The LOI clarified that in case of failure to furnish the
Performance Guarantee within seven days, the earnest money shall stand
forfeited.
It is a matter of record that the Petitioner did not deposit the
Performance Guarantee.
7.4 In the meantime, the Respondent received a complaint/information
that the Petitioner had been blacklisted by MCD on 04.07.2025, which order
was subsisting and had not been disclosed to the Respondent. The
Respondent verified this information from MCD, which was confirmed by
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 9 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

MCD vide e-mail dated 23.04.2026.
The Respondent promptly sought a clarification on this fact from the
Petitioner vide e-mail dated 24.04.2026. The Petitioner replied on
25.04.2026 and confirmed that indeed it has been blacklisted by MCD. It
explained that the non-disclosure in the undertaking dated 18.01.2026 filed
with the bid was a bona-fide omission and relied upon an order dated
21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 832/2026.
7.5 It transpires that after submission of its bid on 18.01.2026, the
Petitioner filed a writ petition i.e., W.P. (C) 832/2026 impugning the
blacklisting order dated 04.07.2025 passed by MCD. Learned Single Judge
while issuing notice in the petition on 21.01.2026 did not stay the operation
of the order, but (at paragraph 7 therein) observed that the said blacklisting
order is applicable only in respect of participation in tenders of MCD; and as
per the blacklisting order dated 04.07.2025, there is no bar on tenders floated
by another Government body.
7.6 In these facts, the Legal Department of the Respondent opined that the
filing of the false declaration dated 18.01.2026 was a violation of the Tender
conditions and the breach of code of integrity. It recommended appropriate
action against the Petitioner as per the Tender conditions. The Respondent
initiated steps on 19.05.2026 for cancellation of the Tender dated
23.12.2025 and issuance of a fresh tender.
7.7 The Petitioner learnt about the aforesaid proposal of cancellation and
approached the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 832/2026 and sought
impleadment of DDA. Vide order dated 20.05.2026, DDA was impleaded
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 10 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

and the learned Single Judge directed that DDA will continue to comply
with the order passed on 21.01.2026. The Petitioner approached the
Vacation Bench again by filing interim application CM APPL. 39025/2026
seeking direction for award of the Tender, however, the Vacation Bench on
17.06.2026 simplicitor issued notice.
7.8 In these facts, the Respondent on 17.06.2026, first cancelled the
Tender dated 23.12.2025 and proceeded to float fresh Tender for Hari Nagar
Sports Complex with the last date of submission on 27.06.2026 and bid
opening date as 29.06.2026. It is this action of the Respondent which is
challenged by the Petitioner by relying upon the orders passed in W.P. (C)
832/2026.
8. A perusal of the aforenoted facts proves beyond any doubt that the
undertaking dated 18.01.2026 submitted by the Petitioner with its bid
document declaring that it has not been blacklisted by any Government
Department, PSU or Autonomous Body was false. Due to the filing of the
said false undertaking, its bid was wrongly shortlisted as a technically
qualified bid. In these facts, its participation in the opening of the financial
bids and draw of lots on 29.03.2026 was illegal. The recommendation of the
Legal Department opining that this action of the Petitioner amounts to
violation of the Tender Conditions is therefore, correct and duly justifies the
subsequent decision taken by the Respondent to cancel the Tender.
8.1 The order dated 21.01.2026 and 20.05.2026 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 832/2026 have no relevance for deciding the
consequence of the false declaration filed by the Petitioner on 18.01.2026 in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 11 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

the Tender process. The said orders came into existence after the false
declaration dated 18.01.2026 had been wilfully filed by the Petitioner and
cannot protect the Petitioner from the consequences of making such false
declarations in the bidding process.
8.2 Moreover, we are of the opinion that the circumstances which led to
the Petitioner’s blacklisting by MCD were directly and materially relevant
for the services of providing life-guards and medical attendants for running
of deck areas services of the swimming pool as sought in the present Tender.
Respondent should have been made fully aware about the incident of the
drowning of the 6 years old child at the Pitampura Complex and the
blacklisting order of the MCD, so that it could take a conscious decision on
the engagement of the present Petitioner and its expertise in managing
swimming complexes. The Respondent has an obligation towards its
members who use the swimming complex to ensure that the agency
providing the deck area services is of the requisite qualification, as any
untoward incident at the swimming complex would make the Respondent
responsible to its users under the law of Torts, even if the contractual
liability vests with the bidder.
8.3 The Respondent sought clarification from the Petitioner about the
blacklisting order and has rejected the explanation of the Petitioner that the
non-mention of the blacklisting order in the undertaking dated 18.01.2026
was a bona-fide omission. We find merit in this rejection and agree that the
non-mentioning of the blacklisting order was not a bona-fide omission. The
Petitioner’s action of challenging the blacklisting order of 04.07.2025 by
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 12 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

filing W.P. (C) 832/2026 on 18.01.2026 shows a post facto endeavor to seek
an interim stay of the said blacklisting order, being conscious that this issue
would come up in the evaluation of the bids before DDA.
8.4 We also find merit in the submission of the Respondent that the LOI
dated 22.04.2026 did not create any vested rights, as the Petitioner failed to
comply with the conditions of the LOI within the stipulated timeline.
8.5 In these facts, the decision taken by the Respondent to cancel the
Tender dated 23.12.2025 is legal and valid and merits no interference.
Consequently, the decision of the Respondent to float the fresh Tender on
17.06.2026 is hereby upheld.
II. Yamuna Sports Complex
9. Similarly, a Tender for providing lifeguards and medical attendant for
running of deck area services of swimming pool at Yamuna Sports Complex
was published by the Respondent on 26.02.2026.
9.1 The terms and conditions of this Tender were identical with the
Tender for Hari Nagar Sports Complex. The bidder was required to submit
an undertaking declaring that it has not been barred or blacklisted by any
Government Department, PSU or Autonomous Body. The Petitioner
participated in this bidding process and submitted an undertaking dated
02.03.2026 stating that it has not been blacklisted or debarred by any
Government Department, PSU or Autonomous Body.
This declaration in the undertaking was ex-facie false as admittedly,
the Petitioner had been blacklisted by MCD on 04.07.2025.
9.2 The instructions to the bidder stipulate at (xi) for submission of an
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 13 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

undertaking with respect to ‘no’ blacklisting. The condition reads as under:
“xi. Scanned copy of undertaking on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.
100/- that
a. agency is not blacklisted or debarred by any Govt. Central /
State department/PSU/Autonomous body and
b. …”
9.3 In compliance with the said instructions, the Petitioner submitted an
undertaking dated 02.03.2026, the contents whereof read as under:
“ UNDERTAKING
I, ARPANA TIWARI PROP. OF M/S TEKRAM ENTERPRISES
SITUATED AT B-8-D, SLUM BLOCK E, Madipur, New Delhi, West
Delhi, Delhi, 110063, do hereby affirm and declare as under: -
A. I/We undertake and confirm that my agency is not blacklisted or
debarred by any Govt. Central/State department/PSU/Autonomous
body.
B. My agency will make payments to its staff as per minimum rates of
wages as applicable in Delhi/Central Government.”
The undertaking did not make any reference to W.P. (C) 832/2026 or
learned Single Judge’s order dated 20.01.2026. We take note of this fact as
order dated 21.01.2026 is the basis of the challenge in the writ petition.
9.4 Due to the aforesaid undertaking dated 02.03.2026, the Petitioner’s
bid was assessed as technically qualified and its financial bid was opened
leading to its participation in the draw of lots held on 01.04.2026, where the
Petitioner emerged as a successful bidder. However, before any further steps
could be taken by the Respondent, it learnt about the issuance of the
blacklisting order of the MCD dated 04.07.2025 leading to the process of
award of Tender coming to an halt.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 14 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

10. The Petitioner contends that the non-disclosure of the blacklisting
order of the MCD dated 04.07.2025 in the undertaking dated 02.03.2026
was a bona-fide omission. We are unable to accept this submission, as also
noted while deliberating on the Hari Nagar Sports Complex Tender.
10.1 The order dated 20.01.2026 passed in W.P. (C) 832/2026 does not
enable the Petitioner to file the false undertaking dated 02.03.2026. If the
Petitioner was acting bona-fide, it should have disclosed the fact of the
blacklisting order issued by MCD and the order passed in W.P. (C)
832/2026 in the said undertaking so that the Respondent could then assess
the technical bid independently and mindfully after taking these facts into
consideration. However, the Petitioner could not have under any
circumstances filed a false and misleading undertaking on 02.03.2026.
10.2 The facts which led to the Petitioner’s blacklisting by MCD were
directly relevant for the services which the Respondent had sought for the in
the Tender and no bidder can create circumstances where the Tendering
Authority is deprived of such material information prior to selection of the
bidder.
10.3 The order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge
merely clarifies that the blacklisting order dated 04.07.2025 was applicable
to tenders floated by the MCD and not other Government entities. While the
said observation is correct, it does not preclude Respondent from seeking
information of blacklisting orders suffered by a bidder as a part of the
technical evaluation process. The Respondent is well within its right to seek
such information from the bidder and take an independent decision if it
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 15 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

wishes to deal with a bidder who has suffered a blacklisting order especially
considering the circumstances of the blacklisting. The order of the learned
Single Judge does not preclude the Respondent from considering this fact as
the part of the technical evaluation criteria.
The circumstance that a 6 year old child died at the swimming
complex managed by the Petitioner leading to registration of an FIR and the
Petitioner being blacklisted are facts which the Respondent must know and
if these facts lead to the Respondent considering the Petitioner to be unfit for
participation, we find that the said decision is neither arbitrary nor unfair.
The services sought from the bidder under the Tender process are for a
swimming pool carrying significant and the incident at the MCD complex
was directly relevant.
10.4 The learned Single Judge has vide order dated 21.01.2026, has not
stayed the operation of the MCD blacklisting order dated 04.07.2025 and
therefore, the Respondent’s decision to take into consideration of the facts
which led to the blacklisting by MCD, is reasonable, responsible and merits
no interference.
10.5 There cannot be any dispute that if the Petitioner had disclosed the
existence of the blacklisting order dated 04.07.2025, the Respondent would
have not processed its bid for inclusion in the opening of the financial bids
and consequently, it would not have been included in the draw of lots. The
Petitioner by making a wrong declaration misled the Respondent and
overcame the ineligibility condition of the Tender and therefore, no vested
right can be claimed by the Petitioner for having its bid included in the draw
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 16 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

of lots on 01.04.2026.
10.6 For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the reliefs
sought in the present petition qua the cancellation of the tender dated
26.02.2026 and issuance of the fresh Tender dated 18.06.2026.
11. The Respondent's decision to cancel the earlier tender process cannot
be viewed in isolation from its overarching public law obligations as a
statutory authority entrusted with the management of public facilities. It is
also pertinent to note that the allegation against the Petitioner was not
merely of technical ineligibility but pertained to the concealment of a
subsisting blacklisting order arising from serious deficiencies in the
operation of a public swimming facility, culminating in the unfortunate
death of a minor child. In such circumstances, the Respondent was under a
heightened duty to exercise due diligence before entrusting the operation of
similar public facilities to the Petitioner. As recognised by the Supreme
Court in Vadodara Municipal Corporation v. Purshottam V. Murjani &
4
Ors. , public authorities owe a duty of care to citizens and may be held
liable in tort for failure to discharge such duty. The Supreme Court further
underscored that where the activities of a public body are hazardous, the
highest degree of care is expected, and breach of such duty is actionable, the
obligation being intrinsically linked to the guarantee under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
The operation of public swimming pools, involving the safety of
thousands of members and their dependants, is undoubtedly an activity
4
(2014) 16 SCC 14, at paragraph nos. 9 to 17.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 17 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52

requiring the highest standards of vigilance and care. Members of the public
are entitled to repose confidence in the Respondent, as a governmental
authority, to ensure that contracts relating to such essential public facilities
are awarded only to agencies whose eligibility and safety credentials
withstand scrutiny. Had the Respondent, despite being apprised of the
Petitioner's subsisting blacklisting founded upon grave safety concerns,
proceeded with the award of the contract, it would have exposed itself to
potential tortious and public law liability in the event of any subsequent
mishap attributable to the Petitioner's conduct. The decision to cancel the
earlier tenders, verify the Petitioner's eligibility, and initiate a fresh
procurement process was, therefore, not only a legitimate administrative
response but a necessary discharge of the Respondent's duty of care owed to
the public.
12. We are satisfied that the decision to cancel the earlier Tenders, to
prevent the Petitioner from running the services at the Sports Complexes is
in public interest. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed for being
without any merits. Pending applications are disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JULY 8, 2026/ msh/AM
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8289/2026 Page 18 of 18
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
17:52