Ms Velocis Systems Pvt Ltd vs National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated Nicsi

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 30.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 19.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 19.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 3987/2026 & CM APPL. 19585/2026
M/S VELOCIS SYSTEMS PVT. LTD ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Mohan Sinha, Mr.
Prateek Mohan Sinha, Ms.
Namita Sinha, Ms. Nandini
Harsh and Mr. Krishnendu Das,
Advs.
versus
NATIONAL INFORMATICS CENTRE SERVICES
INCORPORATED (NICSI) .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, SPC along
with Mr. Pravar Dennison and
Mr. Ranjan Mozumdar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner assails the
email/order dated 25.03.2026 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned
Order‟] issued by the Respondent, whereby the representation
submitted by the Petitioner pursuant to the order dated 10.03.2026
passed in W.P.(C) 3019/2026 has been rejected, and the Petitioner has
been held ineligible for further participation in the tender process
pursuant to the Request for Empanelment [hereinafter referred to as
„RFE‟] bearing Ref. No.NICSI/Office Support and PMS/2025/14.
2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition
is whether the decision of the Respondent, as communicated vide
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 1 of 11

email dated 25.03.2026, rejecting the Petitioner‟s representation and
affirming its technical disqualification from the tender process on the
ground of submission of an incorrect and incomplete disclosure
regarding blacklisting, warrants interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. The Petitioner participated in a tender process initiated by the
Respondent for empanelment of agencies for deployment of resources
for office support, project management support and rollout services
pursuant to the RFE and submitted its bid on 30.12.2025.
5. Vide email dated 06.03.2026, the Respondent informed the
Petitioner that its bid had been found non-compliant and was not
accepted for further evaluation on the ground that the Petitioner had
furnished incorrect information in relation to blacklisting.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) 3019/2026
before this Court challenging the aforesaid communication. The said
writ petition was disposed of by order dated 10.03.2026, whereby this
Court directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation to be
decided by the Respondent within a period of two weeks and further
directed that the financial bids shall not be opened till such decision.
7. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner submitted a representation,
which has been rejected by the Respondent vide email dated
25.03.2026, stating that the Technical Evaluation Committee [„TEC‟],
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 2 of 11

upon examination, found no merit in the representation and that the
decision of technical disqualification remained unchanged.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that though an
order of blacklisting dated 09.12.2025 had been passed by the
Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development
Authority [„APEDA‟], the same was received by the Petitioner only
on 22.12.2025. It was stated that the Petitioner challenged the said
order by filing W.P.(C) 19821/2025 before this Court, wherein the
operation of the blacklisting order was stayed vide order dated
29.12.2025.
9. It was further contended that the Petitioner submitted its bid on
30.12.2025, i.e., subsequent to the grant of interim protection by this
Court, and therefore the allegation of submission of incorrect or non-
disclosure regarding blacklisting is misconceived. It was submitted
that the declaration forming part of the bid documents had already
been executed prior to submission of the bid, and no alteration thereof
was permissible thereafter.
10. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent justified the
decision of technical disqualification and the rejection of the
Petitioner‟s representation. It was stated that the Petitioner had been
blacklisted by the APEDA vide order dated 09.12.2025, which,
according to the Respondent, was in force at the relevant time. It was
further stated that the declaration-cum-undertaking regarding
blacklisting, forming part of the bid documents, was signed by the
Petitioner on 22.12.2025, on which date the aforesaid blacklisting
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 3 of 11

order was subsisting. Despite the same, the Petitioner declared that it
had not been blacklisted, thereby furnishing incorrect information as
per the Respondent.
11. Reliance was placed upon Clause 8.1(c) of the RFE, which
stipulates that if any information furnished by a bidder is found to be
false or incorrect, the bid is liable to be summarily rejected. It was
stated that the TEC, upon examination of the Petitioner‟s
representation, found that the Petitioner had failed to furnish complete
and correct information and accordingly rejected the representation.
Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court
in Bgr Deco Consortium v. Gujarat Mineral Development
1
Corporation Ltd . to contend that an interim order staying the
operation of a blacklisting order does not obliterate the underlying
factum of blacklisting and that the tendering authority, being the
author of the tender conditions, is entitled to insist upon complete and
candid disclosure by the bidder.
12. It was additionally contended that the declaration submitted by
the Petitioner was itself vague and non-compliant with the format
prescribed under the RFE, inasmuch as it did not clearly and
categorically disclose whether the bidder was “not blacklisted” or “not
under any active blacklisting/debarment”, thereby rendering the
disclosure ambiguous and incapable of acceptance.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
13. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced

1
C/SCA/3653/2024
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 4 of 11

on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
14. It is well settled that the scope of judicial review in matters
relating to tenders and contractual decisions is limited. The Court does
not sit in appeal over the decision of the tendering authority and
interference is warranted only where the decision-making process is
found to be arbitrary, mala fide or in violation of the terms of the
tender.
15. In the present case, the disqualification of the Petitioner is
founded on the allegation that it furnished an incorrect declaration in
respect of blacklisting. The record indicates that the Petitioner had
been blacklisted by APEDA vide order dated 09.12.2025. According
to the Petitioner itself, the said blacklisting order was served upon it
on 22.12.2025 at about 4:33 PM. The declaration-cum-undertaking
forming part of the bid documents was also signed on 22.12.2025,
whereas the bid itself came to be finally submitted only on
30.12.2025.
16. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce the declaration-
cum-undertaking dated 22.12.2025 submitted by the Petitioner, which
reads as under:
“DECLARATION-CUM-UNDERTAKING REGARDING
BLACKLISTING / NON-BLACKLISTING
I / We, Proprieter/ Partner(s)/ Director(s) of M/S. Velocis Systems
Private Limited, hereby declare that the firm/company namely M/s.
Velocis Systems Private Limited, as on the date of bid submission, has
not been blacklisted or not under active blacklisting period/active
debarred list by NICSI or any of the Central or State Government
Organisation / Public Sector Undertaking / Autonomous Body etc.
In case the above information found false I am fully aware that the
empanelment/ contract will be rejected/ cancelled by NICSI and
execution of Bid Securing Declaration. Also, the agency will be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 5 of 11

debarred for two years to participating in any RFE/tender published
through NIC/NICSI. In addition to the above NICSI will not be
responsible to pay the bills for any completed / partially completed
work if empanelment was allotted.”
A perusal of the aforesaid declaration-cum-undertaking indicates that
the tender condition required the bidder to furnish a clear and
categorical disclosure as to whether it was “not blacklisted” or “not
under any active blacklisting/debarment”. The object of such
requirement is to ensure certainty, transparency and uniformity in the
evaluation of eligibility of bidders in public procurement processes.
17. However, the declaration submitted by the Petitioner states that
it “has not been blacklisted or not under active blacklisting
period/active debarred list”, which does not constitute a clear or
unequivocal assertion of compliance with either of the stipulated
alternatives. The said formulation is, at best, ambiguous and capable
of multiple interpretations, thereby diluting the clarity and certainty
required in a declaration which goes to the root of eligibility in a
public procurement process. In such circumstances, the Respondent
was justified in treating the declaration as non-compliant. It is well
settled that in matters of public procurement, strict adherence to tender
conditions is required, particularly where the condition relates to
eligibility, and any ambiguity in a material declaration cannot be
ignored as a mere technical irregularity.
18. Even otherwise, nothing has been shown from the terms of the
RFE to indicate that the Petitioner was prohibited from furnishing any
additional disclosure, clarification or annexure along with the bid
documents. If according to the Petitioner, the blacklisting order had
been stayed by this Court on 29.12.2025 on the ground that no show
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 6 of 11

cause notice had been issued, it was always open to the Petitioner to
disclose the factum of blacklisting along with the subsequent interim
order passed by this Court and leave it to the tendering authority to
assess its effect. However, no such disclosure or clarification was
furnished at the time of submission of the bid on 30.12.2025. Tender
conditions requiring disclosure are founded upon the principle of
utmost candour expected from bidders participating in public
procurement processes, particularly where such disclosure forms the
basis for determination of eligibility.
19. The contention of the Petitioner that the blacklisting order stood
stayed on 29.12.2025 and that the bid was submitted thereafter also
does not assist the Petitioner. Even otherwise, the interim order dated
29.12.2025 may at best be construed as having eclipsed the operation
of the blacklisting order during pendency of proceedings; however,
the said order did not efface or obliterate the underlying factum that an
order of blacklisting had in fact been passed on 09.12.2025. The issue
before the Respondent was not confined merely to the operative
enforceability of the blacklisting order, but extended to whether the
Petitioner had made a full, fair and candid disclosure of all material
facts relevant to the declaration accompanying the bid documents. In
the facts of the present case, the Respondent cannot be faulted for
concluding that the Petitioner failed to furnish a complete and correct
disclosure while submitting the bid documents.
20. The tendering authority, being the author of the RFE, is entitled
to insist upon complete disclosure of any order of blacklisting together
with all subsequent developments, including interim judicial orders.
Whether such interim protection diluted, suspended or neutralised the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 7 of 11

effect of the blacklisting order was a matter for the tendering authority
to assess in terms of the tender conditions. The bidder could not
unilaterally proceed on the assumption that grant of interim protection
dispensed with the obligation of disclosure itself.
21. Once it is found that the declaration furnished by the Petitioner
did not clearly and unambiguously conform to the requirement
prescribed under the RFE, the Respondent cannot be faulted for
treating the same as non-compliant. In matters of public procurement,
where eligibility is determined on the basis of self-declarations, strict
adherence to the prescribed format assumes critical importance. Any
ambiguity in a material declaration going to eligibility cannot be
treated as a mere technical irregularity, particularly where the
consequences under the tender document provide for summary
rejection. Such assessment lies squarely within the domain of the
tendering authority.
22. The Respondent has placed reliance on Clause 8.1(c) of the
RFE, which reads as under:
“8.1(c) All bid proposal documents must be submitted
electronically in PDF format. Upon verification,
evaluation/assessment, if in case any information furnished by the
Bidder is found to be false/ incorrect, their bid will be summarily
rejected and no correspondence on the same shall be entertained.”
The TEC, upon consideration of the Petitioner‟s representation, has
recorded a categorical finding that the Petitioner failed to furnish
complete and correct information in its declaration regarding
blacklisting. The said finding is essentially one of evaluation of
compliance with the eligibility declaration prescribed under the RFE,
and this Court finds no arbitrariness, or perversity in the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 8 of 11

conclusion so as to warrant interference in exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23. In tender matters, where the tendering authority is required to
assess compliance with eligibility conditions on the basis of
declarations furnished by bidders, the scope of judicial review is
necessarily limited to examining the decision-making process and not
the correctness of the decision itself. Once the declaration submitted
by the Petitioner is found, on an objective reading, to be ambiguous
and not in strict conformity with the prescribed requirement, the
consequence flowing from Clause 8.1(c) of the RFE, namely summary
rejection, cannot be said to be arbitrary or disproportionate.
24. Clause 8.1(c) expressly empowers the Respondent to reject bids
where information furnished is found to be false or incorrect. In the
present case, the TEC has proceeded on the basis that the declaration
furnished by the Petitioner was not a clear or categorical disclosure of
its blacklisting status, and such view is a plausible interpretation of the
material on record. It is well settled that where two views are possible
in matters of contractual evaluation, the Court would not substitute its
own view for that of the tendering authority.
25. Accordingly, the reliance placed by the Respondent on Clause
8.1(c) of the RFE is fully justified, and the decision of the TEC
rejecting the Petitioner‟s bid cannot be interfered with.
26. Further, the reliance placed by the Respondent on the decision
of the Gujarat High Court in BGR Deco Consortium (supra) is of
significance here, wherein the Court upheld disqualification of a
bidder on the ground of furnishing incorrect/misleading disclosure
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 9 of 11

regarding blacklisting/debarment. The Court observed that the
tendering authority, being the author of the tender document, is best
suited to interpret its requirements and that constitutional courts ought
to defer to such interpretation in absence of mala fides or perversity.
The Court further held that furnishing an incorrect declaration
regarding blacklisting constituted a valid ground for disqualification
notwithstanding the pendency of interim proceedings concerning such
blacklisting order. It was also observed that an interim order staying
operation of a blacklisting order does not erase the underlying fact that
such an order had been passed, particularly where the tender
conditions required complete and truthful disclosure.
27. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no infirmity in the
decision-making process adopted by the Respondent. The conclusion
drawn by the TEC is founded on material borne out from the record
and cannot be said to be arbitrary.
28. The submission of the Petitioner that the Impugned Order is
non-speaking also does not merit acceptance. The communication
dated 25.03.2026 indicates that the representation submitted by the
Petitioner was considered by the TEC and found to be devoid of merit.
In matters relating to technical evaluation in tender processes, the
decision of the evaluation committee is not required to be in the nature
of a detailed adjudicatory or quasi-judicial order. The basis of such
decision also stands elaborated in the Counter Affidavit placed on
record by the Respondent.
29. Insofar as the contention regarding violation of principles of
natural justice is concerned, it may be noted that the Petitioner was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 10 of 11

afforded an opportunity to submit a representation pursuant to the
order dated 10.03.2026, which has been duly considered. In the facts
of the present case, no further opportunity of hearing was required at
the stage of technical evaluation.
30. It is also relevant to note that the primary decision disqualifying
the Petitioner was communicated vide email dated 06.03.2026. The
present Petition is directed against the subsequent rejection of the
representation. In any event, for the reasons noted above, no ground
for interference is made out.
CONCLUSION
31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any
merit in the present Writ Petition.

32. The present Writ Petition, along with the pending application,
accordingly, stands dismissed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
MAY 19, 2026
s.godara/pal


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:19.05.2026
16:32:53
W.P.(C) 3987/2026 Page 11 of 11