E Trav Tech Limited vs Union Of India & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 02.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 15.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 15.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 6844/2026, CM APPL. 33628/2026, CM APPL.
33629/2026 and CM APPL. 39704/2026
E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain. Senior Adv.,
Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Mr.
Shreyansh Rathi, Mr. Sagar
Arora, Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari,
Mr. Abhinandan Sharma, Mr.
Karan Sharma, Mr. Nishank
Tripathi, Ms. Harshita Sukhija,
Ms. Rishika Agrawal & Mr.
Shreyan Srivastava, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Haris beeran, Mr. Zulfiker
Ali P.S. & Ms. Lebina Baby,
Adv. Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG,
with Ms. Avshreya Pratap
Singh Rudy, CGSC and Mr.
Amit Gupta, SPC, Ms. Akshi
Bali (Legal Consultant), Mr.
Ankit Khatri, Ms. Nyasa
Sharma, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.
Shubham Sharma & Mr.
Naman, Advs. for R1 & R2.
+ W.P.(C) 6846/2026, CM APPL. 33640/2026, CM APPL.
33641/2026 and CM APPL. 39691/2026
E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 1 of 44
Through: Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Mr.
Shreyansh Rathi, Mr. Sagar
Arora, Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari,
Mr. Abhinandan Sharma & Mr.
Karan Sharma, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, with
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh
Rudy, CGSC and Mr. Amit
Gupta, SPC, Ms. Akshi Bali
(Legal Consultant), Mr. Ankit
Khatri, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Mr.
Amit Gupta, Mr. Shubham
Sharma & Mr. Naman, Advs.
for R1 & R2.
+ W.P.(C) 6848/2026, CM APPL. 33645/2026 and CM APPL.
33646/2026
E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saket Sikri, Mr. Nakul
Sachdeva, Mr. Shreyansh Rathi,
Mr. Sagar Arora, Ms. Shrinkhla
Tiwari, Mr. Abhinandan
Sharma & Mr. Karan Sharma,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, with
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh
Rudy, CGSC and Mr. Amit
Gupta, SPC, Ms. Akshi Bali
(Legal Consultant), Mr. Ankit
Khatri, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Mr.
Amit Gupta, Mr. Shubham
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 2 of 44
Sharma & Mr. Naman, Advs.
for R1 & R2. Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Arjun
Raghavendra, Ms. Nanakey
Kalra, Mr. Vivek Ram Bhat &
Mr. Stephin George, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 6849/2026, CM APPL. 33648/2026 and CM APPL.
33649/2026
E TRAV TECH LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Mr.
Shreyansh Rathi, Mr. Sagar
Arora, Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari,
Mr. Abhinandan Sharma, Mr.
Karan Sharma, Mr. Dhan
Singh, Mr. Sonu Kumar, Mr.
Abhishek Singh, Ms. Shivangi
Dhyani, Ms. Anjali Dhyani,
Ms. Jyotsana B., Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Sethia, Ms.
Poonam Shekhawat along with
Ms. Vratanshi Arora, CS
Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, with
Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh
Rudy, CGSC and Mr. Amit
Gupta, SPC, Ms. Akshi Bali
(Legal Consultant), Mr. Ankit
Khatri, Ms. Nyasa Sharma, Mr.
Amit Gupta, Mr. Shubham
Sharma & Mr. Naman, Advs.
for R1 & R2.
+ W.P.(C) 8039/2026 and CM APPL. 38517/2026
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 3 of 44
M/S VERASYS LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saumya Gupta, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Priyanka Sethia, Ms.
Poonam Shekhawat along with
Ms. Vratanshi Arora, CS Mr.
Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr.
Akshay Sharma, Mr. Dev
Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap
Singh & Mr. Yogya Bhatia,
Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 8045/2026 and CM APPL. 38533/2026
MS VERASYS LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saumya Gupta, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with
Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr. Dev
Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap
Singh & Mr. Yogya Bhatia,
Advs. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr,
Adv., Mr. Arjun Raghavendra
M., Mr. Vivek Ram Bhat & Mr.
Stephin George, Advs.
+ W.P.(C) 8046/2026 and CM APPL. 38536/2026
MS VERASYS LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Saumya Gupta, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 4 of 44
versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Haris beeran, Mr. Zulfiker
Ali P.S. & Ms. Lebina Baby,
Adv. Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC
with Mr. Akshay Sharma, Mr.
Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun
Pratap Singh & Mr. Yogya
Bhatia, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. The present batch of seven Petitions raise a common issue
concerning the technical evaluation of bids submitted by the
Petitioners pursuant to various Requests for Proposal (RFPs) issued by
the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in each of the Petitions for outsourcing of
Consular/Passport/Visa (CPV) services at the Indian Missions situated
at Kuwait, Abu Dhabi (UAE), Singapore and Canberra (Australia). In
essence, the Petitioners herein assail the communications vide which
they were declared unsuccessful at the technical-bid stage along with
the consequent parameter-wise evaluation communicated to them. It
has been held that the Petitioners have failed to secure minimum 70%
marks to qualify for opening of their financial bids.
2. The principal contention of the Petitioners in the present batch
is that the criteria-wise evaluation of their technical bids is arbitrary
and that the marks awarded to them under the respective parameters
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 5 of 44
stipulated under the respective RFPs are unsupported by any reasons.
3. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to highlight that since the
issues involved in all the Petitions are identical, they were heard
together and are being decided by this common judgment.
4. The present batch comprises of Petitions filed by two distinct
1 2
bidders, namely, E TRAV Tech Limited and M/s Verasys Limited ,
who participated in the aforesaid tender processes and were
disqualified subsequently at the technical bid stage. While E TRAV
by way of W.P.(C) 6844/2026, W.P.(C) 6846/2026, W.P.(C)
6848/2026 and W.P.(C) 6849/2026, has challenged its technical
disqualification in respect of the RFPs pertaining to Abu Dhabi
(UAE), Singapore, Canberra (Australia) and Kuwait, respectively, the
challenge by Verasys by way of W.P.(C) 8039/2026, W.P.(C)
8045/2026 and W.P.(C) 8046/2026 is confined to the RFPs in respect
of Indian Missions situated at Kuwait, Canberra (Australia) and Abu
Dhabi (UAE) respectively.
5. We also deem it appropriate to clarify that while the
Respondent No.1 in all the present Petitions is Union of India through
the Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, the Respondent No.2 are
the respective Indian Embassies and High Commissions concerned
with the RFPs in question. The Respondent No.3, in each Petition, is
the successful L-1 bidder in the respective tender process.
1
hereinafter referred to as E-TRAV
2
hereinafter referred to as Verasys
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 6 of 44
6. Notably, it is not in dispute that the RFPs governing the tender
process for all the aforesaid Missions are substantially similar in their
terms and conditions, including the provisions relating to the technical
evaluation of bids. Accordingly, the controversy in all the Petitions,
lies in a narrow compass and centres around the legality of the
criteria-wise technical evaluation undertaken by the Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 as well as the lack of reasons furnished in support thereof.
7. To briefly recapitulate the background of the present
controversy, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued separate RFPs
inviting bids for the outsourcing of the CPV services at the India
Missions in Kuwait, Abu Dhabi (UAE), Singapore and Canberra
(Australia). Each RFP envisaged a two-stage bidding process
comprising a technical-bid stage followed by a financial-bid stage.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid RFPs, the Petitioners submitted their
technical and financial bids within the prescribed timelines. Upon
evaluation of the technical bids, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 informed
the Petitioners that they had failed to secure the minimum qualifying
score of 70% marks and were, consequently, held ineligible to
participate in financial-bid stage.
9. Aggrieved by their technical disqualification and the non-
disclosure of parameter-wise breakup of marks and reasons for such
disqualification, the Petitioners approached this Court by way of
W.P.(C) 1562/2026 captioned E TRAV Tech Limited v. Union of
3
India & Anr. and connected matters. The said Petitions came to be
3
hereinafter referred to as „E TRAV Tech Ltd.-I‟
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 7 of 44
decided by this Court vide a common judgment dated 10.03.2026,
while recording the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor
General, that the detailed parameter-wise breakup of marks, along
with the reasons for disqualification, would be furnished to the
Petitioners upon completion of the tender process. Additionally, this
Court while dismissing the Petitions, also granted liberty to the
Petitioners to avail such remedies as may be available in law in the
event they remained aggrieved by the marks or reasons so
communicated.
10. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.03.2026, particularly
insofar as the disclosure of the basis of the technical evaluation had
been deferred until completion of the tender process, E TRAV
approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP (C) No. 10625/2026
4
titled E TRAV Tech Limited v UOI and Anr. and other connected
matter. The Supreme Court vide Order dated 16.04.2026, disposed of
the Petitions while directing the Respondents therein to furnish the
parameter-wise breakup of marks awarded to the Petitioners within
ten days.
11. Consequently, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in compliance with
the aforesaid Order, issued various communications to the Petitioners
in May 2026, furnishing the parameter-wise breakup of the marks
awarded to them under the various heads of technical evaluation. It is
the case of the Petitioners that the disclosures so made neither provide
the basis on which the marks were awarded under the respective
parameters, despite the Petitioners having fulfilled the criteria
4
hereinafter referred to as „E TRAV Tech Ltd.-II‟
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 8 of 44
stipulated in the RFPs, nor set out any reasons whatsoever for the
break-up of marks so awarded. It is in these circumstances that the
present batch of Petitions have been placed before us for adjudication.
12. Before proceeding to examine the arguments advanced by the
parties herein, we also deem it relevant to provide the tabulated chart
of the breakup of marks provided to the Petitioners for each of the
Missions in compliance of the detailed scoring criteria prescribed
under Part-III of Annexure J to the RFP titled as Technical Bid
Evaluation Performa, which forms the basis of argument by the
Petitioners.
13. The tabulated chart of the marks attained by the Petitioners
against the 9 categories are as follows:
S.
No.
Criteria Max.
marks
Marks granted to the Petitioners in each country in
the respective criteria
E TRAV Tech Limited M/s Verasys Limited
UAE Sing. Aus. Kuwait Kuwait Aus. UAE
1a Location
of the
ICACs
8 8 7 7 3 6.6 7
3.5
1b Parking
facilities
5 4 5 4 3.5 3 3.8 4.5
2a Area of
ICACs
8 8 7.2 7.3 6 6 6.9 6.5
2b Layout
and
Physical
infrastru
cture of
ICACs
10 7 4 9.8 5 5 5.7 10
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 9 of 44
3a Number
of
submissi
on
counters
6 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.75 4.5
3b Operatio
nal
efficienc
y of the
submissi
on
process
5 3.5 3.5 3 3.5 2
2 2
4a Provisio
n of
Applicat
ion
Facilitati
ng
Services
at
ICACs
7 3 3 4 3 4 5 2
4b Quality
of
Organis
ational
Structur
e
6 4.5 4.5 6 4.5 3.5 4.5 4
5a The
availabil
ity of
appoint
ment
slots
5 0 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 0
5b Total
Turnaro
und time
5 0 5 0 5 5 5 0
6 Call
Centres
5 5 3 1 3.5 3 0 3
7a Online
enterpris
8 7 5 3 3.5 3 4 7
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 10 of 44
e web
applicati
on and
innovati
ve web
design
7b Grievan
ce
Redress
al
Mechani
sm
Arrange
ment
and
Analysis
7 4
5 3 2 4 4 2
8 Record
of past
perform
ance
with
mission
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 Reputati
on of the
bidding
compan
y
7 4 3 4 0 0 0 5
Total Marks 100 67.50 65.50 62.2 55.5 54.5 61.25 61.50
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
14. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
E TRAV, and Ms. Saumya Gupta, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Verasys, addressed common submissions regarding the
maintainability of the present Petitions before advancing their
respective challenges to the technical evaluation. Since the legal issues
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 11 of 44
raised by both Petitioners substantially overlap, their submissions are
being noticed together, while the Mission-specific and Criteria-
specific challenges are dealt with separately wherever necessary.
15. At the outset, it has been argued that the present Petitions arise
from a fresh cause of action, which arose after the disclosure of
parameter-wise marks provided pursuant to the Supreme Court‟s
Order dated 16.04.2026 in E TRAV Tech Ltd.-II (Supra) . Hence, it is
for the first time that the legality of the disclosed evaluation will be
adjudicated.
16. In this regard a reference is also made to the Judgment dated
10.03.2026 of this Court and Order dated 16.04.2026 of the Supreme
Court, whereby liberty was expressly reserved in favour of the
Petitioners to avail remedies in accordance with law if they were
aggrieved by the disclosures subsequently made.
17. It was argued that E TRAV has emerged as the L-1 financial
bidder in each of the four Missions, but its financial bids were not
considered solely on account of arbitrary and illegal deductions made
during the technical evaluation. In this regard, the following
comparative chart was relied upon:
S. No. Country Successful L-1
E TRAV’s
Bids
Bid
1. Canberra, Australia 114 AUD 38 AUD
2. Abu Dhabi, UAE 19 AED 9 AED
3. Kuwait 6 KWD 0.9 KWD
4. Singapore 23.65 SGD 19 SGD
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 12 of 44
18. It is their case that the technical evaluation conducted by
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 across the various tenders exhibits a
consistent and systemic pattern of arbitrariness, namely:
(a.) departure from the evaluation methodology prescribed under
the RFPs;
(b.) application of undisclosed comparative benchmarks;
(c.) deduction of marks despite objective compliance with the
prescribed criteria;
(d.) inconsistent marking under identical parameters despite
materially identical proposals;
(e.) complete absence of reasons explaining the deductions made by
the Technical Evaluation Committees.
Accordingly, it has been argued that the challenge is not directed
against the technical wisdom of the Evaluation Committees rather
against the legality, transparency and fairness of the decision-making
process adopted by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
19. Learned counsels further argued that despite the categorical
statement recorded in Paragraph no.74 of the Judgment in E TRAV
Tech Ltd.-I that reasons forming the basis of the break-up marks
would be furnished, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 merely disclosed
numerical marks without providing any evaluation remarks or reasons
explaining the deductions under the individual criteria.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 13 of 44
20. It was contended that such non-disclosure is contrary to Clause
II(a) and (c) of the RFP, Rule 173(iv) of the General Financial Rules,
5
2017 , and Clauses 3.5.2, 5.4.2 and 7.3.4.2(d) of the Manual of
6
Procurement of Non-Consultancy Services (2025) , all of which
require transparency in evaluation and communication of reasons.
21. It is their case that although judicial review in contractual
matters is limited, this Court is empowered to examine whether the
decision-making process is fair, transparent, non-arbitrary and free
from discrimination or mala fide . It was further argued that tender
evaluation criteria must be objective, certain and capable of uniform
application, and that vague or undisclosed standards offend the
doctrine of a level playing field under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Reliance in this regard was placed on Banshidhar Construction Pvt.
7
Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. ; and Reliance Energy Ltd. v.
8
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. .
22. The Petitioners challenged the technical evaluation under
various Criteria across the tenders for Canberra (Australia), Abu
Dhabi (UAE), Kuwait and Singapore. However, to avoid repetition,
the submissions may broadly be classified under the following heads:
I. Application of undisclosed comparative evaluation
methodology:
23. It was argued that Criteria 1(a), 2(b), 4(a), 6, 7(a), 7(b) and 9
contemplated comparative evaluation, whereby the bidder furnishing
5
hereinafter referred to as „GFR-2017‟
6
hereinafter referred to as „Manual of 2025‟
7
(2024) 10 SCC 273
8
(2007) 8 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 14 of 44
the “best offer” was to receive full marks and the remaining bidders
were to be awarded proportionately lower marks. However,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 neither disclosed the benchmark constituting
the “best offer” nor the comparative standards or evaluation
methodology adopted for awarding proportionately lower marks.
24. It was contended that both Petitioners had furnished
comprehensive proposals fully satisfying the requirements prescribed
under the RFPs, including:
i. suitably located ICACs with comprehensive layouts and
physical infrastructure [Criteria 1(a) and 2(b)];
ii. complete application facilitation services, including assistance
in form filling, photography, photocopying and courier facilities
[Criterion 4(a)];
iii. innovative web applications and digital platforms for online
appointment scheduling, application tracking and multilingual
interfaces [Criterion 7(a)];
iv. integrated grievance redressal mechanisms comprising multiple
grievance channels, AI-enabled grievance management, chatbot
facilities, MIS integration, structured escalation workflows, dashboard
services, customer feedback mechanisms and CSAT monitoring
[Criterion 7(b)];
v. comprehensive technology-enabled call centre infrastructure
comprising IVR, web chat, chatbot, WhatsApp and e-mail support
with a committed call waiting time of less than two minutes and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 15 of 44
sufficient operational capacity to handle applicant queries [Criterion
6].
vi. provided client references, each relating to services falling
within the eligible categories, rendered within the preceding five years
with a minimum duration of two years [Criterion 9].
25. Despite furnishing materially compliant proposals, the
Petitioners were awarded disproportionately low marks under these
comparative criteria without any disclosure of the proposal considered
as the “best offer”, the comparative benchmark adopted, the basis of
proportional deductions; or any evaluation remarks explaining why
their proposals were considered inferior. It was argued that the
adoption of an undisclosed comparative methodology is contrary to
the RFP conditions and violates the principles of transparency and
equality.
II. Arbitrary evaluation of objective parameters contrary to the
scoring matrix:
26. The Petitioners further submitted that several criteria, including
Criteria 1(b), 2(a), 3(a), 3(b), 5(a) and 5(b), required objective
assessment based upon compliance with predefined requirements and
corresponding scoring matrices. However, despite complete
compliance, marks were deducted without identifying any deficiency.
27. Learned counsels with effect to the aforesaid Criteria that the
Petitioners had demonstrated:
i. adequate parking facilities in compliance with the RFP
[Criterion 1(b)];
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 16 of 44
ii. setting up of ICACs in prime locations in accordance to the
terms of the RFP [Criterion 2(a)];
iii. proposal of setting up counters as per the terms of RFP
[Criterion 3(a)];
iv. demonstration of a streamlined and efficient submission process
in accordance with the requirements prescribed under RFP [Criterion
3(b)];
v. demonstration of commitment to ensure appointment
availability within five working days as prescribed thereunder as well
as supporting technological infrastructure required to meet the said
timeline [Criterion 5(a)]; and
vi. proposal for a turnaround time less than thirty minutes was
made along with the detailed operational framework to achieve the
said deadline [Criterion 5(b)].
28. It was nevertheless argued that Respondent Nos.1 and 2
awarded disproportionately low or even zero marks under these
objective criteria, despite the RFP prescribing definite marks for
compliance with the stipulated benchmarks.
29. In several instances, including Criteria 5(a) and 5(b), both the
Petitioners in Abu Dhabi (UAE) and E TRAV under Criterion 5(b) in
Canberra (Australia) was awarded zero marks despite proposing
appointment availability and turnaround times fully conforming to the
prescribed standards. No deficiencies, adverse findings or reasons
were disclosed to justify such deductions.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 17 of 44
III. Arbitrary evaluation of corporate credentials and institutional
experience:
30. It was argued that Verasys had also been arbitrarily assessed
under Criterion 9, which concerned corporate credentials and
institutional reputation. According to the learned counsel, Verasys had
produced extensive documentary material, including client references,
testimonials, completed Government projects and evidence
demonstrating substantial experience in Government-to-Citizen digital
service delivery and execution of large-scale technology-enabled
public service projects catering to millions of users.
31. Despite the aforesaid material, zero marks were awarded under
this Criterion in Kuwait and Canberra (Australia) without recording
any adverse finding regarding its credentials, reputation or past
performance.
IV. Inconsistent evaluation under identical parameters:
32. Learned senior counsel for E TRAV further argued that the
evaluation under Criterion 9 demonstrates inherent inconsistency and
arbitrariness. The same client references, credentials, experience
certificates and supporting documents were furnished across all four
tenders and satisfied every eligibility requirement prescribed under the
RFPs. However, despite identical material being evaluated, E TRAV
received:
i. 4 out of 7 marks in Abu Dhabi (UAE);
ii. 4 out of 7 marks in Canberra (Australia);
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 18 of 44
iii. 3 out of 7 marks in Singapore; and
iv. 0 out of 7 marks in Kuwait.
It was argued that identical documentary material could not
legitimately attract materially different scores unless reasons were
recorded, which admittedly were never disclosed.
33. It was further submitted that similar inconsistencies are evident
across several other comparative Criteria where materially identical
proposals submitted by the Petitioners were awarded significantly
different marks by different Technical Evaluation Committees without
any explanation provided for the same.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
34. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General, has
argued that the present Petitions are a belated attempt to reopen a
concluded tender process on account of failure of the Petitioners to
secure minimum qualifying technical score of 70% marks.
35. It is his case that the Petitioners by way of the present Petitions,
are re-agitating the issues which have been put to quietus by this Court
by way of Judgment dated 10.03.2026 in E TRAV Tech Ltd.-I of this
Court. It is their case that the said Judgment was substantially
affirmed by the Supreme Court in E TRAV Tech Ltd.-II . Hence, the
present Petitions are barred by the principles of res judicata and
constructive res judicata . While making reference to the Order of the
Supreme Court it was also argued that in pursuance of the same, the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were only under an obligation to provide the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 19 of 44
break-up of marks and no reasons were to be provided for the same.
36. It has been argued that the evaluation of technical bids for CPV
services falls exclusively within the domain of Expert Outsourcing
Committees, which assessed the bids in accordance with the RFP,
technical proposals, presentations and Mission-specific operational
requirements. The Petitioners, while accepting the evaluation criteria,
impermissibly seeks judicial re-appreciation of the marks awarded.
37. It was contended that the Petitioners‟ comparison of marks
across different Missions is misconceived, as each Mission conducted
an independent, comparative evaluation under separate RFPs,
involving different bidders, local conditions and operational
requirements. The Petitioners‟ repeated failure across all participating
Missions itself demonstrates the comparative inadequacy of its
proposals.
38. It was further submitted that the Petitioners‟ grievance
regarding award of zero marks is selective, as several other bidders
were also awarded zero under the same parameters. No procedural
illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide or deviation from the RFP has been
established.
39. It is the case of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the technical
presentations formed an integral part of the evaluation under Chapter
XV of the RFP, read with Chapter VII and Annexure-J, and the
assessment was based on both the written proposals and the
explanations furnished before the Outsourcing Committees.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 20 of 44
40. It was contended that, by executing the declaration under
Annexure-E, the Petitioners expressly accepted the evaluation
methodology and selection process. Having participated without
protest, it cannot now challenge the tender conditions after being
unsuccessful, and such conduct attracts the doctrine of approbate and
reprobate.
41. It was further submitted that the RFPs are consistent with Rule
173 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, and the technical evaluation
was conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed criteria,
ensuring transparency, fairness and competitiveness.
42. Lastly, while highlighting the limited scope of judicial review
by this Court, reliance has been placed on Agmatel India Pvt Ltd v
9
Resoursys Telecom , Tata Motors Limited v The Brihan Mumbai
10
Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (best) and Ors. , Jagdish
11
Mandal v State of Orissa and Others and Uflex Ltd v Government
12
of Tamil Nadu & Ors. .
43. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel representing the
Respondent No.3 in W.P.(C) 6848/2026, while relying upon the
timelines provided under Chapter XVI of the RFP, has argued that in
pursuance to the prescribed timelines provided thereunder, the
Respondent No.3 has already taken steps to set-up CPV Services in
Australia and had invested almost 20 million AUD in setting up of its
facilitation after it was declared an L-1 Bidder.
9
(2022) 5 SCC 362
10
Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023 arising out of SLP (C) No. 15708 of 2022
11
(2007) 14 SCC 517
12
(2007) 14 SCC 517
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 21 of 44
ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
44. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties, the
following issues arise for the consideration of this Court:
A. Whether the present Petitions are maintainable or barred by the
principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata in view of the
Judgment dated 10.03.2026 and Order dated 16.04.2026?
B. Whether the decision-making process adopted by the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in evaluating the Petitioners‟ technical bids is
arbitrary, opaque and violative of the constitutional requirements of
fairness, transparency, reasonableness and equality under Articles 14
and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution?
C. Whether the failure of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to record and
communicate reasons for disqualification at technical bid stage and
the parameter wise breakup provided thereof, vitiates the impugned
technical evaluation of the Petitioners‟ bid?
In re: Issue A
45. Learned Additional Solicitor General, at the outset while
challenging the maintainability of the present Petitions, has argued
that the present proceedings are an attempt to reopen issues which
have already been settled by this Court vide its Judgment in E TRAV
Tech Ltd-I as such the present Petitions are barred by principles of res
judicata and constructive res judicata . However, in our considered
view, the said contention is liable to be rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 22 of 44
46. A careful reading of the aforesaid Judgment, particularly
Paragraph No.62, makes it evident that this Court had consciously
refrained from examining the merits of the technical evaluation, as the
financial bids had not yet been opened and no comparative assessment
was possible. The Court had, therefore, found the challenge to the
technical disqualification premature, being founded on alleged
arbitrariness in a process which was still incomplete.
47. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the learned Additional
Solicitor General had, at that stage, made a statement before this Court
that the parameter-wise marks along with reasons would be disclosed
upon completion of the tender process. Accordingly, this Court while
recording the aforesaid submission, declined interference and
expressly granted liberty to the Petitioners to pursue their remedies in
accordance with law after such disclosure.
48. Additionally, the Order of Supreme Court in E TRAV Tech
Ltd.-II (Supra) is also of significant consideration, since the Court
while declining to interfere with the Judgment of this Court, clarified
that the said Judgment would not preclude the Petitioners from raising
all permissible contentions, including those urged earlier, thereby
preserving their right to challenge the evaluation once the relevant
material was disclosed.
49. Consequently, the communications issued in May 2026,
disclosing parameter-wise marks constitute the first occasion when the
Petitioners became aware of the manner in which their bids had
actually been evaluated. The present challenge is founded entirely on
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 23 of 44
this subsequent disclosure, which gives rise to a fresh cause of action.
50. The doctrine of res judicata , embodied in Section 11 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1906 applies only where the issue directly
and substantially in question has been finally decided in earlier
proceedings. Since the legality of the disclosed parameter-wise
evaluation neither arose nor could have been examined in the earlier
writ petitions, the present challenge is not barred. Similarly, the plea
of constructive res judicata is untenable, as the Petitioners cannot be
expected to challenge material that was admittedly unavailable when
the earlier Petitions were instituted.
51. The settled position of law is that a subsequent proceeding
founded on a fresh cause of action arising from later disclosure of
material is not barred by res judicata . [Ref: Forward Construction
13
Co. v. Prabhat Mandal , State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab
14 15
Hussain , and Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board ].
52. Accordingly, we hold that the present Petitions arise from a
fresh cause of action flowing from the disclosure of the parameter-
wise evaluation pursuant to the Orders of this Court and the Supreme
Court. Therefore, preliminary objection raised by the Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 is rejected.
In re: Issue B
53. Having considered the rival submissions, we are of the
13
(1986) 1 SCC 100
14
(1977) 2 SCC 806
15
(1999) 5 SCC 590
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 24 of 44
considered view that the present controversy extends beyond the
correctness of the marks awarded to the Petitioners under evaluation
criteria. The challenge essentially lies against the legality of the
decision-making process adopted by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
while evaluating the technical bids of the Petitioners.
54. The issue before this Court is not whether a different score
ought to have been awarded, rather whether the evaluation process
satisfies the constitutional requirements of fairness, transparency,
reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.
55. Before dealing with the arguments raised by the parties, we
deem it appropriate to delineate the jurisprudence settled by the
Supreme Court governing tender matters. In Tata Cellular v. Union
16
of India , it was held that although the Government enjoys freedom
in contractual matters, its decisions remain amenable to judicial
review on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety.
17
56. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa , the Supreme Court
while dealing with the scope of judicial review, delineated the scope
of a writ Court and framed three questions, which a writ Court shall
take into consideration before exercising its jurisdiction:
i. whether the process or decision is mala fide or intended to
favour someone; or
16
(1994) 6 SCC 651
17
(2007) 14 SCC 517
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 25 of 44
ii. whether it is so arbitrary and irrational that no responsible
authority acting reasonably could have taken it; and
iii. whether public interest is affected.
If the answers to aforestated questions are in the negative, there should
be no interference, even if some procedural error or some prejudice to
an individual bidder is shown.
57. The Supreme Court has uniformly held that while deference is
owed to expert bodies on technical matters, such deference
presupposes that the evaluation has been conducted fairly,
transparently and in accordance with the declared criteria. Judicial
restraint cannot be invoked to shield arbitrary administrative action
from constitutional scrutiny. [Ref: Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v.
18
State of Karnataka , Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro
19 20
Rail Corporation Ltd. , Montecarlo Ltd. v. NTPC Ltd. and Silppi
21
Constructions Contractors v. Union of India ].
58. It is trite law that this Court, while exercising its writ
jurisdiction does not sit in appeal over the decisions of expert bodies
or undertake a comparative assessment of technical bids. However,
the settled distinction between review of the merits of a decision and
review of the decision-making process cannot be overlooked.
59. In matters pertaining to public procurement, the constitutional
requirement of fairness assumes greater significance. Articles 14 and
18
(2012) 8 SCC 216
19
(2016) 16 SCC 818
20
(2016) 15 SCC 272
21
(2020) 16 SCC 489
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 26 of 44
19(1)(g) of the Constitution, when read together embody the doctrine
of a level playing field, ensuring that every bidder competes on equal
and predetermined terms. The Supreme Court in Reliance Energy
22
Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. ,
held that the evaluation criteria must possess legal certainty and
cannot rest upon vague, undisclosed or subjective benchmarks. Hence,
any departure from the declared methodology or application of hidden
standards not only undermines competitive bidding but also violates
the guarantee of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
60. Subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Agmatel India
23
Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom and Uflex Ltd. v. Government of
24
Tamil Nadu & Ors. , while emphasising on judicial restraint, have
also recognised that the Courts may intervene in cases of arbitrariness
or irrationality or where the evaluation process is struck by mala fide
or arbitrariness, respectively.
61. Having delineated the scope of interference by this Court as
settled by the Supreme Court, we shall now proceed to examine the
arguments made by the parties.
62. Applying the aforesaid principles, we find considerable
substance in the Petitioners‟ grievance that the disclosed parameter-
wise evaluation suffers from multiple infirmities. Although parameter
wise marks have now been furnished, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
have failed to disclose the basis/reason on which such marks were
22
(2007) 8 SCC 1
23
(2022) 5 SCC 362
24
2021 INSC 492
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 27 of 44
awarded. The evaluation sheets neither identify deficiencies in the
Petitioners‟ proposals nor disclose the comparative benchmarks
applied while awarding proportionately lower marks under
comparative criteria. Consequently, the Petitioners have been left
without any means to ascertain why their otherwise compliant
proposals were considered inferior to those of competing bidders.
63. The aforesaid deficiency is particularly evident in Criteria 1(a),
2(b), 4(a), 6, 7(a), 7(b) and 9 requiring comparative evaluation by
awarding full marks to the bidder furnishing the “best offer” and
proportionately lower marks to others. While such comparative
assessment is permissible, it necessarily requires disclosure of the
objective standards governing the comparison.
64. Another significant feature of the disclosed evaluation under the
comparative evaluation Criteria is evident from the inconsistency in
marking under identical parameters, in particular under Criterion 9
which deals with the Reputation of the bidding company, the details of
the same are reproduced hereunder:
S. No. Criteria Scoring Criteria/Remarks
9 Reputation of the bidding
company in the market and
quality of non-GOI client list
and references received from
them.
Based on the information
provided by the bidding
companies, the marks will be
awarded.
(07 marks)
The bidder with best market
reputation and references
should be awarded 07 marks.
The others will be awarded
less marks on a scale relative
1. Minimum three
references required
2. Period of referred
service should not be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 28 of 44
more than five years old
with the length of service
being minimum of two
years.
to the best offer. At the other
end, bidding companies not
satisfying the stipulated
requirement, will be given
zero mark.
3. The services under
reference should pertain to
categories of services
eligible for the present
tender process
As is evident, the marks under the present Criterion were to be
awarded on the basis of information furnished by the bidders, with the
bidder having the best market reputation to be awarded 7 marks and
remaining bidders being awarded proportionately lower marks.
65. E TRAV under the said Criterion provided substantially
identical documentary material across all four Missions, comprising
six client references evidencing services rendered during the
preceding five years. Amongst these, five client references displayed
continuous service for a minimum period of two years in the
categories prescribed under the RFP. However, despite the uniformity
in the material provided by E TRAV, the Technical Evaluation
Committees awarded widely distinct marks, including 4 out of 7
marks in Abu Dhabi (UAE) and Canberra (Australia) with 3 out of 7
marks in Singapore; and 0 out of 7 marks in Kuwait.
66. Similarly, Verasys under the aforementioned Criterion, also
provided substantially identical documentary material across all four
Missions, comprising 9 client references evidencing services,
prescribed under the RFP, rendered during the preceding five years for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 29 of 44
a minimum period of two years. Nevertheless, the Technical
Evaluation Committee, on the basis of documents so produced,
awarded Verasys 5 out of 7 marks in Abu Dhabi (UAE) whereas 0 out
of 7 marks in Canberra (Australia) and Kuwait.
67. In the absence of any disclosed benchmark or comparative
analysis, the evaluation becomes incapable of objective verification
and rests entirely upon subjective discretion. Such an approach, in the
opinion of this Court, is contrary to the principle of a level playing
field and cannot withstand scrutiny under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution.
68. Likewise, the deductions made under objective evaluation
parameters under Criteria 1(b), 2(a), 3(a), 3(b), 5(a) and 5(b) are
equally unsustainable. The details of the Criteria are as follows:
S. No. Criteria Scoring Criteria/Remarks
1b Parking facilities with
capacity and type of parking
i) 5 Marks- Exclusive Parking
with adequate slots in ICAC
ii) 4-Marks- Adequate parking
slots in or near ICAC
(5 Marks)
iii) Less than 4 Marks – for
Inadequate slots/slots not
closer to ICAC.
2a Area of ICACs
i) 6 marks- Minimum
Prescribed Area
(Refer to 1(A) (xi) of
Chapter VII)
ii) Offer with Area more than
the prescribed Minimum will
be given higher marks relative
to (i) above
(8) Marks)
iii) 0 Marks- Less than the
Minimum prescribed Area
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 30 of 44
3a Number of submission
counters
i) 4.5 Marks- Minimum
Prescribed Number of
counters
Refer to 1(A) (xi) of Chapter
VII)
ii) Offer with counters more
than the minimum prescribed
will be given higher marks
relative to (i) above
( 06 marks )
iii) 0-Marks- Less than the
Minimum Number of
counters
3b Operational efficiency
Marks will be given, as per
the Mission‟s judgment
of the submission
on the basis of information
provided by the bidding
company, as under:
process - to be explained by
the bidder
(i) Reception
i) 3.5 Marks- Optimal Process
(ii) Enquiry/ information
ii) Offer with the submission
process better than the
optimal, will get higher marks
relative to (i) above.
(iii) Examination of
documents
(iv) Verification of the latest
photo and application form
iii) Less than 3.5 Marks for
the suboptimal submission
process
(v) Bio-metric collection
(vi) Submission
(vi) Fee collection
(viii) Delivery etc.
(5 marks)
5a The availability of
appointment slots at ICACs
within 05 working days (5
marks)
i) 3.5 Marks- Offer which
ensures the minimum
prescribed appointment
window of five days.
The proposed appointment
slot management system to
ii) Offer which ensures
appointment slots in less than
05 working days will be given
a higher mark relative to (i)
above, subject to the
be described by the bidder.
Also, the bidder shall explain
how will they ensure the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 31 of 44
proposed appointment
window (even in case of
surge), given their resources.
explanation to handle
appointments with
commensurate resources
iii) 0 Marks- Offer with
appointment window of more
than 05 days.
5b
Total Turnaround time
i) 5 Marks - Prescribed Turn
Around Time (30 minutes)
for submission (from the
time of entry/token
generation to the time of
generation payment receipt
(Subject to a maximum of 30
minutes)
ii) 0 Marks- More than 30
Minutes
05 Marks
The bidder needs to explain
how they will ensure the
proposed Turn Around Time,
given the processes and
resources (physical and
human).
The RFPs as noticed hereinabove prescribed measurable standards
relating to parking facilities, area of ICACs, number of submission
counters, appointment availability, turnaround time and operational
preparedness.
69. Under Criterion 5(a), bidders expressly committed to providing
appointment slots of less than five days were entitled to 5 marks. E
TRAV proposed the availability within five days and explained the
appointment management system and operational framework through
which the prescribed timeline would be achieved. Despite submitting
materially identical proposals in all four Missions, E TRAV was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 32 of 44
awarded 3.5 marks in the Canberra (Australia), Singapore and Kuwait
Missions, but 0 marks in the Abu Dhabi (UAE) Mission. Similarly,
Verasys, despite proposing availability of appointment slots at ICACs
within 4 days was awarded 3.5 marks in Kuwait and Canberra
(Australia) and 0 marks in the Abu Dhabi (UAE) Mission.
70. Likewise, under Criterion 5(b), bidders proposing a turnaround
time of 30 minutes or less were entitled to 5 marks. E TRAV, despite
proposing a turnaround time of less than 30 minutes, was awarded 0
marks in the Canberra (Australia) and Abu Dhabi (UAE) Missions,
while receiving 5 marks for the materially identical proposal in the
Singapore and Kuwait Missions. Likewise, Verasys, despite proposing
a turnaround time of 28 minutes in all three Missions, was awarded 5
marks in the Canberra (Australia) and Kuwait Missions but 0 marks in
the Abu Dhabi (UAE) mission.
71. Under Criterion 1(b), the scoring criteria was to award 5 marks
for exclusive parking with adequate slots at the ICAC. Verasys in
Kuwait Mission proposed 4 exclusive parking spaces each at Kuwait
City and Fahaheel with 70 and 75 paid/open parking slots
respectively, 3 exclusive parking spaces at Jleeb Al Shuwaikh
(Abbasiya) with 70 paid/open parking slots, and 2 exclusive parking
spaces at Jahra with 50 paid/open parking slots, which were more than
adequate to meet the anticipated daily applications. Nevertheless, only
3 out of 5 marks were awarded.
72. In the Canberra (Australia) Mission, Verasys proposed 1
exclusive parking space at Adelaide, 6 at Brisbane, 3 each at Canberra
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 33 of 44
and Melbourne, and 2 each at Perth and Sydney, together with 100
paid/open parking slots at all locations yet received only 3.8 out of 5
marks.
73. Likewise, in the Abu Dhabi (UAE) Mission, Verasys proposed
the following:
S. No. Location Exclusive
Paid/Open
Parking
Parking
1. Al Khalidiya/Al Danah 5
130
2. Al Reem 3 160
3. Musaffah 4 100
4. Al Ain 4 90
5. Ghyathi 2 80
6. Madinat Zayed 2 100
7. Dubai (Bur Dubai) 10 40
8. Dubai(Furjan/Jebel
Ali/DIP)
5 125
9. Sharjah (Al Majaz) 2 100
10. Sharjah (Rolla) 4 30
11. Ajman (Al Jerf) 2 60
12. Fujairah 3 90
13. Umm Al Quwain 3 75
14. Khorfakkan
(Corniche/Subara)
4 35
15. Kalba 4 40
16. Ras Al Khaimah
(Nakheel/Khujan/Mareed)
5 80
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 34 of 44
No reasons were provided for the deduction of 0.5 marks while
assessing the said proposal as to how the same does not meet the
prescribed criteria of the RFP.
74. Under Criterion 2(a), as per the scoring criteria offer with more
than prescribed minimum area was to be given higher marks than 6. In
the Kuwait Mission, against the prescribed minimum area of 6000 sq.
ft. at Kuwait City, 5000 sq. ft. each at Fahaheel and Jleeb Al
Shuwaikh (Abbasiya), and 1000 sq. ft. at Jahra, Verasys proposed
6270 sq. ft., 5230 sq. ft., 5300 sq. ft. and 1290 sq. ft. respectively, but
was awarded only 6 out of 8 marks.
75. In the Canberra (Australia) Mission, against the prescribed
minimum areas of 2700 sq. ft. (Adelaide), 4000 sq. ft. (Brisbane),
1500 sq. ft. (Canberra), 6000 sq. ft. (Melbourne), 1500 sq. ft. (Perth)
and 4800 sq. ft. (Sydney), Verasys proposed 2799 sq. ft., 4338 sq. ft.,
2476 sq. ft., 6135 sq. ft., 2372 sq. ft. and 5253 sq. ft. respectively, all
of which exceeded the prescribed minimum area, yet received only 6.9
out of 8 marks.
76. Similarly, in Abu Dhabi (UAE), the following was proposed-
S.
No.
Location Min. Area
Prescribed in
RFP (sq. ft.)
Area
proposed by
Verasys
1. Al Khalidiya/Al Danah 3,500 3,800
2. Al Reem 2,500 2,600
3. Musaffah 2,500 2,670
4. Al Ain 1,200 1,420
5. Ghyathi 800 875
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 35 of 44
6. Madinat Zayed 800 900
7. Dubai (Bur Dubai) 10,000 10,441
8. Dubai(Furjan/Jebel
Ali/DIP)
5,000 5,100
9. Sharjah (Al Majaz) 3,500 3,700
10. Sharjah (Rolla) 500 550
11. Ajman (Al Jerf) 800 904
12. Fujairah 1,000 1,120
13. Umm Al Quwain 1,000 1,000
14. Khorfakkan
(Corniche/Subara)
1,000 1,000
15. Kalba 1,000 1,000
16. Ras Al Khaimah
(Nakheel/Khujan/Mareed)
1,000 1,100
As evident, despite exceeding the prescribed minimum area in most of
the locations, Verasys was awarded only 6.5 out of 8 marks.
77. Under Criterion 3(a), marks higher than 4.5 were envisaged
where the bidder proposed counters exceeding the prescribed
minimum number. In the Kuwait Mission, against the prescribed
minimum number of 14 counters at Kuwait City and 13 counters each
at Fahaheel and Jleeb Al Shuwaikh (Abbasiya), Verasys proposed 16,
14 and 14 counters respectively, together with 3 counters at Jahra, but
received only 4.5 out of 6 marks. Likewise, in the Canberra
(Australia) Mission, against the prescribed minimum of 8 counters at
Adelaide, 6 at Brisbane, 3 at Canberra, 15 at Melbourne, 9 at Perth
and 12 at Sydney, Verasys proposed 9, 6, 3, 16, 9 and 12 counters
respectively, yet was awarded only 4.5 out of 6 marks.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 36 of 44
78. Under Criterion 3(b), bidders providing an optimal process
were to awarded 3.5 marks and offers with better than optimal process
was to be awarded higher marks. E TRAV submitted an identical
proposal across all four Missions, detailing a comprehensive
technology-enabled end-to-end application submission process
covering reception, enquiry, document examination and verification,
biometric enrolment, application submission, fee collection and
document delivery.
79. The proposal further envisaged document pre-check counters,
automated queue management, real-time dashboard tracking, SMS/e-
mail notifications, AI-enabled chatbot and WhatsApp support,
integrated appointment scheduling, dedicated operational staff and
adequate processing capacity to efficiently manage the anticipated
applicant volume. Despite satisfying the prescribed benchmark of an
optimal process, E TRAV was awarded only 2 marks in the Canberra
(Australia) and Kuwait Missions, while the materially identical
proposal received 3.5 marks in the Abu Dhabi (UAE) and Singapore
Missions.
80. It is evident that the Petitioners have specifically demonstrated
compliance with these requirements. Nevertheless, they have been
awarded disproportionately low, and in certain instances zero marks
without identifying any deficiency in their proposals or furnishing any
explanation for the departure from the prescribed evaluation criteria,
thereby rendering the evaluation arbitrary and incapable of objective
verification.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 37 of 44
81. The Petitioners have pointed out instances where materially
identical proposals and supporting documents were awarded
substantially different marks across different Missions, despite there
being no apparent distinction in the material placed before the
respective Technical Evaluation Committees.
82. In the absence of any recorded reasons for such varying
assessments, the distinct allocation of marks appears unsupported by
any objective basis. Consistency in evaluating substantially identical
material becomes an essential facet of a fair and transparent tender
process, and any departure therefrom must be supported by cogent
reasons borne out by the record. However, such inconsistency,
unsupported by any recorded reasoning, further reinforces the
allegation of arbitrary evaluation.
83. We are also unable to accept the submission of the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 that any deficiencies stood explained through oral
presentations made before the Technical Evaluation Committees.
Even if oral presentations formed part of the evaluation, they cannot
substitute recorded reasons or justify undisclosed standards. If
deductions were founded upon shortcomings noticed during such
presentations, those shortcomings ought to have been reflected in the
contemporaneous evaluation records. Their absence renders the
evaluation opaque and incapable of meaningful scrutiny.
84. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied that the
challenge made by the Petitioners is directed not against the technical
assessment itself but against the legality of the decision-making
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 38 of 44
process adopted by them. The use of undisclosed comparative
standards, unexplained deductions under objective criteria,
inconsistent marking and complete absence of recorded reasons strikes
at the heart of transparency, fairness and equality in public
procurement.
85. The opacity of the evaluation is further reinforced by failure of
the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to comply with Clauses 5.4.2 and
7.3.4.2(d) of the Manual of 2025. While Clause 5.4.2 mandates
disclosure of the comparative summary of the technical evaluation to
participating bidders, Clause 7.3.4.2(d) requires the procuring entity to
debrief unsuccessful bidders by explaining the evaluation of their
proposals. However, as is evident no such comparative summary or
meaningful debriefing was provided to the Petitioners, thereby
undermining the transparency of the evaluation process.
86. Before concluding, there is yet another aspect which requires
the consideration of this Court. As discussed hereinabove, judicial
review of the decision-making process in matters alike serves not
merely the interest of an unsuccessful bidder but the larger public
interest. During the course of argument, Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned
senior counsel representing E TRAV, has placed on record a
comparative statement showing that E TRAV had quoted substantially
lower financial bids than the successful bidders in all the concerned
Missions. The said position has not been disputed by the Respondents.
87. In this backdrop, the integrity of the technical evaluation
assumes added significance, since any arbitrariness or lack of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 39 of 44
transparency at the stage of evaluation of technical bids directly
impacts the selection of higher-priced bids, thereby affecting public
exchequer. Therefore, exclusion of a lower bidder on the basis of an
arbitrary evaluation process, is not merely an individual grievance but
also raises concerns of public interest under Article 14 of the
Constitution.
In re: Issue C
88. Another equally fundamental issue concerning the present
Petitions is the absence of recorded reasons supporting the rejection of
Petitioners at the stage of technical bid and the parameter wise
breakup provided, subsequently.
89. In our view, the absence of reasons constitutes the most
fundamental infirmity affecting the impugned evaluation. Rule 173(iv)
mandates transparency in the procurement process, requiring
disclosure of reasons for rejection of bids. Mere communication of
parameter-wise marks, without indicating the reasons or factual basis
for deductions or comparative assessment, neither demonstrates
application of mind nor enables the Petitioners to understand why
their otherwise compliant proposals were found deficient.
90. The obligation to record and communicate reasons is further
reinforced by Rule 189 of the GFRs, 2017, which requires the
Evaluation Committee to record reasons while evaluating and
rejecting technical proposals. Similarly, Chapter XV, Clause B(II)(a)
of the RFP mandates that unsuccessful bidders be informed of the
reasons for their disqualification. Recording reasons is an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 40 of 44
indispensable component of fair administrative action, as it ensures
application of mind, curbs arbitrariness, facilitates judicial review and
assures bidders that the evaluation has been undertaken on relevant
considerations. [Ref: Kranti Associate(P) Ltd. v Masood Ahmed
25
Khan ].
91. Moreover, at this stage, we can also not lose sight of the fact
that this Court in E TRAV Tech Ltd.-I , while affirming the
submission of the Petitioners therein under Paragraph No.64 that the
reasons for their disqualification ought to be communicated, also
recorded the statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General
under Paragraph No.74 that the reasons for such disqualification shall
be conveyed upon completion of the tender process. Moreover, the
Supreme Court in E TRAV Tech Ltd.-II , declined to interfere with the
Judgment in E TRAV Tech Ltd.-I and observed as under:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the
High Court. However, in view of the specific stand taken by the
respondent themselves before the High Court, we direct the
respondents to furnish to the petitioner the break-up of the marks
within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.”
92. The aforesaid references so made unequivocally establish that
the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were under an obligation to communicate
the reasons underlying the Petitioners‟ disqualification. The Supreme
Court, while directing the furnishing of break-up of marks,
consciously refrained from interfering with the Judgment of this Court
and, consequently, left undisturbed the statement recorded on behalf
25
(2010) 9 SCC 469
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 41 of 44
of the Respondents. Therefore, the obligation undertaken before this
Court, continued to bind the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
93. The argument of learned Additional Solicitor General that the
Order of the Supreme Court merely required the Respondents to
furnish the break-up of marks, without any corresponding obligation
to disclose the reasons thereof, cannot be accepted. It is for the reason
that, such an interpretation is contrary to the tenor of the Order passed
by the Supreme Court, which neither modified nor diluted the
undertaking recorded before this Court.
94. Hence, in the absence of any express stay or variation of the
said undertaking, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained bound to
disclose the reasons forming the basis of the marks awarded. Their
failure to do so, particularly in light of the settled principles requiring
transparency and reasoned decision-making in public procurement,
vitiates the impugned tender process.
95. We are also unable to accept the submission of the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 that any deficiencies stood explained during oral
presentations before the Technical Evaluation Committees. Even
assuming that such presentations formed part of the evaluation, they
cannot substitute recorded reasons. If deductions were founded upon
shortcomings noticed during such presentations, those shortcomings
ought to have been reflected in the contemporaneous evaluation
records. Their absence renders the evaluation opaque and incapable of
meaningful scrutiny.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 42 of 44
96. Therefore, we are of the considered view that failure of the
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to record and communicate reasons for the
technical evaluation violates Rules 173(iv) and 189 of the GFRs 2017,
as well as Chapter XV, Clause B(II)(a) of the RFP, rendering the
decision-making process opaque, arbitrary and contrary to the
principles of natural justice and fair administrative action. The
impugned evaluation is liable to be set aside on this ground as well.
CONCLUSION:
97. In view of the foregoing analysis and discussion, this Court
finds merits in the challenges raised by the Petitioners in the present
Petitions.
98. In the considered view of this Court, the parameter-wise marks
awarded to the Petitioners are vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality
and lack of transparency, rendering the impugned technical
evaluations unsustainable under Article 14 of the Constitution.
99. Accordingly, the present Petitions are allowed. The impugned
technical evaluation processes are set aside. Consequently, award of
tender in favour of the private Respondents shall also stand nullified.
100. The Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to issue fresh RFP for
procurement of CPV Services across all four Missions, namely, Abu
Dhabi (UAE), Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra (Australia), within a
period of one month from the date of this judgment and make sincere
efforts to conclude the process at the earliest.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 43 of 44
101. Meanwhile, the existing incumbents may be permitted to
continue providing the aforesaid services across all four Missions in
order to ensure that there is no disruption in the provision of public
services or inconvenience to the public, until the fresh tender process
is concluded and the successful (L-1) bidders are selected in
accordance with law.
102. All the pending applications also stand closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J.
JULY 15, 2026
jn/hr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:15.07.2026
12:48:11
W.P.(C) 6844/2026 & connected matters Page 44 of 44