Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt Ltd vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 07.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 20.07.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 20.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 8368/2026, CM APPL. 39327/2026 & CM APPL.
39328/2026
SKYLARK INFRA ENGINEERING PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Sibbal, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
Priyanka Dagar, Mr. Ajay
Dabas, Mr. Deepanshu Yadav
and Ms. Manjarika Das, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ....Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr.
Shailesh Madiyal, Mr. Balbir
Singh, Sr. Advs. along with Mr.
Sanjay Vashishtha, Standing
Counsel, Mr. Shankey Agarwal,
Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Mr.
Siddhartha Goswami and Mr.
Siddharth Agrawal, 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.:
A. INTRODUCTION:
1. By way of the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks issuance of an appropriate
1
writ quashing the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 05.06.2026
1
Hereinafter referred to as „Impugned NIT‟
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 1 of 17
issued by the Respondent and directing the Respondent to permit the
Petitioner to participate in the tender process and consider/accept its
bid, on account of the technical eligibility criteria prescribed
thereunder being arbitrary and irrational.
2. In essence, the present challenge is raised against the
requirement of minimum 122 lanes under a single contract for a
minimum period of two years (24 months) with each contract having a
2
minimum duration of one year .
3. Accordingly, the issue that arise for consideration of this Court
is whether the impugned technical eligibility criteria highlighted under
Paragraph No.8 of this judgment, is arbitrary or violative of Article 14
and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, thereby warranting interference of
this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review governing public
tenders.
B. BRIEF BACKGROUND:
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the restrictive condition
requiring experience of minimum 122 lanes was previously introduced
by the Respondent for the first time vide NIT dated 07.02.2024, for a
similar scope of work involving Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) ecosystem, wherein the Petitioner‟s Joint Venture (JV) was
declared as the H-1 bidder.
5. However, since no Letter of Intent (LoI) came to be issued in its
favour, the JV filed W.P.(C) 2492/2025 captioned Sahakar Global
2
Hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Eligibility Criteria‟.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 2 of 17
Limited JV and Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi . In reply to
the said petition, the Respondent categorically took a stand that they
have reconsidered the matter, and shall continue with the Petitioner‟s
JV, who was also the existing incumbent, at their proposed toll fees
until the fresh tender is issued, since according to them the condition
so imposed was anti-competitive.
6. Following which a fresh NIT dated 14.05.2025 came to be
issued excluding the restrictive condition, however, before any
bidding could be initiated, the same came to be withdrawn by the
Respondent. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent passed the Corporate
Resolution No. 32 dated 10.07.2025, expressly omitting the prescribed
eligibility condition of having experience of minimum 122 lanes.
7. Thereafter, the Respondent herein issued NIT dated 05.06.2026,
by way of a two-tier bid system, for „Engagement of a Contractor by
MCD for Toll Tax & Environment Compensation Charge (ECC)
Collection at border points from specified commercial vehicles
entering Delhi and upgrade the existing RFID system to the Multi
Lane Free Flow (MLFF) based collection‟.
8. While issuing the NIT, Respondent prescribed the following
relevant experience, which a bidder must possess in order to be
technically compliant. The eligibility criteria read as follows:
“ Relevant Experience: The Applicant/bidding Firm must have prior
relevant experience of toll/entry tax collection, operation through
manual and semi-automated/electronic toll collection technologies in
the last five financial years ending March 2026:-
The proposed contract involves handling of 154 toll plazas
containing 244 lanes; therefore, the Applicant/bidding firm must
have experience of operating minimum 50% of total Toll Lanes
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 3 of 17
mentioned above under a single contract (i.e. minimum 122 lanes
under a single contract) for minimum total period of two years (24
months), with each contract having a minimum duration of one
year. In case of bidding JV firm, the non-lead member shall have
experience of operating minimum 10% of total Toll Lanes
mentioned above under a single contract for the time period as
mentioned above. ”
(emphasis supplied)
9. Aggrieved by the inclusion of the aforesaid eligibility criteria,
the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking our indulgence.
10. Before proceeding towards the arguments advanced by the
parties herein, we deem it necessary to note that this Court after
hearing the arguments of parties herein on 07.07.2026, directed the
Respondent to file an Affidavit disclosing the number of bidders who
have met the Impugned Eligibility Criteria.
11. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent vide Affidavit dated
08.07.2026, disclosed that 3 out of 7 bidders have successfully
qualified the threshold requirement of having experience in executing
122 lanes under a single contract. The details of all the bidders, who
participated in the Impugned NIT, and their respective status at the
technical stage is reproduced hereunder:
S.
No.
Applicant/Bidders Status
1. M/s Eagle Infra India Ltd. Would have technically
qualified, however, rejected
as already debarred by PWD,
Maharashtra vide Circular
dated 23.06.2026
2. M/s Inderdeep Infra India Ltd.
Technically Qualified
3. M/s IRB Infrastructure
Developers Ltd.
Technically Qualified
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 4 of 17
4. M/s Sahakar Global Ltd.
Technically Qualified
5. M/s Jaypee Infratech Limited Non Responsive Bid due to
lack of adequate documents
hence, rejected
6. M/s Sri Sai Enterprises and
Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Not Qualified
7. M/s Skylark Infra Engineering
Pvt. Ltd.
Not Qualified
C. CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES:
12. Learned senior counsel representing the Petitioner have made
the following submissions:
12.1. At the outset, learned senior counsel, while highlighting the
distinction between conventional tolling and scope of the Impugned
NIT, has argued that principal object of the tender is transition to a
technology-driven MLFF system, involving integration of
technologies such as RFID and Automatic Number Plate Recognition
(ANPR). Consequently, prior experience of operating conventional
toll lanes under a single contract has no rational nexus with the
technical capabilities required for implementation of the project.
12.2. It is the case of the Petitioner that it has successfully operated
toll collection and ECC management works at the exact same 154
border points from the year 2021 to 2026, as a 37% JV partner with
M/s Sahakar Global Ltd., until the Impugned NIT came to be issued,
evidencing that it has deep site-specific knowledge of these exact
plazas, as such excluding it merely for lack of experience in single
122 lane contract is unjust and contrary to the public interest.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 5 of 17
12.3. It has been argued that the Impugned Eligibility Criteria is
contrary to the Respondent‟s own Resolution dated 10.07.2025 and
the stand taken by it in Sahakar Global Limited (Supra) , wherein the
122-lane requirement was acknowledged to be restrictive, anti-
competitive and an unnecessary entry barrier. Its reintroduction,
without any change in circumstances or technical justification, is
alleged to be manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
12.4. Learned senior counsel has also made reference to the following
table, in order to show its prior experience in managing toll plazas:
Financial Year Toll Revenue No. of Plazas No. of Lanes
2025-26 3422.97 53 656
2024-25 2683.71 71 937
2023-24 2678.98 61 756
Total 8785.66 185 2349
12.5. With respect to the criteria prescribing one single contract, it
has been further submitted that the NHAI and UPEIDA routinely
award short-term contracts ranging from three months to one year for
comparatively lower number of lanes. It is the case of the Petitioner
that it has recently been declared prequalified in Category-I by NHAI
after evaluating its technical and financial capabilities. Thus,
managing multiple contracts simultaneously requires equal, if not
greater, expertise than executing a single contract, rendering the
impugned condition arbitrary and exclusionary.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 6 of 17
12.6. It has been highlighted that the Respondent had previously
defended the removal of the single-contract lane condition on the
premise of affording a level playing field to all capable players. On
the contrary, the present cosmetic modification in the Impugned NIT
artificially narrows the field of competition, effectively restricting
participation to a select class of legacy operators and creating
conditions conducive to cartelization, thereby causing prejudice to the
public exchequer.
12.7. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned eligibility condition
imposes an unreasonable restriction on the Petitioner‟s fundamental
right to carry on trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. By arbitrarily shutting out competent entities with
proven multi-project operational experience, the Impugned Eligibility
Criteria operates in a disproportionate manner, restricts effective
competition and undermines the principles of fair public procurement.
12.8. In support of its arguments, reliance has been placed on
judgment of this Court in M/s Dhingra Constructions Co. v. MCD &
3
Ors. and Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chattisgarh
4
and Anr. .
13. Per contra , learned senior counsel representing the Respondent,
have made the following submissions:
13.1. At the outset, it has been argued that the challenge in the
present Petition is struck by doctrine of estoppel on two aspects.
3
2004:DHC:17905-DB
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2119
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 7 of 17
Firstly, the Petitioner as part of a JV, had participated in NIT dated
07.02.2024 which also prescribed the very same eligibility criteria of
experience of operating 122 lanes, however, since it emerged as the
H-1 Bidder having participated in a JV, no challenge was raised at that
stage. Secondly, the Petitioner despite challenging the Impugned
Eligibility Criteria had proceeded to participate in the present tender
process.
13.2. It has been argued that the Impugned NIT has been issued in
furtherance of the directions of Supreme Court by way of its Order
dated 21.01.2026 in W.P.(C) 13029/1985 captioned M.C. Mehta v.
Union of India & Ors. , based on the report of the Commission for Air
Quality Management (CAQM) dated 20.01.2026 recommending, inter
alia , installation of ANPR cameras and RFID-enabled MLFF systems
at all border entry points in Delhi.
13.3. In compliance therewith, the Respondent is required to
implement the MLFF system by October 2026. It is contended that,
under Article 144 of the Constitution, the Respondent was bound to
give effect to the aforesaid directions.
13.4. It is the case of the Respondent that the Impugned NIT is
qualitatively different from the earlier RFID-based tenders, as it
envisages a technology-driven MLFF ecosystem involving Toll Tax
and ECC collection across 154 border points comprising 244 toll lanes
through RFID integration, ANPR systems, real-time transaction
processing, centralized monitoring, revenue reconciliation and a
unified Management Information System (MIS).
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 8 of 17
13.5. Considering that more than 4.12 crore commercial vehicles
entered Delhi during 2025, generating millions of real-time
transactions, prior experience of operating a project of comparable
scale under a single contract is stated to be essential.
13.6. Further, it is argued that experience gained under multiple
independent contracts cannot be equated with managing one
integrated project, as such contracts ordinarily operate through
different software platforms, reporting structures, databases,
operational protocols and accountability mechanisms.
13.7. Learned senior counsel has contended that the inclusion of
Impugned Eligibility Criteria is a policy decision and such policy
decisions fall within the domain of the tendering authority and are not
amenable to judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or
actuated by extraneous considerations. Accordingly, the Petitioner
cannot dictate the eligibility conditions of the impugned NIT.
13.8. Replying to the contention of the Petitioner that the Impugned
Eligibility Criteria is anti-competitive, learned senior counsel
contended that several infrastructure projects across the country,
including the Agra-Lucknow Expressway, Delhi-Vadodara
Expressway, Eastern Peripheral Expressway, Amritsar-Jamnagar
Expressway, Western Peripheral (KMP) Expressway, Outer Ring
Road, Hyderabad, Purvanchal Expressway, Samruddhi (Mumbai-
Nagpur) Expressway and Trans-Haryana Expressway, prescribe and
operate projects involving 122 or more toll lanes. Moreover, similar
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 9 of 17
lane-based eligibility conditions are also operational in the States of
Telangana, Maharashtra and West Bengal.
13.9. Lastly, it has been argued that these projects are being executed
by several experienced entities, including Eagle Infra Ltd., IRB
Infrastructure, Sahakar Global Ltd., RK Jain Pvt. Ltd., Datar Security
Services, Shri Sai Enterprise, Path India Ltd., Maple Highways,
Inderdeep Constructions, Roadway Solutions India Infra & Fastgo
Infra Pvt. Ltd. and Ashmi Road Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the
Impugned Eligibility Criteria neither restricts competition nor limits
participation to only two or three bidders, as contended by the
Petitioner.
13.10. In support of their submissions, reliance has been placed on
5
Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors. ,
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd
6
and Anr. , Meerut Development Authority v. Association of
7
Management Studies and Anr. , Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v.
8
State of Karnataka and Ors. and Sabre Glbl Inc. v. Air India Ltd.
9
and Anr. .
14. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner in their rejoinder
argument, have reiterated that the requirement of prior experience of
operating 122 toll lanes under a single contract bears no rational nexus
with the object of the tender. If the objective is to ensure capability to
5
(1991) 1 SCC 492
6
(2016) 16 SCC 818
7
(2009) 6 SCC 171
8
(2012) 8 SCC 216
9
2021 SCC OnLine Del 5014
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 10 of 17
manage a large volume of toll lanes and data, the mode of acquiring
such experience, whether under a single contract or multiple contracts,
is immaterial, rendering the Impugned Eligibility Criteria arbitrary.
D. ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
15. Heard learned senior counsel representing the parties and
perused the material placed on record.
16. At the outset, we must highlight that the law pertaining to
interference of a writ Court in tender matters is no longer res integra .
The Supreme Court through its precedents has settled that the award
of contracts by the State or its instrumentalities is essentially a
commercial function. Hence, the Courts do not sit in appeal over the
merits of tender conditions, but merely examine the legality of the
decision-making process, to identify whether such process is vitiated
by arbitrariness, mala fides , discrimination or irrationality of the
Wednesbury standard. [Ref: Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
(Supra) ]
10
17. The Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India ,
observed that the State, while exercising contractual powers, must be
afforded necessary “play in the joints”, subject only to the requirement
that the decision be free from arbitrariness, mala fides , bias or
irrationality.
18. In Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Supra) , the Supreme Court
while dealing with the powers of executive observed that fixing terms
10
(1994) 6 SCC 651
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 11 of 17
and conditions, including eligibility criteria of a tender, falls within
the domain of the executive and the Courts shall only interfere if such
condition is mala fide , arbitrary, irrational and against public interest.
11
19. The Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa ,
crystallised the limited scope of judicial review in tender matters and
framed classic three question test:
i. is the process adopted or decision made mala fide or
intended to favour someone? or
ii. is it so arbitrary and irrational that no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could
have reached it? and
iii. is public interest affected?
If the answer to the aforementioned question is in negative, there
should be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
20. It is of equal importance to highlight that judicial restraint does
not imply abdication. The Supreme Court in Reliance Energy Ltd. v.
12
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. ,
highlighted that Article 14 of the Constitution permeates even
contractual dealings of the State. Tender conditions and evaluation
norms must exhibit legal certainty, transparency and a level playing
field, so that similarly situated bidders compete on equal terms.
11
(2007) 14 SCC 517
12
(2007) 8 SCC 1
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 12 of 17
Vagueness, undisclosed criteria or shifting benchmarks may invite
judicial correction where they result in discriminatory treatment.
21. From a perusal of the aforementioned precedents, it is
sufficiently clear that the scope of judicial review is limited only to
examination of whether or not the tender process is vitiated by
arbitrariness, mala fides , irrationality, discrimination or is contrary to
public interest. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court proceeds
to examine whether the Impugned Eligibility Criteria suffers from
arbitrariness, illegality or irrationality.
22. The primary contention of the Petitioner pertains to the
Impugned Eligibility Criteria being arbitrary and anti-competitive
bearing no rational nexus with the object of the Impugned NIT.
However, we are unable to accept the said contention.
23. In our view the contention of the Respondent that unlike a
conventional toll collection contract, the present NIT envisages
implementation of an integrated MLFF system across 154 border
points comprising 244 toll lanes, involving RFID and ANPR
integration, centralized monitoring, real-time transaction processing
and a unified MIS, holds the ground. Considering that more than 4.12
crore commercial vehicles entered Delhi during 2025, the Respondent
was justified in prescribing experience commensurate with the scale
and complexity of the project.
24. Hence, the requirement of prior experience under a single
integrated contract cannot be termed arbitrary. Experience gained
under multiple independent contracts cannot necessarily be equated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 13 of 17
with managing a single integrated project, since such commercial
assessment lies within the exclusive domain of the tendering authority.
25. Similarly, the Petitioner‟s contention of previous experience of
operating the same 154 border points as a JV partner is equally
untenable, since it does not entitle the Petitioner to relaxation of
eligibility condition. Such experience cannot override uniformly
applicable criteria, failing which the principle of equal treatment
amongst bidders would itself stand compromised.
26. In addition, the Petitioner‟s claimed experience was not
acquired in its individual capacity as a bidder, rather as a constituent
of a JV. The capacity, in which Petitioner participated and
subsequently executed the previous contracts, is of assumed relevance,
because M/s Sahakar Global Ltd., the lead partner of the Petitioner‟s
JV, has now opted to participate in the Impugned NIT as a solo
bidder. Resultantly, the ineligibility of the Petitioner is not a result of
the alleged arbitrariness in inclusion of Impugned Eligibility Criteria,
rather it stems from the Petitioner‟s inability to fulfil the prescribed
criteria independently, following the discontinuation of the JV.
27. In this regard, it becomes equally significant to note that the
Impugned NIT has been issued pursuant to the recommendations of
CAQM and the directions of the Supreme Court vide Order dated
20.01.2026, requiring implementation of the MLFF system by
October 2026. In view of the strict timeline fixed by the Supreme
Court, the Respondent cannot be expected to take a chance by
awarding a technologically new and complex project to an entity
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 14 of 17
lacking the experience considered necessary. Hence, the Impugned
Eligibility Criteria is a legitimate safeguard to ensure timely
implementation.
28. The reliance placed upon the Respondent‟s earlier Resolution
dated 10.07.2025 and its stand in Sahakar Global Limited (Supra) is
equally misplaced. The earlier tender was related to an RFID-based
system, whereas the Impugned NIT envisages implementation of the
MLFF system pursuant to the recommendations of the CAQM and the
directions of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Respondent was
justified in revisiting its policy and prescribing revised Impugned
Eligibility Criteria.
29. We also find no merit in the contention that the Impugned
Eligibility Criteria is anti-competitive. The Affidavit dated 08.07.2026
filed by the Respondent, makes it evident that three bidders fulfilled
the said Criteria, with one additional bidder who would have qualified,
had it not been debarred by PWD, Maharashtra. Further, the existence
of several infrastructure projects across the country involving
operation of 122 or more toll lanes makes it clear that the Impugned
Eligibility Criteria is neither tailor-made nor unduly restrictive.
30. Similarly, the challenge founded upon Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution is equally untenable. The Impugned NIT merely
prescribes eligibility for participation in a public tender and does not
prohibit the Petitioner from carrying on its business. Such a stipulation
cannot be regarded as an unreasonable restriction merely because the
Petitioner is unable to satisfy it.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 15 of 17
31. This Court is equally unable to accept that the Impugned
Eligibility Criteria is contrary to public interest. Public interest in
public procurement lies not merely in widening participation but
equally in ensuring timely and efficient execution of projects
involving substantial public infrastructure and revenue. Thus, the
Impugned Eligibility Criteria advances public interest rather than
defeating it.
32. It is well settled that policy decisions must evolve with
changing technological and operational requirements. The
Government is entitled to modify eligibility conditions to meet the
demands of a project. Such decisions are intended to serve the larger
public interest and not the commercial interests of individual bidders.
The Court cannot compel dilution of an eligibility criterion merely to
enlarge the field of competition while putting the public interest at
stake, especially in view of the challenging air quality of the region of
NCT of Delhi.
33. The Petitioner‟s financial strength and its Category-I
prequalification by the NHAI undoubtedly establish its credentials.
However, they cannot substitute the specific experience requirement
prescribed under the Impugned NIT. This Court in exercise of its writ
jurisdiction cannot rewrite the eligibility conditions framed by the
tendering authority.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 16 of 17
E. CONCLUSION:
34. In view of the foregoing analysis and discussion, this Court
does not find merit in the challenges raised by the Petitioner in the
present Petition.
35. In the considered view of this Court, the Respondent has
demonstrated a rational basis for prescribing the Impugned Eligibility
Criteria, which bears a direct nexus with the object of ensuring timely
implementation of the MLFF system within the timeline mandated by
the Supreme Court. Hence, the Impugned Eligibility Criteria is not
violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution nor is it
vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides , discrimination or irrationality.
36. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. The pending
applications also stand closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J.
JULY 20, 2026
jai/hr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:20.07.2026
12:51:50
W.P.(C) 8368/2026 Page 17 of 17