Uttam Power Tools Pvt Ltd vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd & Ors.

$~87
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 15 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010497682026
+ W.P.(C) 15283/2026 & CM APPL. 72218/2026
UTTAM POWER TOOLS PVT LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Senior
Advocate along with Mr. Himanshu
Sachdeva, Mr. Namanveer Singh
Sodhi & Ms. Aishwarya Jha
Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION LTD
& ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Suman Kukrety, Advocate for
Respondent No.1 with Mr. Dhirender
Kumar, Chief Manager, NSIC.
Mr. Rohan Chawla & Mr. Rohan
Rana, Advocates for Respondent
No.3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY SHARMA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. The petitioner, an Original Equipment Manufacturer, appears to have
issued the Manufacturer’s Authorization Form (“ MAF ”) in favour of a
bidder who was unsuccessful.
2. The petitioner alleging non-provision of the equal play field, has
approached this Court against the respondent urging that the tender
conditions are not strictly adhered to, in regard to each of the tenders.
W.P.(C) 15283/2026 Page 1 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAVI
KUMAR
Signing
Date:17.10.2026 11:03

3. Since the petitioner himself is not a tenderer or has submitted his bid,
an objection to his locus has been raised. The same has resulted in the
passing of an order dated 13.10.2026.
4. So as to establish the locus, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner would urge that the petitioner, even if not a person or agency
who has participated in the tender process, has direct stakes in the tender in
capacity of an original equipment manufacturer, pursuant to tender
conditions, he has provided a MAF in favour of a tenderer. According to
him, this directly connects the petitioner to the tender process in question,
and in such an eventuality, he cannot be termed as a ‘stranger’ or a person
who is not having any interest, much less locus is fairly present in the
petition. Drawing support from the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the judgment of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed and Others , reported in 1976 1 SCC 671, particularly in
Paragraph Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 37, he would urge that this Court infer that
the petitioner has locus to prefer this petition. According to him, if the
petition is allowed, the net result will be that the person who has submitted a
tender for the work in question, to whom he has provided MAF, will directly
impact the business and the survival of the petitioner in the field in question.
5. He would further draw support from the judgment of this Court in the
matter of Suresh Kumar Jain v. Lt. Governor & Ors. , reported in 2006
SCC OnLine Del 879 particularly Paragraph No. 15 which reads as under:
“ 15 . The first question to be decided is whether the petitioner
cannot maintain independent proceedings against the DDA, being
a sub-contractor with no privity of contract. Undoubtedly, there is
no contractual relationship between the DDA and the petitioner, the
contract or agreement is between the Contractor, and the supplier
manufacturer, viz. the petitioner. In that sense. the DDA is correct in
contending that there is no privity of contract as between it and the
W.P.(C) 15283/2026 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAVI
KUMAR
Signing
Date:17.10.2026 11:03

petitioner. Yet, that factor alone cannot be decisive in arriving at a
conclusion as to whether the petitioner can be aggrieved by the
action, or inaction of the DDA. There is no gainsaying, and nor was
it urged on behalf of the DDA, that it was always aware that the
goods to be supplied to it, were those of the petitioner. It had
indicated the standards. Although the petitioner was not a party, to
the contract, its economic interests were vitally affected, and
indeed dependant upon the DDA's continued acceptance of its
products. Absence of a direct contractual relationship, did not
absolve the DDA from taking into consideration the rights and
obligations of the petitioner in its contract with the contractor. The
contractor has chosen not to contest the determination of the DDA
about rejection of the petitioner’s product. That leaves the
petitioner with no occasion to ventilate its grievances. In
Cantonment Board. Dinapore v. Taramani Devi. 1992 Supp (2) SCC
501: AIR 1992 SC 61. the Supreme Court had ruled that where the
real affected party on account of a public authority's decision was
not a party to the contract with it. its right to approach the Court,
could not be denied. On a parity of reasoning. I am of opinion that
the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to approach the Court,
to challenge the action of DDA: he has sufficient locus standi.
[Emphasis Supplied] ”
6. As against the above, the counsel for respondent no. 1 would urge
that, when it comes to the tender in question, the tenderer is required to
conduct himself, in accordance with, the terms of the manual for
procurement of goods. It is urged that the said manual provides for
grievances and their redressal. It is further urged that only a directly affected
bidder can represent in regards to the grievance, only then a tender process
will be adopted. A specific reliance is placed on Clause 3(a), so as to
substantiate the aforesaid contentions. Apart from the above, the learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, who is a successful bidder, has
invited the attention of this Court to the Division Bench judgment in the
matter of Primatel Fibcom Ltd. V. Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Ors. ,
in W.P.(C) 8220/2024 decided on 01.06.2024, so as to urge that the
W.P.(C) 15283/2026 Page 3 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAVI
KUMAR
Signing
Date:17.10.2026 11:03

petitioner lacks locus in the matter. A specific reliance is also placed on the
judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi
Expressway Limited , 2018 8 SCC 243. The observations made therein reads
as under:
“ 8. The first question to be decided is whether the Petitioner
herein can maintain independent proceedings against Respondent
No. 1 for impugning the award of subject Tender in favour of
Respondent No. 2. In our considered opinion, the answer to the
question is in the negative and in this regard, we may refer to a
judgment of the Supreme Court in NHAI v. Gwalior-Jhansi
6
Expressway Limited. The relevant para 20 reads as under:
20. While considering the relief claimed by the respondent
(claimant), the same should have been tested on the
touchstone of the principle governing the tender process,
especially when the validity of the tender document has
not been put in issue or challenged before any competent
forum. Going by the terms and conditions in the tender
documents, as already alluded to in para 10 above, there
is no tittle of doubt that the right of the claimant
(respondent) to match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR
would come into play only if the respondent was to
participate in the tender process pursuant to the notice
inviting tenders from the interested parties. The objective
of tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent
mechanism but to encourage competition and give equal
opportunity to all tenderers with the end result of getting
a fair offer or value for money. The plain wording of the
eligibility clause in the tender documents and the
incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent
was required to participate in the tender process by
submitting its sealed bid (technical and financial). The
fact that a deeming clause has been provided in the tender
document that if the respondent was to participate in the
bidding process, it shall be deemed to fulfil all the
requirements of the tender Clauses 3 to 6 of RFP, being
the existing concessionaire of the project, does not exempt
the respondent from participating in the tender process;
rather the tenor of the terms of the documents made it
obligatory for the respondent to participate in the tender
W.P.(C) 15283/2026 Page 4 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAVI
KUMAR
Signing
Date:17.10.2026 11:03

process to be considered as a responsive bidder, along
with others. Having failed to participate in the tender
process and, more so, despite the express terms in the
tender documents, validity whereof has not been
challenged, the respondent cannot be heard to contend
that it had acquired any right whatsoever. Only the
entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to
a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about
the non-fulfilment or breach of any of the terms and
conditions of the tender documents concerned. The
respondent who chose to stay away from the tender
process, cannot be heard to whittle down, in any
manner, the rights of the eligible bidders who had
participated in the tender process on the basis of the
written and express terms and conditions. At the
culmination of the tender process, if the respondent had
not participated, in law, the offer submitted by the
eligible bidders is required to be considered on the basis
of the stated terms and conditions. Thus, if the claim of
the respondent was to be strictly adjudged on the basis of
the terms and conditions specified in the subject tender
document, the respondent has no case whatsoever.
(Emphasis supplied)
9. The Petitioner herein admittedly did not participate in the
bidding process and elected to remain outside the said process. The
fact that Petitioner was the intended supplier of SDH equipment of
Respondent No. 4 would not give any locus to the Petitioner to
challenge the tender process and maintain these proceedings. The
nd
issuance of a Commitment Letter dated 02 June, 2023 by the
Petitioner to Respondent No. 4 does not make it a ‘bidder’ in the
tender process. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme
Court, it is clear that a party which has not participated in a tender
process does not have any locus to challenge the award of the
Tender and cannot be heard to make any grievances as such a
party does not acquire any right in the tender. ”
7. It is further urged that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this
Court in the matter of Suresh Kumar Jain (cited supra) has been duly
considered in the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court and an
W.P.(C) 15283/2026 Page 5 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAVI
KUMAR
Signing
Date:17.10.2026 11:03

observation is made that the said judgment will not be applicable to a
challenge made by a third party to a tender process.
8. In the aforesaid background, if we appreciate the legal position with
regard to the status of the petitioner and his relation with that of original
tenderer, it is borne out of the record that the petitioner has provided an
authorization form that he is an Original Equipment Manufacturer, which is
one of the documents required for submission of tender form by a third
party. Such third party, to whom the MAF was made available, is not a party
before this Court either in the form of petitioner or that of respondent.
9. It is further required to be noted that the contract, if any, inter se ,
between the tenderer and that of the petitioner, won’t bind the respondent
and in case of any default or otherwise of any such oral contract, the remedy
lies elsewhere and not through the present petition.
10. As regards, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) is concerned, the ratio of the said
case if looked into, Paragraph No. 49 of the said judgment which reads as
under:
“ 49. It is true that in the ultimate analysis, the jurisdiction
under Article 226 in general, and certiorari in particular is
discretionary. But in a country like India where writ petitions
are instituted in the High Courts by the thousand, many of them
frivolous, a strict ascertainment, at the outset. of the standing of
the petitioner to invoke this extraordinary jurisdiction, must be
insisted upon. The broad guidelines indicated by us, coupled
with other well-established self-devised rules of practice, such
as the availability of an alternative remedy, the conduct of the
petitioner etc. can go a long way to help the courts in weeding
out a large number of writ petitions at the initial stage with
consequent saving of public time and money. ”
W.P.(C) 15283/2026 Page 6 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAVI
KUMAR
Signing
Date:17.10.2026 11:03

11. Apart from aforesaid observations, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
dismissed the said proceedings against the petitioner. The fact remains that
at no point of time there was any privity of contract inter se between the
petitioner and the tender inviting authority. The original tenderer, perhaps, is
not aggrieved by the tender proceedings which are adopted by respondent
no. 1 and has chosen not to question the action of respondent no. 1 in
allotting tender in favour of the respondent no. 2 by taking recourse to the
tender process, which is questioned by the petitioner, a third party.
12. In such an eventuality, it cannot be said that the judgment in the
matter of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (cited supra) or that of in the matter of
Suresh Kumar Jain (supra) supports the case of the petitioner. It cannot be
said that, based on the aforesaid judgments, this Court can infer that the
petitioner has locus so as to maintain the present petition at his behest. We
are further fortified in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the matter of NHAI (cited supra).
13. The Division Bench of this Court, while following the said judgment
in the matter of Primatel Fibcom Ltd. (cited supra), has observed that just
because somebody is an Original Equipment Manufacturer, who intends to
supply such equipments to a successful bidder or to a tenderer, by itself will
not confer or give locus to prefer the petition questioning the tender process.
14. In any case, the petitioner cannot mix his legal right with the right of
the party, who has submitted a tender and has chosen not to question the
action of the respondent in not allotting the tender in his favour.
15. With the aforesaid observations, we categorically held that the
petitioner lacks locus and as such, the petition at the behest of the petitioner
is not maintainable.
W.P.(C) 15283/2026 Page 7 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAVI
KUMAR
Signing
Date:17.10.2026 11:03

16. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
17. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, ACJ
SANJAY SHARMA, J
OCTOBER 15, 2026 / ‘AN’/NP
W.P.(C) 15283/2026 Page 8 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAVI
KUMAR
Signing
Date:17.10.2026 11:03