Sgivs Global Llc vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 29.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 13.05.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 13.05.2026
+ W.P.(C) 5286/2026, CM APPL. 25966/2026 & CM APPL.
25967/2026
SGIVS GLOBAL LLC .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv,
Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Ms. Devanshi Singh, Mr Bharat
Bagla & Ms Kunika Bansal,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG along
with Ms. Avshreya Pratap
Singh Rudy, CGSC with Mr.
Amit Gupta, Ms. Akshi Bali,
Ms. Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa
Sharma, Mr. Ankit Khatri, Mr.
R. V. Prabhat, Mr. Yash
Wardhan Sharma, Mr.
Shubham Sharma and Mr.
Naman, Advs. for UOI.
Mr. Santhosh Krishnan, Mr.
Zulfiker Ali P.S., Mr. Ashwin
Joseph Adv, Ms. Lebina Baby,
Advs. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. By way of the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 1 of 18

mandamus directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to refrain from awarding
Tender No. Abu/Cons/415/17/2025 dated 20.11.2025 to the
Respondent No.3 on account of the alleged financial non-viability of
the financial bid submitted by the Respondent No.3. Vide the said
Tender, a Request for Proposal (RFP), by way of a two-tier bid
system, for providing Consular-Passport-Visa-OCI Attestation
Services (CPV Services) for the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi and
Consulate General of India in Dubai, was invited.
2. In addition to the aforesaid directions sought, the Petitioner also
seeks issuance of an appropriate writ for constitution of an expert
committee to examine the viability of the financial bid submitted by
the Respondent No.3, with the assistance of an independent quantum
expert. Further, the Petitioner prays for a declaration that the financial
bid submitted by the Respondent No.3 is unresponsive on account of
being ex-facie, unviable and arbitrary, and also seeks directions to
ensure a fair, lawful, and transparent evaluation of all financial bids in
accordance with applicable procurement norms and tender conditions.
3. The controversy is the present Petition arises out of the
financial bid submitted by the Respondent No.3, who has been
declared the L-1 bidder with respect to the RFP. However, the
Petitioner, who is the L-2 bidder in the subject Tender floated for CPV
services, has challenged the viability and feasibility of the said
financial bid, quoted at the rate of Rs.19 AED per application.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. In order to appreciate the controversy arising for the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 2 of 18

adjudication before this Court, the relevant facts, in brief, are required
to be noticed.
5. On 20.11.2025, the Respondent No.2, floated the subject
Tender, thereby inviting technical and financial bids for the provision
of CPV services for the Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi and the
Consulate General of India in Dubai. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner,
along with the Respondent No.3 and other bidders, submitted their
respective technical bids and upon qualifying therein, proceeded to
submit their financial bids.
6. It is pertinent to highlight that the subject tender has previously
engaged the attention of this Court even at the stage of technical
evaluation, hence, this is not the first instance wherein disputed
pertaining thereto have been brought before this Court. The legal
challenges surrounding the said tender find their genesis in W.P. (C)
No.1562/2026 captioned E Trav Tech Limited v UOI & Anr. and
connected matters , wherein the non-qualifying bidders assailed the
technical evaluation process, inter alia, on the ground that the
Respondent No.2 had failed to provide reasons or a break-up of marks
for each criterion of evaluation.
7. Consequently, this Court, vide judgment dated 10.03.2026, was
pleased to dismiss the said petition, highlighting the limited scope of
judicial review in tender matters and taking on record the undertaking
of the learned ASG that reasons for disqualification would be
communicated to the non-qualified bidders upon completion of tender
process. The said judgment came to be challenged before the Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 3 of 18

Court by way of SLP(C) No. 10625/2026 , however, the Supreme
Court vide its order dated 16.04.2026, declined from interfering with
the judgment of this Court and dismissed the Petition.
8. In the interregnum, the Respondent No.2 on 30.03.2026, opened
the financial bids, whereupon the Respondent No.3 was declared the
L-1 Bidder, having quoted AED 19 per application, while the
Petitioner herein was declared the L-2 Bidder, having quoted AED 52.
Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner submitted a detailed representation to
the Ambassador, Embassy of India, Abu Dhabi, seeking a meaningful
and thorough examination of the financial bid submitted by
Respondent No. 3.
9. However, on not receiving any response thereto, the Petitioner
has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition, inter
alia, challenging the financial bid of the Respondent No.3 on the
primary ground that the same is ex facie predatory in nature. It is the
specific grievance of the Petitioner that the Respondent Nos.1 and 2,
are proceeding further on the basis of the said bid without undertaking
any meaningful scrutiny thereof, thereby raising serious concerns as to
its financial viability, sustainability, and capability of lawful
performance.
10. At this juncture, it is deemed equally important to highlight that
the present tender has been floated for the second time. The earlier
tender, floated on 31.01.2025, had culminated in the Petitioner
emerging as the L-1 bidder under the two-tier bid system, having
quoted AED 17 per application.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 4 of 18

11. However, the said tender came to be annulled vide notice dated
26.06.2025. The reasons for such annulment remain disputed, while
the Petitioner contends that the same was annulled suo motu by
Respondent No. 2, to the contrary, it has been the case of the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that, the annulment ensued on account of the
Petitioner‟s failure to execute the contract.
B. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record placed before this Court.
13. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, in
support of his case, has made the following submissions:
13.1 At the outset, the Petitioner has argued that the Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, are proceeding in an arbitrary, non-transparent and
legally untenable manner with the subject tender, by mechanically
treating the lowest quoted price as determinative of the outcome,
without any examination of the quoted amount‟s financial viability,
sustainability or responsiveness. Against this backdrop, it has been
argued that it is incumbent upon the Respondent No.2 to do a
severable exercise to determine whether the quoted amount by the
Respondent No.3 is reasonable or not.
13.2 Learned senior counsel, has argued that the imminent
acceptance of a manifestly predatory and commercially unviable bid
submitted by the Respondent No.3 at AED 19 per application, which
is a stark outlier when compared with other bids, namely, AED 52
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 5 of 18

quoted by the Petitioner, AED 68 and AED 79, quoted by other two
bidders. It is the case of the Petitioner that the bid quoted by the
Respondent No.3 is incapable of sustaining the obligations under the
tender.
13.3 In support of the aforesaid submission, learned senior counsel
has placed on record a detailed, comparative data-backed cost
analysis, derived from the tender condition themselves, which
established a minimum cost floor of AED 48.36 per application
(inclusive of VAT). The said computation is argued to be based on
multiple mandatory cost heads including, office rental costs, salary
and employment costs including visa and insurance etc, application
facilitating services of courier service alone and operation expenses
and capital expenditure amortization.
13.4 Against the aforesaid computation, the following table has been
relied upon by the Petitioner to conclusively establish that the bid
quoted by the Respondent No.2 is ex-facie unviable and
unsustainable. The table is as follows:
Parameter SGIVS (L2) L1
Competitor
Service Fee per
Application (incl. VAT)
AED 52.00 AED 19.00
AED 48.36 AED 48.36
Minimum Cost Floor
per
Application (incl. VAT)
AED +3.64 (surplus) (AED 29.36)
deficit
Annual Revenue
(6,39,933 apps x service
fee)

Profit / (Loss) per
Application
AED 3,32,76,533 AED
1,21,58,733
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 6 of 18

AED 3,04,59,171 AED
3,04,59,171
Annual Minimum
Operating Cost (incl.
VAT)
AED +28,17,363
(surplus)
(AED
1,83,00,437)
deficit
Estimated Monthly
Operating
Surplus / (Deficit)
Estimated Annual
Operating
Surplus / (Deficit)
AED +2,34,780
(surplus)
(AED
15,25,036)
deficit per
month
Total 3-Year Revenue AED 9,98,29,600 AED
3,64,76,200
Total 3-Year Operating
Cost (incl. VAT)
AED 9,13,77,512 AED
9,13,77,512
Estimated 3-Year
Cumulative Surplus /
(Deficit)
AED +84,52,088
(surplus)
(AED
5,49,01,312)
deficit
While relying upon the above produced comparative table, it has been
argued by the Petitioner that while the bid quoted by it yields a modest
operational surplus, the Respondent No.3‟s bid leads to a massive and
recurring loss, thereby rendering performance of contractual
obligations illusory. In particular, when the tender conditions do not
permit any revision of service fee after the initiation of tender process,
thereby foreclosing any possibility of recovery of such losses.
13.5 Further, while relying upon the Office Memorandum dated
06.02.2020 and Para 7.5.7 of the Manual for Procurement of Goods,
2017, it has been argued that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, have failed
to discharge their statutory and procedural obligations enumerated
therein, which mandates that an abnormally low bids must be
subjected to detailed scrutiny and classification.
13.6 Additionally, it has also been argued that the predatory pricing
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 7 of 18

technique adopted by the Respondent No.3, is also evident from its
conduct of an unexplained reduction in its quoted price, from AED 49
in the previous tender round to AED 19 in the present tender, despite
the present RFP being more stringent and restrictive, with respect to
the explicit exclusion of additional Value Added Services (VAS) in
the present RFP in comparison to the previous RFP issued in
pursuance to the earlier tender.
13.7 Learned senior counsel, while highlighting the distinction
between previous tender, wherein the Petitioner quoted AED 17, and
the present tender against the quoted amount of AED 19 by the
Respondent No.3, has argued that the earlier RFP quoted price was
commercially viable with respect to the viability conditions laid down
therein. On the contrary, the present RFP does not include the viability
clause, thereby raising serious concerns about the rationale behind
such an omission, which directly benefits bidders who have quoted
abnormally low, predatory and unsustainable prices. Therefore, the
quoted price by the Respondent No.3 is subject to heightened scrutiny,
particularly, with respect to the comparative cost analysis submitted
by it.
14. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
Nos.1 and 2, has made the following submissions:
14.1 Learned Counsel has made a reference to Clause B (II) (e) of
Chapter XV of the RFP titled Selection of Bidders/Award of Contract
read with Annexure K titled Financial Bid, to argue that the L-1
bidder was to be determined strictly on the basis of the lowest Service
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 8 of 18

Fee quoted, and no additional criteria such as financial viability or
profitability has been prescribed.
14.2 Further reliance is placed on Clause (g) of Annexure E of the
RFP, to argue that each bidder, including the Petitioner, unequivocally
declared full understanding and acceptance of Annexure K (Financial
Bid), Annexure D (Mandatory Criteria), and Annexure J (Technical
Bid), thereby agreeing to abide by the selection process. Accordingly,
having furnished such an undertaking, the Petitioner is now estopped
from assailing the very procedure it voluntarily accepted.
14.3 In regard to the aforestated, it has been further contended that
the present challenge raised on behest of the Petitioner is barred by the
doctrine of approbate and reprobate, as the Petitioner participated in
the tender process with full knowledge of the evaluation criteria, but
has sought to dispute the same only after being declared unsuccessful.
Reliance in this regard is placed on State of Uttar Pradesh v.
1
Karunesh Kumar & Ors. .
14.5 With respect to the argument raised by the Petitioner alleging
financial unviability of the Respondent No.3‟s quoted bid, it has been
argued that the same is misconceived, particularly, since the RFP does
not contain any clause permitting rejection of bids on the basis of low
pricing or perceived commercial unsustainability. Reference in this
regard, has again been placed on the criteria set out and argued by the
counsel under Chapter XV read with Annexure K of the RFP.
14.6 It has also been contended that the reliance placed by the

1
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1706
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 9 of 18

Petitioner on previous tenders is misplaced, as each tender process
constitutes an independent commercial exercise influenced by
changing market conditions, efficiencies, and business strategies. In
this regard, it is highlighted that the Petitioner itself had earlier quoted
AED 17 as L-1 bidder in the tender dated 31.01.2025, which
demonstrates that pricing is inherently variable and cannot be frozen
or compared across tenders.
14.7 It has been the case of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the
present RFP was introduced in 2025 as a calibrated policy measure
aimed at addressing long-standing concerns of exploitative practices
by incumbent service providers, including overcharging and forced
sale of value-added services, thereby safeguarding the interests of the
Indian diaspora, particularly blue-collar workers. The framework was
duly vetted at the institutional level by the Integrated Finance Division
and the Legal & Treaties Divisions of the Ministry, ensuring both
financial prudence and legal validity.
14.8 It is further contended that the same RFP framework has been
uniformly implemented across multiple Indian Missions, with
successful award of contracts in several locations during 2025. The
Petitioner itself has participated in and benefitted from the same
regime in other Missions, including Oman, where it was declared L-1
bidder without any challenge, demonstrating selective invocation of
grievances only in cases of unfavourable outcomes.
14.9 Additionally, it has been highlighted by the learned counsel that
the Respondent No.3, being a qualified commercial entity, is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 10 of 18

presumed to have undertaken its own assessment of costs, risks, and
profitability before submitting its bid, and it is not open to rival
bidders to speculate on the sustainability of such pricing. The
challenge is also stated to be motivated, as the Petitioner is an
incumbent service provider and L-2 bidder, and has approached the
Court only after opening of financial bids, thereby attempting to stall
the tender process and continue enjoying contractual benefits.
14.10 It has been contended that the entire tender process, is in
conformity with Rule 173 of the General Financial Rules, 2017, which
mandates transparency, fairness, and evaluation strictly in accordance
with the conditions of the bidding document, without introducing new
criteria. The Respondents further point out that adequate safeguards
exist under the RFP, including bank guarantees under Chapter X with
inclusion of penalty and termination provisions under Chapter XI,
ensuring performance security and accountability of the successful
bidder.
14.11 Moreover, a particularly significant circumstance has been
highlighted and brought to the notice of this Court, with respect to an
inherent contradiction in the Petitioner‟s position, as it has been
operating as the incumbent service provider for over 13 years at a
significantly lower rate of AED 4.5, yet now seeks to dispute the
viability of a higher discovered price. Such inconsistency, according
to the Respondents, undermines the credibility of Petitioner‟s financial
objections.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 11 of 18

14.12 Lastly, reliance is placed on a series of judgments governing the
limited scope of judicial review in tender matters, including Agmatel
2
India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom , wherein it was held that
interpretation of tender conditions lies within the domain of the
tendering authority and interference is warranted only in cases of
arbitrariness or irrationality. Further reliance is placed on the
judgment of Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 15708/2022 titled Tata
Motors Ltd. v. The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport
Undertaking (best) & Ors. , wherein it was reiterated that Courts must
not interfere with commercial decisions unless there is manifest
illegality or overwhelming public interest, and on Uflex Ltd. v.
3
Government of Tamil Nadu &Ors. , where the Supreme Court
cautioned against judicial interference in commercial tender
evaluation absent mala fides or arbitrariness.
14.13 The aforesaid contentions, has finally been crystallised by the
learned counsel, in the context of public interest with a contention that
the lower service fee discovered through the present tender directly
advances public interest by reducing costs for applicants, particularly
members of the Indian diaspora, and such public interest
considerations must outweigh purely commercial grievances of an
unsuccessful bidder.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3, has
adopted the aforesaid submissions made by the Respondent Nos.1 and
2. In addition to the aforestated, he has made the following

2
(2022) 5 SCC 362
3
2021 INSC 492
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 12 of 18

submissions:
15.1 It has been argued that the allegation pertaining to predatory
pricing is wholly misconceived. The concept of predatory pricing is
argued to be covered under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. In
order to invoke Section 4, the essential ingredient is argued to be the
existence of a dominant position in the relevant market and its abuse.
On the contrary, in the present case, Respondent No. 3 is a successful
bidder in a single competitive tender process and not a dominant
player in any relevant market by virtue of it being a new entrant. On
the aforesaid surmise, it has been argued that the mere fact of having
quoted the lowest service fee in an open, competitive procurement
process does not, in law or fact, establish dominance, much less its
abuse.
15.2 It is contended that being a first-time bidder and a new entrant
in the relevant sector, its selection as the L-1 bidder is not only in
conformity with the tender conditions but also serves a broader
objective of encouraging fair market participation and competition. It
is further contended that such selection confers an intangible yet
substantial commercial advantage, inasmuch as successful execution
of the present contract would establish Respondent No.3‟s technical
credibility and performance record.
15.3 It is the case of Respondent No.3 that, in terms of the tender
framework governing CPV procurements, particularly the evaluation
methodology for technical bids in subsequent rounds, prior successful
experience as a winning bidder is a relevant factor that results in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 13 of 18

higher technical marking in future tenders. Accordingly, the present
award would enable Respondent No.3 to enhance its competitive
standing in forthcoming CPV tenders, thereby advancing its legitimate
business prospects and facilitating sustained participation in the
procurement ecosystem.
C. ANALYSIS AND REASONING:
16. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
17. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to reiterate that the limited
scope by a writ Court in tender matters is no more res integra and
already stands crystallised by the consistent precedents of the
4
Supreme Court, in particular in Tata Cellular v Union of India . It is
well settled that in contractual matters, particularly pertaining to
public tender, this Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal over the
commercial wisdom of the tendering authority, or as in the present
case, the Respondent No.2.
18. The judicial contours of intervention by a writ Court stands
delineated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v
State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 , wherein the Court held that while
dealing with tender matters, the Courts should ask itself only:
i. whether the process or decision is mala fide or intended to
favour someone;
ii. whether it is so arbitrary and irrational that no responsible

4
(1994) 6 SCC 651
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 14 of 18

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.
19. In Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) , the Supreme Court
reiterated that the “author of the tender document is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements”, and even if the Court
might prefer a different interpretation, that “by itself, would not be a
reason” to interfere, so long as the tender-authority‟s view is not
vitiated by mala fides, perversity or irrationality.
20. Similarly, in Uflex Ltd. (Supra) , the Court emphasised that the
tender jurisdiction was not created to make the court an appellate body
over commercial and technological choices; economics and
competition must largely be left to the tendering authority, and
interference is permissible only on the narrow grounds already settled
by Tata Cellular (Supra) , Jagdish Mandal (Supra) and Michigan
5
Rubber(India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. .
21. Put summarily, applying the aforesaid framework, the present
Petition cannot invite scrutiny of this Court on an economic
comparison between the quoted price by the Petitioner and the
Respondent No.3, rather it only calls for an inquiry whether the
Respondent No.2 has acted lawfully, rationally and in public interest.

5
(2012) 8 SCC 216
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 15 of 18

22. Having delineated the limited scope of interference, we shall
now advert to the examination of submissions put forth by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
23. The Petitioner‟s primary argument when put succinctly has
been that the present RFP does not contain any viability clause, and as
such the financial bid submitted by Respondent No.3 needs to be put
to an independent scrutiny by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. However, this
Court cannot accept such submission, since by virtue of the same, this
Court is being called upon to either read such a mechanism into the
tender or, at least, compel a fresh „cost analysis‟ of the Respondent
No.3 through an expert committee. However, such contention runs
contrary to the binding precedent.
24. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Uflex Ltd. (Supra), wherein the Court stressed that
Courts cannot imply new terms into a commercial document merely
because they might appear fair or desirable. The Court‟s function is
limited only to interpret and apply the contract the parties have
actually made, instead of improving it by reading in further
business-efficacy terms unless strict conditions for implication are
satisfied. Moreover, in CWP No. 573/2015 titled Delta Guards Pvt.
Ltd. v Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank & Ors. , the Punjab and Haryana
High Court held that there is no general requirement that every tender
must include a viability/ALB clause or a pre-set range.
25. In the present case, the RFP, explicitly provides that the
contract is to be awarded strictly on the basis of the lowest service
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 16 of 18

fee (L-1) in Annexure K of the RFP, without any superadded viability
scrutiny. Thus, the tender consciously adopts a price-only L-1
model for financial evaluation. As such, the argument made by the
Petitioner that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 must introduce, at the post-bid
stage, a full viability review or expert-committee mechanism, which
the RFP expressly omits, would amount to rewriting the tender under
Article 226 of Constitution, a course impermissible under the above
authorities.
26. Additionally, the financial viability of the Respondent No.3, is
founded entirely on a self-prepared cost analysis. However, such
unilateral computations, prepared by a competing bidder, cannot form
the basis for judicial review of a concluded commercial evaluation.
The determination of cost structures, viability assessments, and
sustainability of bids falls squarely within the expertise and
institutional competence of the tendering authority. This Court is
neither equipped nor inclined to substitute its own financial
assessment for that of the competent authority, particularly in the
absence of any expert determination or statutory mandate requiring
such scrutiny.
27. It is equally significant that the RFP does not contain any
express “viability clause” or stipulation empowering rejection of bids
on the ground of perceived commercial unsustainability. In the
absence of such a contractual stipulation, the Court cannot read into
the tender conditions an additional requirement of financial viability
assessment, as that would amount to judicially rewriting the tender
document.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 17 of 18

28. Additionally, the selection of the L-1 bidder is in public
interest, particularly in relation to the welfare of Indian diaspora living
in Abu Dhabi and UAE. The acceptance of the lowest responsive bid
not only advances the settled principles of transparency and non-
arbitrariness but would also ensure that CPV services are rendered at
a reduced cost as compared to the previously prevailing cost regime.
D. CONCLUSION:
29. 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.
30. In the considered view of this Court, the Petitioner has failed to
show that the tender process as well as the selection of the Respondent
No.3 as a L-1 bidder, failed to satisfy the criteria laid down in Jagdish
Mandal (Supra), thereby limiting the scope of this Court to interfere
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
31. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. The pending
applications also stand closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
MAY 13, 2026
jai/hr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:13.05.2026
16:14:22
W.P.(C) 5286/2026 Page 18 of 18