Full Judgment Text
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 16.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 24.04.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 24.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 3628/2023, CM APPL. 14075/2023 and CM APPL.
22793/2023
DALIT MANAV UTTHAN SANSTHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr.
C. Sanal Nambiar, Ms. Abhinav
Shailly, Ms. Chetna Singh and
Ms. Swati Dwivedi, Advs.
versus
STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC along
with Ms. Harshita Nathrani,
Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Krishna Bhushan
Upadhyay, Mr. Shailesh Tiwari
and Mr. Hem Kumar, Advs. for
R-2 to 12.
+ W.P.(C) 3629/2023, CM APPL. 14076/2023, CM APPL.
18462/2023, CM APPL. 19568/2023 and CM APPL.
27273/2023
RASHTRIYA NIRBAL UTHAN SANSTHAN AND ANR
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr.
C. Sanal Nambiar, Ms. Abhinav
Shailly, Ms. Chetna Singh and
Ms. Swati Dwivedi, Advs.
versus
STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC along
with Ms. Harshita Nathrani,
Adv. for R-1.
Mr. Krishna Bhushan
Upadhyay, Mr. Shailesh Tiwari
and Mr. Hem Kumar, Advs. for
R-2 to 12.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 1 of 14
+ W.P.(C) 4863/2023 and CM APPL. 18787/2023
SUPRABHAT EDUCATIONAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE
SOCIETY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, Mr.
C. Sanal Nambiar, Ms. Abhinav
Shailly, Ms. Chetna Singh and
Ms. Swati Dwivedi, Advs.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, SC along
with Ms. Harshita Nathrani,
Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the final
Selection List dated 20.02.2023 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned
Selection List‟] published vide communication issued by the
Department of Women and Child Development, Government of NCT
of Delhi („GNCTD‟) [hereinafter referred to as „the Department‟],
whereby they were excluded from the Impugned Selection List
prepared pursuant to Expression of Interest („EOI‟) bearing Tender ID
No.2022/DWCD/226507/1 dated 21.07.2022 for supply and
distribution of Supplementary Nutritional Food.
2. The grievance of the Petitioners primarily is that despite
qualifying the technical evaluation stage and meeting the prescribed
eligibility criteria, they were excluded at a later stage on the basis of a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 2 of 14
presentation process allegedly not envisaged under the EOI and
applied in a non-transparent manner, resulting in arbitrary exclusion
and alleged favouritism in the final selection. The Petitioners also seek
quashing of the Impugned Selection List and consequential directions
for initiation of a fresh selection process.
3. The issues that arise for consideration are whether the adoption
of a presentation-based assessment after technical evaluation was
consistent with the EOI framework and whether the Petitioners‟
exclusion from the Impugned Selection List is arbitrary or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India and warrants interference in
exercise of judicial review governing public tenders.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
batch of petitions, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be
noticed.
5. The Department issued the aforesaid EOI inviting eligible Non-
Governmental Organisations („NGOs‟)/Non-Profit Organisations
(„NPOs‟) for supply and distribution of Supplementary Nutritional
Food, namely Take Home Ration („THR‟) and Hot Cooked Meal
(„HCM‟), under the Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 Scheme
across Anganwadi Centres in Delhi. The EOI contemplated evaluation
of applicant organisations on the basis of prescribed eligibility and
technical parameters for award of projects under the welfare scheme.
6. The Petitioners, claiming to be registered organisations
possessing substantial experience in implementation of nutrition
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 3 of 14
supply programmes and operation of centralized kitchens, submitted
their applications pursuant to the said EOI along with supporting
documents demonstrating compliance with eligibility requirements.
According to the Petitioners, they fulfilled the prescribed criteria and
secured qualifying marks in the technical evaluation, which carried a
weightage of 70 marks under the evaluation framework.
7. Upon completion of the technical scrutiny undertaken by an
internal evaluation committee, presentations were conducted for
evaluation of capacity, preparedness and operational modalities of
participating organisations, as stated by the Respondents. This stage,
carrying a weightage of 30 marks, was conducted virtually before a
higher-level committee constituted by the Department, which included
an external member nominated by the Chief Secretary, GNCTD. The
recommendations of the committees culminated in issuance of the
Impugned Selection List publishing the list of eleven organisations
selected for award of projects covering ninety-five projects and
multiple Anganwadi Centres across different districts of Delhi. The
Petitioners, despite having qualified the technical evaluation stage,
were not included in the Impugned Selection List.
8. The Petitioners contend that the presentation component,
introduced after technical evaluation, effectively became
determinative of the final outcome, though the EOI contemplated
technical evaluation as the primary basis for selection. It is alleged
that the presentations were conducted virtually in lieu of physical
inspection of kitchen facilities and that the marks awarded in the
presentation stage were not disclosed to participants. The Petitioners
further allege that certain selected organisations were awarded
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 4 of 14
multiple projects despite allegedly lacking comparable experience or
infrastructure, whereas organisations which had secured qualifying
technical scores were excluded from final selection.
9. Aggrieved by their non-selection, the Petitioners submitted
representations to the Department questioning the selection process
and seeking reconsideration of their cases. Some of the Petitioners
were thereafter issued Letters of Intent without allocation of specific
projects, which, according to them, did not redress their grievance.
10. Being dissatisfied with the outcome of the selection process and
alleging irregularities therein, the Petitioners have approached this
Court by way of the present writ petitions seeking judicial review of
the Impugned Selection List and the EOI process undertaken by the
Department.
11. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties fall for consideration.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
12. Heard learned Counsel representing the parties at length and
perused the material placed on record.
13. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, in essence, submitted as
follows:
i. The Petitioners had secured qualifying marks in the
technical evaluation stage carrying 70 marks, however, they were
excluded from the Impugned Selection List without disclosure of
objective reasons.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 5 of 14
ii. A presentation-based evaluation carrying 30 marks was
introduced after completion of technical evaluation and treated as
determinative of selection, despite technical evaluation being the
primary criterion under the EOI. The presentations were
conducted virtually instead of physical inspection of kitchens and
infrastructure, and the marks awarded therein were not disclosed.
iii. The Impugned Selection List was issued beyond the
prescribed 120-day validity period of the EOI, rendering the
process invalid.
iv. Certain selected organisations lacked requisite experience
or infrastructure and were allotted disproportionate number of
projects, reflecting arbitrariness and unequal treatment in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
v. Despite representations submitted by the Petitioners, no
effective consideration was granted, and issuance of Letters of
Intent without allocation of projects is an illusory relief.
14. Per contra , learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted as
follows:
i. The EOI process involved a multi-tier evaluation
undertaken by duly constituted committees, and inclusion of
presentation assessment formed part of evaluating capacity and
preparedness of applicant organisations.
ii. The competent authority approved the final
recommendations after due evaluation, and all participants were
assessed uniformly in accordance with administrative
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 6 of 14
requirements of the scheme.
iii. Judicial review in tender matters is limited, and this
Court ought not to re-assess comparative merits or substitute its
view for that of expert bodies.
iv. The allegations of arbitrariness, favouritism or illegality
are denied, it being submitted that allocation of projects was
based solely on assessed capability and operational readiness.
15. No other submissions were urged on behalf of the parties.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
16. Before examining the rival contentions on merits, it is necessary
to delineate the scope of judicial review in matters relating to public
tenders and award of contracts.
17. The contours of judicial intervention in contractual and tender
matters stand authoritatively settled by the decision of the Supreme
1
Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India . The Supreme Court
emphasised that judicial restraint is the governing principle in
administrative decision-making and that the Court does not sit as an
appellate authority over administrative choices. The role of the Court
is confined to examining the decision-making process and not the
merits of the decision itself. 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.
1
(1994) 6 SCC 651
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 7 of 14
18. The principle has been consistently reiterated that evaluation of
bids involves qualitative assessment by expert bodies possessing
technical and administrative expertise which courts ordinarily lack.
Interference merely because another view is possible would amount to
substitution of judicial opinion for administrative wisdom, an
approach impermissible under Article 226.
19. Equally, however, judicial restraint does not imply judicial
abdication. In Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road
2
Development Corporation Ltd. , the Supreme Court underscored that
Article 14 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. Vagueness, undisclosed criteria or
shifting benchmarks may invite judicial correction where they result in
discriminatory treatment.
20. The balance between administrative freedom and constitutional
fairness was further explained in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v.
3
Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation , wherein it was held that though
the Government enjoys freedom of contract, it cannot alter essential
conditions after participants have entered the arena in a manner that
changes the rules of competition.
21. The governing test was succinctly crystallised in Jagdish
4
Mandal v. State of Orissa , where the Supreme Court held that courts
must ask:
2
(2007) 8 SCC 1
3
(2000) 5 SCC 287
4
(2007) 14 SCC 517
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 8 of 14
i. Whether the decision is mala fide or intended to favour
someone;
ii. Whether the process is so arbitrary that no reasonable
authority would adopt it; and
iii. Whether public interest suffers.
Unless these conditions are satisfied, interference under Article 226 is
unwarranted.
22. Guided by the aforesaid principles, this Court proceeds to
examine whether the impugned selection process suffers from
illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.
23. The principal grievance of the Petitioners is that after
completion of technical evaluation carrying 70 marks, the Department
introduced a presentation-based assessment carrying 30 marks, which
according to them was neither envisaged under the EOI nor applied
transparently.
24. A perusal of the EOI documents placed on record indicates that
the selection process contemplated assessment of applicant
organisations not merely on documentary eligibility but also on
operational capacity, implementation preparedness and institutional
capability for execution of the Supplementary Nutritional Food
programme under the Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 Scheme.
25. The scheme itself involves large-scale preparation, logistics
management, nutritional compliance, supply chain coordination and
real-time operational monitoring across multiple Anganwadi Centres.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 9 of 14
Evaluation of such capabilities cannot remain confined to paper
credentials alone. Administrative authorities are therefore entitled to
adopt assessment mechanisms enabling qualitative evaluation of
readiness and execution capacity.
26. Further, the Respondents have explained that the presentation
stage was conducted before a higher-level committee, including an
external member nominated by the Chief Secretary, GNCTD, with the
objective of assessing practical feasibility, infrastructure preparedness
and implementation methodology. Nothing has been shown to
demonstrate that this assessment was confined to select participants or
applied selectively.
27. It is settled law that tendering authorities possess discretion in
determining evaluation methodology, provided the criteria remain
uniformly applicable. Courts do not examine whether a better
evaluation mechanism could have been devised but only whether the
adopted mechanism was arbitrary or discriminatory.
28. The Petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the
presentation stage constituted a wholly alien criterion inconsistent
with the objectives of the EOI. Rather, the allocation of 30 marks
towards presentation indicates that the assessment formed part of an
integrated evaluation matrix culminating in final selection.
29. The argument that technical qualification alone created a vested
right to selection is misconceived. Qualification at one stage merely
entitles participation in subsequent evaluation, it does not guarantee
award of projects.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 10 of 14
30. Reliance was placed by the Petitioners on the principle that
rules of a tender cannot be altered after commencement of the process.
31. The doctrine against changing rules mid-process applies where
essential eligibility conditions or evaluation benchmarks are
fundamentally altered so as to prejudice bidders who entered the
competition on an earlier understanding.
32. In the present case, however, no material has been placed to
establish that introduction of presentations altered eligibility
conditions or expanded or restricted the field of competition. All
technically qualified participants were subjected to the same
presentation assessment. The process therefore did not confer
advantage upon any identifiable bidder.
33. Unlike situations contemplated in Monarch Infrastructure
(supra) , the present case does not involve deletion or modification of
an essential tender condition after bids were submitted. At best, it
reflects an additional evaluative step adopted to assess execution
capability in a welfare scheme involving public nutrition and safety
considerations. Consequently, the contention that the rules of the
game were impermissibly changed cannot be accepted.
34. The Petitioners next contend that marks awarded in the
presentation stage were not disclosed, thereby rendering the process
opaque.
35. Transparency undoubtedly constitutes an essential requirement
of State contracting, as emphasised in Reliance Energy (supra) ,
however, transparency does not necessarily mandate contemporaneous
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 11 of 14
disclosure of individual scoring sheets unless such disclosure is
prescribed under the tender conditions.
36. The EOI does not appear to mandate disclosure of interim
scoring to participants. In absence of such stipulation, non-disclosure
by itself cannot invalidate the process unless it is shown that
evaluation was arbitrary, mala fide or based on extraneous
considerations.
37. Significantly, the Petitioners have not produced any
comparative material demonstrating manifest irrationality in marking
or favour shown to a particular organisation. Allegations of
favouritism remain general and unsupported by cogent evidence.
38. Judicial review cannot proceed on suspicion or conjecture. As
cautioned in Jagdish Mandal (supra) , courts must resist attempts by
unsuccessful bidders to convert commercial disappointment into
constitutional challenge.
39. The Petitioners have further assailed the conduct of virtual
presentations instead of physical inspection of kitchens and
infrastructure. The choice of evaluation modality falls squarely within
administrative discretion. Unless the adopted method is shown to be
irrational or selectively applied, the Court cannot dictate whether
inspection ought to be physical or virtual.
40. No material has been placed to show that virtual presentations
compromised fairness or that any participant received preferential
treatment. Administrative flexibility, particularly in large-scale
governmental programmes, forms part of the permissible “play in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 12 of 14
joints” recognised in Tata Cellular (supra) .
41. The allegation that certain selected organisations were allotted
multiple projects despite allegedly lesser experience also does not
advance the Petitioners‟ case. Comparative assessment of
organisational capability lies within the domain of expert committees.
Courts exercising judicial review do not undertake comparative re-
evaluation of competing bidders. Interference would be justified only
where allocation is demonstrably irrational or actuated by mala fides ,
neither of which stands established.
42. The Petitioners contend that issuance of the Impugned Selection
List beyond the 120 days validity period vitiates the process. The
record indicates that the evaluation process involved multiple stages
and administrative approvals at different levels. Tender timelines,
unless expressly couched in mandatory consequence clauses, are
ordinarily regarded as directory, particularly where participation
continued without protest and no bidder withdrew on account of
delay.
43. The Petitioners participated in subsequent stages without
objection and raised the issue only after non-selection. Such conduct
disentitles them from challenging the process on this ground at a
belated stage.
44. The issuance of LOI without immediate project allocation
appears to have been an interim administrative arrangement. In
absence of any enforceable contractual right arising therefrom, the
same cannot constitute an independent ground for judicial
interference.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 13 of 14
45. Moreover, quashing the entire selection at this stage would
disrupt implementation of a public welfare nutrition scheme affecting
a large beneficiary population, an outcome which courts must avoid
unless illegality is clearly established.
CONCLUSION:
46. For the reasons recorded in the preceding discussion, no ground
for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made
out.
47. The challenge to the Impugned Selection List dated 20.02.2023
fails. The present batch of Writ Petitions is accordingly dismissed.
Pending applications stand disposed of.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
APRIL 24, 2026
s.godara/shah
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SAVITA
PASRICHA
Signing Date:24.04.2026
14:48:49
W.P.(C) 3628/2023 and connected matters Page 14 of 14