Telecommunications Consultants India Limited vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
rd
% Date of Decision: November 03 , 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010311702026
+ W.P.(C) 9700/2026 & CM APPL. 45160/2026, CM APPL.
48689/2026, CM APPL. 55906/2026
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS
INDIA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv with
Mr. K.P.S. Kohli, Ms. Navneet
Chahal, Mr. Ashwin Rakesh,
Mr. Saurobroto Dutta, Mr.
Kartik Mittal, Mr, Samrat
Pasriccha & Mr. Vinyak
Tiwari, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG, Mr.
Siddhartha Shankar Roy, CGSC
with Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.
Shumbahm Sharma, Mr.
Naman, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)
1. By the present petition, the petitioner essentially challenges the
letter dated 09.07.2026 (hereafter ‘ impugned letter ’) issued by
Respondent No. 2 pursuant to which the Tripartite Memorandum of
Agreement dated 23.09.2025 executed between Respondent No. 2, 3
and the petitioner for the revamping and operation of ‘ Elderline ’ –
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9700/2026 Page 1 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:29:22

National Helpline for the Senior Citizens under the Atal Vayo
Abhyuday Yojana was unilaterally terminated.
2. Briefly, the Tripartite Memorandum of Agreement was
executed for the revamping and operation of the national helpline for
Senior Citizens. The letter of Intent was issued by Respondent No. 2
in this regard on 19.07.2025 and the same was duly accepted by the
petitioner on 22.07.2025. Thereafter, in furtherance of the project
implementation, the petitioner floated GeM Bid No.
GEM/2025/B/6501323, also bearing NIT No.
TCIL/78/2025/DT/Elderline, on the Government e-Marketplace
(GeM) portal for the selection of a suitable back-end implementation
partner/service provider to assist in the execution and
operationalization of the project in accordance with the prescribed
framework. Out of the four bids received, M/s Vision Plus Security
Control Ltd. was declared the successful bidder and was subsequently
awarded the GeM Contract on 03.11.2025. It is the case of the
respondents that there were certain discrepancies in the selection of a
suitable back-end implementation partner/service provider on the part
of the petitioner.
3. Initially, a termination letter dated 24.02.2026 was issued by the
respondent authorities, and the same was set aside by this Court vide
order dated 15.04.2026 in W.P. (C) 4622/2026 with liberty to the
respondents to take fresh action in accordance with law. Thereafter,
after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by the
impugned letter, another termination letter was issued by Respondent
No. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9700/2026 Page 2 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:29:22

4. At the outset, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned letter has been issued in utter disregard of
the principles of natural justice and without affording an effective
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to explain its position. It has
been argued that the respondents have alleged certain discrepancies in
the selection of the backend partners and certain service providers,
however, no specific show cause setting out the precise nature of the
alleged irregularities or their particulars thereof was ever provided to
the petitioner.
5. She submits that merely calling the petitioner for certain
meetings and affording an opportunity to make some submissions
without disclosing the precise and specific allegations required to be
answered would not constitute a meaningful opportunity of hearing.
6. It is further pointed out that the earlier termination of the very
same agreement had been set aside by this Court vide order dated
15.04.2026 in W.P. (C) 4622/2026 with liberty to the respondents to
take fresh action in accordance with law. She submits that on that
occasion as well, the termination was challenged on the ground of
violations of principles of natural justice. She submits that despite the
aforesaid directions, the respondents have again proceeded to
terminate the Tripartite Memorandum of Agreement without curing
the fundamental procedural infirmity. She consequently prays that the
impugned letter be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the learned ASG submits that in compliance
with the directions of this Court vide order dated 15.04.2026 in W.P.
(C) 4622/2026, the department afforded hearings to the petitioner to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9700/2026 Page 3 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:29:22

explain the discrepancies, and upon finding the explanation to be
unsatisfactory and inadequate, the impugned letter was issued.
8. Having taken note of the rival contentions of the parties,
undisputedly the earlier termination of the Tripartite Memorandum of
Agreement vide order dated 15.04.2026 in W.P. (C) 4622/2026 was
set aside by this Court with liberty to the respondents to take fresh
action in accordance with law. While doing so, this Court had
categorically noted that allegations of serious misconduct,
misrepresentation, negligence could not have been determined without
fulfilling the requirements of natural justice.
9. At this juncture, while the impugned letter indicates that the
same is issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
15.04.2026 and it is not disputed by the petitioner that the department
had afforded hearing to the petitioner to explain the discrepancies
observed in the selection process of the Backend Partners and Service
Providers, the requirement of natural justice in the opinion of this
Court is not satisfied merely by providing an opportunity to appear
before the authority or to make general submissions. The affected
party ought to be made aware of the specific case sought to be made
against it including the specific allegations and the material on which
the proposed adverse action is founded so as to enable the affected
party to meaningfully and effectively respond to the same.
10. Even the impugned letter though refers to certain discrepancies
in the selection of the backend partners and service providers and
relies upon the pendency of a vigilance enquiry, it does not set out
with specificity the particular discrepancies or irregularities attributed
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9700/2026 Page 4 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:29:22

to the petitioner nor does it indicate the basis on which the explanation
furnished by the petitioner was found to be inadequate. Even the email
communication dated 28.06.2026 though alleges procedural
deviations in the tender floated by the petitioner for selection of the
backend partner, the exact deviation alleged against the petitioner
appears to be unclear.
11. In the considered view of this Court thus, the hearing afforded
to the petitioner in the present case only appears to be an empty
formality.
12. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the matter
deserves to be reconsidered by the competent authority after following
due process.
13. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned letter is set aside and
the competent authority is directed to issue a fresh show cause notice
to the petitioner setting out the precise allegations and discrepancies
alleged in the selection of the backend partners and service providers,
the materials and documents proposed to be relied upon including the
relevant material pertaining to the vigilance enquiry to the extent
relied upon by the authority.
14. The petitioner shall be afforded with a reasonable time to
submit its response along with the supporting documents. The
respondents shall also afford the petitioner an effective opportunity of
hearing before taking any final decision and thereafter pass a reasoned
order in accordance with law.
15. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the allegations and all such issues are left open for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9700/2026 Page 5 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:29:22

consideration by the competent authority.
16. The present petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026
“SK”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 9700/2026 Page 6 of 6
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL
Signing Date:07.11.2026
17:29:22