Dismissal of challenge to tender conditions for delay, non-participation, and operational nexus to public safety.

The Petitioners, MSME entities and GeM-registered sellers, challenged seven tender processes initiated by the Directorate of Education, GNCTD, for procurement of outdoor gym and sports equipment

The tenders included conditions such as physical sample submission, specific turnover/experience thresholds without MSE relaxations, and a requirement for a functional office and warehouse in Delhi/NCR for at least three years (applicable to Sports-Equipment Tenders - SET)

Petitioner No. 1 participated only in the Outdoor Gym Tender; no petitioners participated in the SET

The Petitioners alleged these conditions were exclusionary and violated GeM frameworks

The Respondents raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi, delay, and laches

1. Whether a challenge to the Sports-Equipment Tenders (SET) is maintainable by Petitioners who did not participate in the bidding process

2. Whether the impugned tender conditions (sample submission, Delhi office requirement, and denial of MSE relaxation) were arbitrary, exclusionary, or contrary to the GeM framework

3. Whether the challenge was barred by delay and laches given the advanced stage of the procurement process

The Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, emphasizing that courts do not act as appellate authorities over commercial tender conditions unless they are manifestly arbitrary, mala fide, or discriminatory

It relied on Gaurav Enterprises v. GTB Hospital & Anr. regarding the dismissal of delayed challenges to facial tender conditions

In matters of MSE relaxations, it referenced Office Memoranda dated 10.03.2016 and 20.09.2016, noting that while relaxation is encouraged for startups/MSEs, it is discretionary ("may") and can be withheld for reasons of public safety and critical equipment

For geographical restrictions, it referenced Vinishma Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh, though distinguishing it based on the facts and timing of the challenge

Regarding the SET, the court held that while non-participation is not an absolute bar if the conditions themselves are exclusionary, the burden of proof is higher

However, the court declined to rule on the validity of the Delhi office requirement (Clause 2.17) due to significant delay, as the petition was filed over three months after the bids were published and after evaluations had commenced

Regarding the Outdoor Gym Tender, the court found the 80% past-performance threshold and sample requirements were rationally linked to the "installation, safety, warranty, and post-installation support" of non-consumable equipment intended for school children

The court determined that the Petitioner failed to prove the conditions were perverse or lacked a nexus to the procurement objective

It held that the challenge to the Outdoor Gym Tender failed on merits as the conditions were not demonstrably arbitrary

Regarding the SET, the court refused to interfere due to the Petitioners' non-participation, substantial delay, and the advanced stage of the tender process

The court specifically left open the larger legal questions regarding the validity of Clause 2.17 (Delhi office requirement) and the GeM Disclaimer's effect on restrictive conditions for future appropriate cases