Exclusion of partnership firms and consortiums from multi-disciplinary service tenders is a valid policy decision.

The Petitioner, a partnership firm specializing in security services, challenged a consolidated tender (No. 13/2026-27) issued by the Respondent for "Operation and maintenance of electromechanical services, housekeeping, security and allied installations" at the Maharana Pratap ISBT, Kashmere Gate

The Petitioner contended that "bunching" eight disparate services into one tender was exclusionary and intended to bypass the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal

The Petitioner further challenged the exclusion of partnership firms, joint ventures, and consortiums, as well as the technical evaluation criteria (QCBS) which allegedly favored the incumbent contractor

1. Whether the Respondent’s decision to consolidate eight multi-disciplinary services into a single tender was arbitrary or discriminatory.

2. Whether the Petitioner has the locus standi to challenge specific tender conditions (such as the exclusion of partnerships/consortiums) when it lacks the inherent capacity to fulfill the multi-disciplinary scope of the tender.

3. Whether the Respondent's failure to utilize the GeM portal for procurement invalidated the tender process.

The Court primarily applied the principle of judicial restraint in administrative matters, as established in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, which holds that the author of a tender is the best judge of its requirements and courts should not interfere unless the conditions are mala fide or perverse

Rule 147 and 149 of the General Financial Rules (GFR), 2017, regarding mandatory procurement through GeM only when services are available on the portal

Rule 192 of GFR regarding the Quality and Cost-Based Selection (QCBS) methodology

Reference to Top Edge Security and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. GNCTD regarding the permissible exclusion of certain business entities as a matter of procurement policy

The Court observed that the Respondent’s decision to club eight services (e.g., security, housekeeping, HVAC, horticulture) was based on past practice and a desire for administrative efficiency and unified accountability at a high-footfall terminal

Under the Afcons doctrine, the owner is the best person to appreciate project requirements, and the Court found the Respondent’s rationale for a single-point contractor persuasive and not arbitrary

Critically, since the Petitioner is a specialized firm capable of providing only security services, it could not qualify for the multi-disciplinary tender regardless of whether it was published on the GeM portal or allowed partnership participation

The Court found that while the Respondent's "GeM availability report" was cryptic and unsatisfactory, this did not grant the Petitioner relief since the Petitioner lacked the capacity to provide seven out of the eight requested services

Challenges to the exclusion of consortiums and partnership status were deemed academic as the Petitioner failed to show it had arrangements to meet the full scope of the tender

The Court held that because the Petitioner lacked the capacity to perform the multi-disciplinary services required, it lacked the standing to challenge individual technical or eligibility clauses

The Court directed the Respondent’s Board to review its processes regarding GeM portal searches to ensure future transparency and the best value for the public exchequer; All pending applications were disposed of