Facts of the Case

M/S Kewal Canteen (operating since 1988) and Parida Photocopier and PCO Booth, both long-time kiosk/canteen operators at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi, challenged tender notices dated 19.01.2026 and 20.01.2026 (with a corrigendum dated 14.02.2026) floated by the hospital for three kiosk/shop spaces. This is a public procurement/tender-law dispute with no GST content — GST does not feature in the substance of the case at all.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the tender terms, including the licence fee payment clause, were arbitrary or discriminatory against long-standing operators like the petitioners, in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the allotment of certain reserved kiosks to cooperative societies (e.g., Mother Dairy, Amul) via MoU was permissible.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Paragraph 7(1) of the tender was in violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution as it restricted long-standing operators like the petitioners from participating in the bidding process.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Not fully recorded in the excerpted portion, but the tender terms and conditions, and the allotment of some kiosks to cooperative societies via MoU, were defended as legitimate policy decisions within the tendering authority's discretion.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that prescription of tender terms falls within the domain of the tendering authority, and the petitioners had not demonstrated arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fide on the part of the hospital.
  • The allotment of five reserved kiosks to cooperative societies was found to be a policy decision that could not be faulted.
  • The petitions were held to lack merit and were dismissed, along with all pending applications.

Important Clarification

This ruling has no bearing on GST law whatsoever — it is a public tender/contract law decision confirming that courts give wide latitude to a tendering authority's commercial discretion in setting tender conditions, so long as no arbitrariness or discrimination is shown.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 226

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioners — both writ petitions were dismissed and the tender terms were upheld.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
  • Case Number: W.P.(C) 2103/2026 & CM APPL. 10263/2026, and W.P.(C) 2779/2026 & CM APPL. 13492/2026
  • Coram: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
  • Date of Order: 23.03.2026 (reserved 17.03.2026)

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.