Well Protect Manpower Services PVT. LTD. vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the award of a contract for Multi-Tasking Staff for housekeeping and watch and ward of community halls to respondent No. 2. The petitioner contended that respondent No. 2 was disqualified because it lacked a valid GST registration number at the time of bidding and submitted an expired OHSAS certificate. The contract was awarded to respondent No. 2 on April 29, 2021, effective from May 1, 2021, for a period of one year. The respondents, East Delhi Municipal Corporation (EDMC) and respondent No. 2, filed counter-affidavits, and the petitioner filed a rejoinder. A significant portion of the contract period had already elapsed.
Held
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievances regarding the alleged technical disqualification of respondent No. 2, specifically concerning the GST registration and the OHSAS certificate. However, given that a substantial portion of the one-year contract period had already expired since its commencement on May 1, 2021, the Court was disinclined to interfere with the current award of the contract. The Court explicitly stated that it was not inclined to interfere in these proceedings. Nevertheless, the Court directed the respondent Corporation to invite fresh tenders before the expiry of the current contract. This was to ensure that all eligible bidders could participate in a new process and to avoid the need for any extension for respondent No. 2. The petitioner was also granted the liberty to pursue its grievances through other proceedings, including raising issues before the Vigilance Branch of the respondent and the Vigilance Commission.
Key Issues
1. Whether respondent No. 2 was disqualified from the tender process for not possessing a valid GST registration number at the time of bid submission, as per the tender conditions? The petitioner argued that a valid GST registration is a mandatory requirement for participating in tenders, and respondent No. 2's lack thereof rendered its bid invalid. The respondents' arguments on this point are not explicitly recorded. 2. Whether respondent No. 2 was disqualified due to submitting an expired OHSAS certificate, given that the bid was submitted in February 2021 and the certificate expired on July 22, 2020? The petitioner contended that this constituted a material irregularity and a violation of tender conditions. The respondents' arguments on this point are not explicitly recorded. 3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the contract awarded to respondent No. 2, considering the elapsed contract period and the nature of the grievances raised?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2022 The grievance raised in the present writ petition, by the petitioner is with regard to the award of the contract to respondent No.2 vide letter/ award dated 29.04.2021 for the work of Multi-Tasking Staff for housekeeping/ watch and ward of community halls on the ground that the same was completely irregular, and in violation of the tender conditions. According to the petitioner, respondent No.2 was, in fact, disqualified, and should not have been awarded the contract. In this respect, the petitioner raised two grounds for claiming that respondent No.2 was disqualified. Firstly, it was claimed that the respondent No.2 did not have a valid GST registration number, when the respondent No.2 tendered its bid. Secondly, the OHSAS certificate submitted by respondent No.2, had already This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/06/2026 at 07:08:49
expired on 22.07.2020, whereas the bid was submitted in February, 2021. The MC as well as respondent No.2 have filed their counter affidavits to which rejoinder has also been filed. We find that the contract has been awarded to respondent No.2 w.e.f. 01.05.2021 for a period of one year. A major portion of that period has already come to an end. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of the contract to respondent No.2 in these proceedings. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to agitate its grievances in other proceedings, and also raise issues before the Vigilance Branch of the respondent and the Vigilance Commission, if the petitioner is so advised. At the same time, looking to the issues raised by the petitioner with regard to the technical disqualification from which respondent No.2 is claimed to have suffered at the time of submission of the bids, we are of the view that the respondent Corporation should invite a fresh tender before the expiry of the contract in question awarded to respondent No.2, so that all eligible bidders are able to participate, and the need to grant any extension to respondent No.2 does not arise. The petition stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
JASMEET SINGH, J JANUARY 6, 2022/ ‘ms’ This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/06/2026 at 07:08:49
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.