The Delhi High Court has quashed the technical evaluation process adopted by the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) for awarding Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) service contracts at Indian Missions in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra, holding that the evaluation suffered from arbitrariness, lack of transparency and absence of recorded reasons.
A Division Bench observed that while courts generally do not interfere with technical assessments made by expert committees, judicial review is available where the decision-making process itself is unfair or opaque.
Background of the Case
The petitions were filed by E Trav Tech Limited and M/s Verasys Limited, whose technical bids were rejected after they failed to secure the qualifying score of 70% under Requests for Proposal (RFPs) issued by the MEA for outsourcing CPV services at Indian Missions in Kuwait, Abu Dhabi (UAE), Singapore and Canberra (Australia).
The companies argued that although they were later supplied with parameter-wise marks following directions of the Supreme Court, the authorities failed to disclose the reasons behind the marks awarded or the deductions made under various evaluation criteria. They contended that several deductions were arbitrary despite their proposals meeting the prescribed standards under the RFPs.
The Union of India opposed the petitions, contending that technical evaluation was carried out by expert committees in accordance with the tender conditions and that courts should not re-evaluate technical scores.
Court's Observations
The Bench first rejected the Union's preliminary objection that the petitions were barred by the principles of res judicata. It held that the present challenge arose from a fresh cause of action because the petitioners could question the evaluation process only after receiving the parameter-wise marks pursuant to earlier court directions.
The Court clarified that the dispute was not about whether the petitioners deserved higher marks, but whether the evaluation process satisfied constitutional standards of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness.
"The issue before this Court is not whether a different score ought to have been awarded, rather whether the evaluation process satisfies the constitutional requirements of fairness, transparency, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness," the Bench observed.
Examining the evaluation records, the Court noted that although parameter-wise marks had been disclosed, the authorities failed to explain the basis on which those marks were assigned. The evaluation sheets neither identified shortcomings in the petitioners' proposals nor disclosed the comparative benchmarks used while awarding proportionately lower marks to competing bidders.
According to the Court, this deprived the bidders of any meaningful opportunity to understand why their proposals were considered inferior despite complying with the tender requirements.
The Bench also found inconsistencies in the marks awarded under identical evaluation criteria. It pointed out that similar proposals submitted across different missions received significantly different scores without any explanation. Such unexplained variations, the Court held, undermined the principle of a level playing field guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Addressing the Union's argument that oral presentations before the Technical Evaluation Committees justified the deductions, the Court rejected the submission.
The Bench observed,
"Even assuming that such presentations formed part of the evaluation, they cannot substitute recorded reasons. If deductions were founded upon shortcomings noticed during such presentations, those shortcomings ought to have been reflected in the contemporaneous evaluation records."
It further held that the failure to record and communicate reasons violated the General Financial Rules, 2017, as well as the tender conditions requiring transparency in public procurement.
Decision
Allowing all the writ petitions, the Delhi High Court held that the technical evaluation process was vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency.
"The parameter-wise marks awarded to the Petitioners are vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality and lack of transparency,"
the Court held while setting aside the impugned technical evaluations.
The Bench consequently nullified the award of tenders made in favour of the successful private bidders and directed the Union of India and the concerned authorities to issue fresh Requests for Proposal (RFPs) for CPV services in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Singapore and Canberra within one month. The Court further permitted the existing service providers to continue operating temporarily to ensure there is no disruption in public services until the fresh tender process is completed.
Case Details:
Case Title: E Trav Tech Limited v. Union of India & Ors. and Other Connected Matters
Case Number: W.P.(C) 6844/2026, W.P.(C) 6846/2026, W.P.(C) 6848/2026, W.P.(C) 6849/2026, W.P.(C) 8039/2026, W.P.(C) 8045/2026 & W.P.(C) 8046/2026
Judge: Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Shail Jain
Decision Date: 15 July 2026
