Centre moves Supreme Court against Delhi HC order quashing tender for passport, visa services at Indian missions abroad

The Central government has challenged a Delhi High Court decision to quash tenders for outsourcing Consular, Passport and Visa services at Indian missions abroad. The Supreme Court agreed to list the matter on July 20 after it was mentioned by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The Delhi High Court had previously quashed the technical evaluation process and award of tender due to arbitrariness, irrationality, and lack of transparency.

The Central government's move to challenge a recent Delhi High Court decision has sparked interest in the outsourcing of Consular, Passport and Visa services at Indian missions abroad. The Supreme Court's agreement to list the matter on July 20 indicates that the issue may be subject to further review. This development is significant as it highlights the importance of transparency and fairness in government tender processes.

The Delhi High Court had previously quashed the technical evaluation process and award of tender due to arbitrariness, irrationality, and lack of transparency. The decision was made in a batch of seven petitions filed by two bidders, eTrav Tech and Verasys, who challenged their disqualification in the technical-bid stage of the tender process. The bidders had claimed that their marks were deducted arbitrarily and without explanation, leading to their disqualification from further consideration.

The Central government's challenge to the Delhi High Court decision raises questions about the validity of the court's ruling. While the High Court had found arbitrariness, irrationality, and lack of transparency in the tender process, the Supreme Court may consider a different interpretation of the facts. The outcome of this matter has not yet been reported, but it is likely to have significant implications for government tender processes and the role of the judiciary in reviewing such decisions.

The Supreme Court's agreement to list the matter on July 20 indicates that the issue may be subject to further review. Practitioners should closely follow this development as it has significant implications for government tender processes and the role of the judiciary in reviewing such decisions.