‘Tender Conditions Must Align with Public Policy’: Delhi High Court Upholds Exclusion of BSIV Vehicles
Safiya Malik
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a condition in an e-tender that excluded BSIV vehicles from participating in a contract for transporting food grains. The petition was filed by transporters engaged in the distribution of essential commodities, who sought to challenge the validity of the tender condition that required the use of BSVI or CNG-compliant vehicles. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela recorded that the tendering authority was within its rights to impose conditions best suited to meet public interest requirements. The court further observed that the exclusion of BSIV vehicles did not violate any orders of the Supreme Court or the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Consequently, the court refused to interfere with the tendering process and held that no legal right had been violated.
The petitioners, transporters operating under the Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, challenged the exclusion of BSIV vehicles from the e-tender issued for the transportation of wheat and rice from Food Corporation of India godowns to fair price shops. The petitioners contended that they had been engaged in this work since 2019 under previous contracts, where BSIV vehicles were permitted. They submitted that the sudden exclusion of BSIV vehicles in the 2025 tender placed them at a disadvantage, as they had made significant financial investments based on prior tender conditions.
The petitioners relied on past orders of the Supreme Court and the NGT that permitted BSIV vehicles for essential services, arguing that the exclusion in the present tender was arbitrary and contrary to judicial precedents. They further contended that the decision was intended to benefit transporters owning BSVI or CNG vehicles and would result in financial losses to existing operators. The petitioners sought a direction to quash the tender condition and allow them to continue using BSIV vehicles for the transportation of food grains.
Additionally, the petitioners claimed entitlement to an extension of their existing contract by one year, citing a clause in the 2022 tender that permitted such an extension with mutual consent. They argued that the corporation was obligated to consider their request for an extension before floating a new tender.
The respondents, including the Government of NCT of Delhi and the Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, opposed the petition. They asserted that the decision to exclude BSIV vehicles was taken in public interest to reduce air pollution in Delhi. The respondents submitted that while BSIV vehicles had been permitted in previous tenders due to the urgent need for large-scale food distribution under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) during the COVID-19 pandemic, the present requirement was lower, justifying the exclusion of BSIV vehicles. They further contended that the extension clause in the 2022 tender did not confer an automatic right to extension and that the corporation was not obligated to continue the petitioners' contracts.
The court considered whether the exclusion of BSIV vehicles violated any legal provisions, orders of the NGT or Supreme Court, or principles of fairness in public contracting. It examined whether the petitioners had a legal right to demand the extension of their contracts.
Addressing the first issue, the court recorded that "the orders passed by the NGT and the Hon’ble Supreme Court only permitted registration of BSIV compliant vehicles to be used for essential services, however, such orders passed by the NGT or the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be construed to mean that a tendering authority which is the best judge of its requirement is under any obligation to necessarily include use of BSIV compliant vehicles for transportation of specified food articles."
The court observed that while previous tenders had permitted BSIV vehicles, the change in tender conditions did not amount to arbitrariness. It noted that the exclusion of BSIV vehicles was a policy decision aimed at mitigating air pollution, which was a legitimate public interest consideration. The judgment stated, "What was upheld by this Court in its judgment dated 03.03.2023 was inclusion of use of BSIV vehicles, however, the said decision will not mean that in case exclusion of use of BSIV compliant vehicles is required under changed circumstances and also in larger public interest, the same cannot be provided for."
The court further recorded that tendering authorities are best placed to determine contractual conditions and that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of arbitrariness or mala fide intent. The judgment cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Municipal Corporation, Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd., stating, "The purpose of judicial review of administrative action is to check whether the choice or decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice or decision is sound."
On the issue of contract extension, the court rejected the petitioners’ claim that they had a vested right to continue operations. It referred to Clause 4 of the 2022 tender, which provided for an extension only with mutual consent. The court noted, "The stipulation made in Clause 4 of the earlier tender provides for extension of further one year with the mutual consent of the parties and therefore, the petitioners on the basis of the said clause cannot claim the extension of one year as a matter of their right without the consent of respondent no.2/Corporation."
The court held that the petitioners’ argument that they were entitled to an extension had no legal basis, as the tender condition only provided for the possibility of extension, not an enforceable right.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the exclusion of BSIV vehicles in the tender conditions was a policy decision that did not warrant judicial interference.
The judgment recorded: "For the reasons given and discussions made above, we have no option but to conclude that the writ petition is bereft of any merit which is hereby dismissed along with pending application."
The court also refused to grant the petitioners additional time to convert their BSIV vehicles to CNG, holding that the judiciary could not alter tender conditions. It stated, "Acceding to such a prayer would amount to the Court re-writing the tender conditions which is impermissible for the reason that it is the tendering authority which is the best judge of its requirement."
Case Title: Shri Ruchit Bansal & Another v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1445-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2660/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
[Read/Download order]
