In a writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to permit the petitioner to participate in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 02-06-2026 (NIT), a Division Bench of Justice Tejas Karia and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the petitioner and refused to grant permission to the petitioner to participate in the NIT.
The petitioner was engaged in the business collection and management of user fee/toll at National Highway projects across the country. On 06-08-2025, NHAI passed an order debarring the petitioner for one year. Aggrieved, the petitioner instituted a petition before this Court challenging the legality, validity, proportionality, and correctness of the debarment order. Judgment on the same was reserved on 20-04-2026 and is yet to be pronounced. At present, the petitioner was operating the Ghamroj Fee Plaza under an agreement valid till 12-08-2026. Pending pronouncement of the judgment, NHAI issued the NIT to engage a user fee collection agency at the said plaza on NH-248 in Haryana. On 08-06-2026, NHAI published an updated list of pre-qualified bidders wherein the petitioner was also included but his status was shown as debarred.
The petitioner argued that the debarment expires on 06-08-2026, whereas the present agreement for the said plaza is valid until 12-08-2026. It was asserted that the NIT is for a contractual period that would substantially operate after the expiry of the debarment. The petitioner contended that exclusion from participation in the NIT would extend the practical consequences of a time-bound debarment.
NHAI argued that the petitioner had filed an application seeking interim stay of the debarment order, but since no such stay was granted by the Single Judge, the petitioner was trying to circumvent the same by the present petition.
The Court refused to agree that the petitioner should be permitted to take part in the NIT on grounds that the contractual period would commence after expiry of the debarment period since the order expressly debarred the petitioner from participating in any tender for one year. It was held that the date of commencement of the contractual period was not material if the debarment order continues to operate at the time when the bid is required to be submitted. The Court held that the petitioner could not be allowed to circumvent the pending challenge in the earlier writ petition by filing the present petition.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition being devoid of merit.
