The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging the Municipal Corporation of Delhi’s (MCD) tender conditions for implementing the Multi Lane Free Flow (MLFF)-based Toll Tax and Environment Compensation Charge (ECC) Collection System, holding that the Court cannot rewrite eligibility criteria framed by the tendering authority unless they are shown to be arbitrary, mala fide or contrary to public interest.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Shail Jain rejected the challenge mounted by Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., which had sought quashing of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated June 5, 2026. The company had assailed the requirement that bidders must have experience of operating at least 122 toll lanes under a single contract for a minimum period of two years, contending that the condition was arbitrary, anti-competitive and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Also Read Supreme Court Directs CBSE To Examine Privacy Concerns Raised Over APAAR ID Consent Mechanism
The petitioner argued that it had extensive experience in operating toll plazas across multiple contracts and had previously managed toll collection and ECC operations at the same 154 Delhi border points as part of a joint venture. It also relied on the MCD’s earlier decision to remove the 122-lane requirement, contending that its reintroduction lacked any rational basis.
Rejecting the challenge, the High Court observed that the impugned tender envisaged implementation of an integrated MLFF system involving RFID technology, Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), real-time transaction processing, centralised monitoring and a unified management information system, making it qualitatively different from conventional toll collection contracts. In view of the scale and complexity of the project, the Court held that the MCD was justified in insisting on prior experience of managing a comparable project under a single integrated contract.
The Bench further held that experience gained under multiple independent contracts could not necessarily be equated with managing one integrated project, noting that such an assessment fell within the commercial wisdom of the tendering authority and was not ordinarily amenable to judicial review.
The Court also rejected the contention that the eligibility criterion was anti-competitive. It noted that three bidders had successfully met the eligibility requirement, while another bidder would have qualified but for its debarment by the Public Works Department, Maharashtra. The existence of several infrastructure projects across the country with similar lane-based requirements also demonstrated that the condition was neither tailor-made nor unduly restrictive.
Significantly, the High Court observed that the tender had been issued pursuant to the Supreme Court’s directions and the recommendations of the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) requiring implementation of the MLFF system by October 2026. Given the strict timeline and the technological complexity of the project, the MCD could not be expected to compromise on experience requirements merely to widen participation.
Holding that the impugned eligibility condition had a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved and was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, the Court reiterated that public interest in public procurement lies not merely in expanding competition but equally in ensuring timely and efficient execution of infrastructure projects. It accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
