In a couple of writ petitions filed before the Delhi High Court to challenge tenders dated 19-01-2026 and 20-01-2026 along with a corrigendum dated 14-02-2026 floated for three kiosks/shops in the premises of the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences (ABVIMS) & Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi (respondent hospital), a Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed the petitions for lack of merit.
One of the petitioners had been operating a round-the-clock canteen (Kewal’s Canteen) in the premises of the respondent hospital since 1988, by permission of the Resident Doctors Association, by its letter, which was extended till 1990 by the management of the respondent hospital against a rent of Rs. 600/- per month. Thereafter, by an allotment letter, the said kiosk was allotted to the petitioner.
On 06-03-2025, the petitioner requested an extension of the said allotment, which was granted until 31-03-2026, upon payment of Rs. 7181/- per month from 01-04-2025 to 31-12-2025 and Rs. 7637/- per month from 01-01-2026 to 31-03-2026 towards the license fee. On 19-01-2026, respondent 2 issued a notice regarding the tender for three operating kiosks in the respondent hospital. It was asserted that para 7(1) of the tender was violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution, as it restricted applicants like the petitioner from participating in the bidding process by requiring an average annual turnover of Rs. 50,00,000 during the last three financial years.
It was submitted that the selection process in the impugned tender prescribed that the tender would be awarded to the bidder quoting the highest license fee, subject to a minimum fee of Rs. 450/- per square foot per month. The respondent hospital also proposed increasing the monthly rent to Rs. 45,000/-, which was more than seven times the amount the petitioner was paying. It was also contended that the impugned tender selectively targeted only three shops for re-allotment, while the remaining shops continued to operate under their existing arrangements. Aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to respondent 2, but no response was received.
The other petitioner was the operator of a photocopy and STD booth, a small kiosk that had been operating for ten years with permission granted by the respondent hospital’s competent authorities. The last extension was granted by a 2025 letter, whereby the petitioner was permitted to continue operations until 31-03-2026 at a monthly license fee of Rs. 4144/-. It was submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the respondents issued an amendment by way of the said corrigendum, whereby the annual income criterion was reduced from Rs. 50,00,000/- to Rs. 20,00,000/-, which was also contended to be unreasonable. The challenge by this petitioner was also similar to that of the first petitioner.
The Court stated that the tendering authority is best placed to judge its requirements and to interpret the terms of the tender and that the Court does not sit in appeal over the commercial wisdom of the tendering authority. It was said that interference is warranted only in situations where the decision is manifestly perverse due to discrimination.
The Court noted that the respondents’ reasoning for the eligibility criteria was that the reduced criterion of Rs. 20,00,000/- per annum translated to Rs. 1.6 lakh per month, which was a standard figure for a high-footfall hospital kiosk. Upon asking the petitioners what the appropriate amount should be, the Court received no answer and stated that it appeared the petitioners would not be in a position to meet the annual turnover criteria even if it were further reduced.
Regarding the issue of the license fee, the respondents justified the same by stating that the current license fee granted to the petitioners was on a subsidised basis and that they did not have any right to claim such rates in perpetuity. As far as the challenge to the decision not to include other kiosks in the tender was concerned, it was justified by a note sheet stating that the decision was to allot the other kiosks to certain cooperative societies. The Court stated that the allotment to the cooperative societies was a policy decision by the respondents and could not be faulted.
The Court stated that the prescription of the terms and conditions of a tender document falls within the domain of the tendering authority, and since the petitioners failed to show any arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or mala fide on the part of the respondent hospital, the prayers could not be granted. Lastly, the Court held that the petitions lacked merit and were liable to be dismissed.
Appearances:
For Petitioners – Ms. Amrita Mishra, Mr. Raj Ranjay Singh, Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Mr. Nitin Mangla, Mr. Nitish Garg, Mr. Nishchay Kapoor
For Respondents – Mr. Rohan Jaitley (CGSC), Ms. Iram Majid (CGSC), Mr. Akshay Sharma (GP), Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh, Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Mr. Mohd Suboor, Dr. Manoj Kumar Jha (Addl. MS.)
