<\/p>\n
Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
In this case, the Delhi High Court examined the validity of the MCD tender eligibility criteria which was prescribed for the implementation of the Multi Lane Free Flow (MLFF) toll collection system at Delhi\u2019s border entry points.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The petitioner challenged the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), which was issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the ground that one of the technical eligibility conditions was anti-competitive.<\/span><\/p>\n The principal issue before the Court was whether the requirement of\u00a0 prior experience to operate at least 122 toll lanes under a single contract had any connection with the object of the project or violated Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n The Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the respondent herein, invited bids for operation of the Toll Tax and Environment Compensation Charge (ECC) collection at 154 border entry points by an upgraded Multi Lane Free Flow (MLFF) technology. 244 toll lanes were covered under the project. It also involved RFID integration, ANPR technology, real-time transaction processing, and a centralised monitoring system.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, the eligibility condition of the bidders to have an experience in operating at least 122 toll lanes under a single contract for a minimum period of two years was challenged by the petitioner, Skylark Infra Engineering.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It was alleged that the condition was arbitrary because equivalent experience acquired under multiple contracts should also have been accepted.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The petitioner mentioned that it had previous experience as a joint venture partner in operating the same border toll plazas and stated that the MCT had earlier stated that it would remove a similar condition after treating it as anti-competitive.<\/span><\/p>\n The MCD opposed the petition by stating that the MLFF project involved a more complex framework than the earlier RFID-based system. It also pointed out that the revised tender had been issued after the recommendations of the Commission for Air Quality Management and directions of the Supreme Court requiring implementation of the MLFF system within the prescribed time period.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision<\/b><\/p>\n The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and the MCD tender eligibility criteria was upheld.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court held that judicial review in tender matters is limited. Courts examine only whether the decision-making process suffers from arbitrariness or any kind of discrimination. They cannot write afresh the eligibility conditions which are framed by the tendering authority only to widen the competition.<\/span><\/p>\n The Court accepted that the MLFF project involved a technologically complex system. Experience gained under multiple independent contracts could not automatically be treated equal to managing a single contract of comparable scale. The eligibility condition therefore, had a clear connection with the complexity of the project and its timely execution.<\/span><\/p>\n It was further held that the previous experience of the petitioner, as a joint venture partner did not automatically entitled it to be excluded from the applicable criteria. The Court also rejected the argument that the condition was anti-competitive, noting that several bidders satisfied the requirement and similar criteria existed in other States as well.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court concluded that the impugned eligibility criteria neither violated Article 14 or Article 19 (1)(g) nor suffered from any kind of arbitrariness. The writ petition with all the pending applications was dismissed.<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Skylark Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd.\u00a0 [Petitioner ]\u00a0 \u00a0Vs.\u00a0 Municipal Corporation of Delhi [Respondent] W.P.(C) 8368\/2026, CM APPL. 39327\/2026 & CM APPL. 39328\/2026 (DB, Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain, JJ.) Overview In this case, the Delhi High Court examined the validity of the MCD tender eligibility criteria which was prescribed for the implementation of the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3877,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3875","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3875"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3875\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3879,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3875\/revisions\/3879"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3877"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n