Synopsis

The petitioner (Navrang BNG Energy Pvt. Ltd.) participated in a tender issued by ONGC for certain sectors. Its bid was rejected on the ground that the electronic bank guarantee (e‑BG) submitted as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was in the format prescribed for “performance security” of a supporting company, not the prescribed format for bid security/EMD. The petitioner challenged the rejection by way of a writ petition under Article 226. However, the petitioner had also filed an appeal before the Independent External Monitor (IEM) on 19.03.2025, which remained undecided. The High Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rejection, disposed of the writ petition by directing the IEM to decide the petitioner’s appeal within one week. The court noted that it was not in agreement with the petitioner’s submissions on merit, but took the statement of ONGC’s counsel that the IEM would decide the appeal.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: V. Kameswar Rao & Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Date: March 27, 2026
Citation: Not explicitly provided in the text (likely 2026:DHC:xxxx)
Core Law: Public Procurement, Tender Law, Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Independent External Monitor (IEM) Mechanism.

2. Legal Framework

• Constitution of India: Article 226 – writ jurisdiction for judicial review of administrative actions in public procurement.

• Public Procurement Principles: Transparency, fairness, and adherence to tender conditions; role of Independent External Monitor (IEM) in reviewing procurement

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.