Synopsis

The petitioner challenged the award of two public contracts to respondent no. 5, alleging that respondent no.5 had deliberately inflated its turnover in the bid documents – claiming ₹10,98,54,61,729/- while its audited balance sheet showed ₹1,09,85,617/-. the court found that the petitioner had misread the financial statements: the audited figures were presented in “₹ in 00” (i.e., hundreds), so the actual turnover was ₹1,09,85,61,700/-, which was consistent with the corrected figure. a typographical error (an extra digit “4”) had been inadvertently inserted and was promptly corrected. respondent no.5, being an mse, was independently entitled to minimum 9 marks even without turnover proof. the court dismissed the petition with costs of ₹20,000 for lack of diligence.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan (Division Bench)

Date of Decision: 14th May 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 6569/2026 (unreported)

Core Law: Constitutional Law – Article 226 (judicial review in public procurement); tender law – evaluation of bids, misrepresentation, typographical errors.

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Writ petition (civil) no. 6569/2026 & cm appl. 32376/2026

World class services ltd (petitioner) vs. National sample survey office & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice anil kshetarpal and hon’ble mr. justice amit mahajan

Date: 14th may, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

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