Delhi High Court
W.P.(C)/11091/2026 of TIEBREAKER SOLUTIONS PVT LTD Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS on 5 August 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010356322026 + W.P.(C) 11091/2026 & CM APPL. 51258/2026 TIEBREAKER SOLUTIONS PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhishek Grover, Advs. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND
$~49 & 50
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLHC010356322026
+
W.P.(C) 11091/2026 & CM APPL. 51258/2026
TIEBREAKER SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Rajat Aneja, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Upendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhishek
Grover, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC MCD with Mr.
Vaibhav Tripathi, Adv. with Mr.
Pankaj Goel, AE & Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Meena, JE MCD
Mr. Navneet Panwar, Advocate for R-
50.
CNR No. DLHC010356332026
+
W.P.(C) 11092/2026 & CM APPL. 51259/2026
TIEBREAKER SOLUTIONS PVT LTD
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Rajat Aneja, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Upendra Pratap Singh, Mr. Abhishek
Grover, Advs.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC MCD with Mr.
Vaibhav Tripathi, Adv. with Mr.
Pankaj Goel, AE & Mr. Mukesh
Kumar Meena, JE MCD
Mr. Navneet Panwar, Advocate for R-
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
%
05.08.2026
1. These two writ petitions have been filed with the following prayers: W.P.(C) 11091/2026 “(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature thereof, quashing and setting aside the impugned disqualification of Petitioner’s technical bid communicated vide Letter dated 31.07.2026 in respect of Tender No. 2026_MCD_274481_1 for works titled ““Establishment of Bio-Gas Facility of 300 TPD capacity for treating Bio-Degradable Waste (Cattle Dung(preferably) and Municipal Solid Waste) into Bio-Gas/ CBG or Generation of Electricity at land opposite Integrated Freight Complex, Gharoli Extension, Mayur vihar phase-III, Ghazipur in the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of Delhi”, the same being arbitrary, unlawful and discriminatory;
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing the respondent no. 1 to treat the petitioner’s technical bid as qualified and to further proceed with the opening and evaluation of the petitioner’s financial bid for the said project in accordance with law;
(iii) In the alternative, issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, directing Respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation dated 01.08.2026 by passing a reasoned speaking order in accordance with law by affording due consideration to all the documents, clarifications and submissions placed on record by the petitioner;” W.P.(C) 11092/2026
(i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, quashing and setting aside the decision of respondent no. 1 whereby Respondent No. 3 has been declared technically qualified in Tender No.
2026_MCD_281608_1 for the work titled “Establishment of Bio- Gas Facility of 300 TPD capacity for treating Bio-Degradable Waste (Cattle Dung(preferably) and Municipal Solid Waste) into Bio- Gas/ CBG or Generation of Electricity at land opposite Integrated Freight Complex, Gharoli Extension, Mayur vihar phase-III, Ghazipur in the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of Delhi” despite not satisfying the mandatory eligibility criteria prescribed under clause 4 A of the Tender Document.
(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 1 not to proceed further with the tender process consequent upon the disqualification of Respondent No. 3 as only one technically qualified bidder would remain which is impermissible under CVC guidelines and is also contrary to the consistent practice previously adopted by Respondent No. 1 during the earlier round.
(iii) Declare that any further action taken by Respondent No. 1 pursuant to the arbitrary and wrongful qualification of Respondent No. 3, including opening of financial bid, award of works is arbitrary and liable to be set aside.”
2. The challenge is primarily to the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 and also holding that the respondent no. 3 is eligible to bid for the tender. One of the submissions of Mr. Aneja, learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that he would be satisfied as of now if the respondent no.1 dispose of the representation dated 01.08.2026 by the petitioner on both the aspects, before opening of the financial bids.
3. Mr. Sannu, on instructions, states the representation shall be considered and decided and the decision thereof shall also be conveyed to the Petitioner during the course of the day. If that be so, we dispose of the writ petition.
4. If the petitioner has any grievance against the order to be passed by the respondent, liberty shall be with the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law.
5. We take on record the submission made by Mr. Sannu that the financial bids shall be opened tomorrow and the follow up action thereof shall normally takes 10 days time.
6. In view of the above, the petition and the pending applications stand disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J AUGUST 5, 2026/hp