Delhi High Court
Ciss Services Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 August, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : 08th July, 2025
Pronounced on : 01st August 2025
+ W.P.(C) 792/2025, CM APPL. 3905/2025 & CM APPL.
3906/2025.
+ W.P.(C) 800/2025, CM APPL. 3962/2025 & CM APPL.
3963/2025.
CISS SERVICES LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Arush Bhandari, Ms. Shimran
Shah, Mr. Santosh Kushwaha,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms.
Shreya Jetly, Adv, Mr. Naveen,
SSA, Mr. Gokul, GP for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Anupam Kishore Sinha with
Mr. Pradeep K Tiwari, Mr.
Apoorv Jha, Mr. Sahitya
Srivastava, Advs for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
JUDGMENT
ANISH DAYAL, J.
1. These petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the operation
and issuance of work orders to respondent no.3 (SIS Limited) in respect
of the tenders bearing numbers GEM/2024/B/5209730 and
GEM/2024/B/5209739 (‘the tenders’).
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 1 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
2. Respondent no.1 (Ministry of Culture, Union of India) issued the
tenders on 26th July 2024, requisitioning service of unarmed security
guards for protected monuments located in the Southern and Central
regions of India; more specifically, requirement of 925 and 381 unarmed
security guards, respectively.
3. The said tender process was initiated on the Government e-
Marketplace (‘GeM’) platform. Archaeological Survey of India (‘ASI’)/
respondent no.2 was the beneficiary of the subject tender.
4. Petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013,
claims to be engaged in the business of providing comprehensive end-to-
end outsourced solutions and services for sectors where security and
safety risks are considered a strategic threat. Petitioner claims to have a
pan-India presence and provides services to institutions, banks, and
various government undertakings.
5. Petitioner submitted its bid on 13th August 2024, annexing a self-
declaration of its experience from the year 2022, in compliance of
requirements of the tender.
6. There were 76 bidders on the portal. On 23rd December 2024,
technical bids were opened, and 75 of the 76 bidders, including
petitioner, were disqualified. The only bidder remaining was respondent
no. 3, who was awarded the contract.
7. On the GeM portal, the reason cited for petitioner’s
disqualification was “does not full fill the parameter namely required
experience hence disqualified”.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 2 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
8. Petitioner submitted a representation to respondent no. 2 on 24 th
December 2024, urging them to reconsider the disqualification in light of
the assertion that petitioner squarely qualified.
9. By a response dated 08th January 2025 on the GeM portal, it was
stated, “on evaluation of all documents, not found eligible.”
10. Petitioner, therefore, filed these Writ Petitions; notice was issued
by this Court on 22nd January 2025; it was directed that “in the
meantime, we provide that finalization of the tender in question shall be
subject to further orders which will be passed by the Court in this
petition.”
11. Thereafter, pleadings were completed, and detailed arguments
were heard.
Submissions on behalf of petitioner
12. Mr. Ashish Mohan, Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, drew
attention of the Court to the qualification requirement in the bid
document.
13. He highlighted that the services required were of security services
for protected archaeological monuments, however it essentially was for
the provision of unarmed security guards.
14. The specific clauses in the bid document, which stipulated the
experience requirement, are extracted as under:
“2. Years of Past Experience required: The
bidder must have experience for number of
years as indicated above in bid document
(ending month of March prior to the bid
opening) of providing similar type of services
to any Central/State Govt Organization/PSU
Copies of relevant contracts/ orders to be
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 3 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
uploaded along with bid in support of having
provided services during each of the Financial
Year.
5. Past Experience of similar Services: The
bidder must have successfully
executed/completed similar services over the
last three years i.e,. the current financial year
and the last three financial years (ending
month of March prior to the bid opening):-
1. Three similar completed services
costing not less than the amount equal to
40% (forty percent) of the estimated cost;
or
2. Two similar completed services
costing not less than the amount equal to
50% (fifty percent) of the estimated cost;
or
3. One similar completed service costing
not less than the amount equal to 80%
(eighty percent) of the estimated cost.”
15. Senior Counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner’s
experience of “similar services” complied with both clause 2 and clause
5 in the following manner: –
i. Bidder was required to have an experience of three years of
providing ‘similar type’ of services to any Central/State
Government organization/Public Sector Undertaking, and copies
of relevant contracts and orders had to be uploaded along with the
bid. In respect of this, reference was made to stated experience of
petitioner of providing services to State Bank of India in Madhya
Pradesh and Chhattisgarh (‘SBI contract’). The said contract ran
from 2nd November 2018 to 1st December 2022, and, therefore,
fully complied with the requirement in clause 2.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 4 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
ii. As regards requirement under clause 5, the SBI contract was
valued at Rs. 182 crores, which was far beyond 80% of the
estimated cost of the tenders (Rs. 63 crores and Rs. 31.7 crores,
respectively).
iii. Mr. Mohan highlighted that the reasons for initial disqualification
and the subsequent online response to the representation, both
effectively stated that petitioner did not fulfil the parameters for
required experience and hence, was disqualified. There was no
other elaboration or embellishment given by the respondent to
throw any light on reasons for this disqualification. Reasons
became evident only when counter-affidavit on behalf of
respondents nos.1 and 2 was filed.
iv. Reply in counter-affidavit adverted to the SBI contract, stating that
it was for execution of “caretaker services” and not “security
services”, and therefore the scope of services which formed part of
the SBI contract, executed by petitioner, would not qualify as
relevant experience, since the subject tenders entailed “security
services”. “Caretaker services” could not therefore qualify as
“similar services” as per clauses 2 and 5 of the bid document.
v. To this, Senior Counsel for petitioner pointed out that the
“caretaker services” provided under the SBI contract were
effectively “security services” in SBI ATMs in two large regions
of India and were for the provision of an unarmed security guard.
Therefore, the services ought to have been considered as “similar
services”. This being the central point of the dispute between the
parties was further elaborated upon by the counsel.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 5 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
16. Petitioner’s counsel made the following submissions in order to
buttress the point that “caretaker services” under the SBI contract would
come within the purview of “similar services” as required by the bid
document:
i. SBI, being the tenderer/employer for the SBI contract, had
issued a “Satisfactory Certificate”, certifying that the petitioner
had been empanelled with the SBI for providing 2241 unarmed
security guards, and the services were found to be “excellent”.
The “Satisfactory Certificate” further mentioned that the total
number of guards deployed was 2241 unarmed security guards
and that the “resourcefulness in providing security guards
armed/unarmed” was rated as “very good”.
ii. The SBI contract document was adverted to, in particular, the
following clauses:
“1.1.5. Caretaker means the employee of
Service Provider providing Caretaker Services
at ATM Site.
1.1.8. Caretaker Services means the service to
be provided by Service Provider at the ATM
Site and more specifically covered under clause
3 of this agreement.
3.2.It is clarified that the Caretaker shall not be
armed or shall not carry any firearms either on
his person or keep the same in the ATM site.”
The purpose of highlighting these clauses, by petitioner’s counsel, was to
focus on the nature and context of services under the SBI contract, which
were termed as “caretaker services”.
17. As per the petitioner, the scope of work in bid document was to
provide 24x7x365 security services for, inter alia, prevention of damage
and theft from monuments/museum/sites; perform watch and ward duties
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 6 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
at such monuments; exercise strict vigilance for protecting the
monument/museum/sites from damage, defacement and destruction;
report loss or damage to the ASI; ensure proper and orderly flow of
visitors and prevent unauthorized entry; ensure and report on the
serviceability of firefighting equipment and security lights; to make
available first aid materials at designated places; prevent entry of street
dogs and stray cattle into the premises; ensure that flower plants, trees
and grassy lawns are not damaged; regulate vehicular movement in the
monuments/sites and ensure proper parking.
18. Adverting to this list under the scope of work, Senior Counsel for
the petitioner pointed out to the SBI contract’s scope of work which
provided that “caretaker” shall be available at the ATM site 24x7x365
in 8 hour shifts and inter alia manage customers queue; prevent use of
the premises by squatters, hawkers or undesirable characters and stray
dogs; maintain internal surveillance of the ATM site; assist customers in
operating the ATM; escalate problems of any kind including
malfunction, breakdown and other incidents to the Branch Manager;
alert the police station or fire services in case of emergencies; ensure that
garbage and waste materials were disposed of; guide customers for
facilities inside the ATM and ensure that the ATM site would be clean.
19. In effect, Senior Counsel for petitioner focused on the similar
nature of services – essentially duties of an unarmed guard on one hand,
at the ATM of SBI, and on the other hand, at monuments of the ASI. The
only difference was of nomenclature. SBI had adopted an ‘euphemism’
for describing their services, essentially to include the purpose of
providing security and miscellaneous duties of an attendant.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 7 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
20. Senior Counsel relied upon the decision in Tata Cellular v Union
of India 1994 INSC 283, to submit that the parameters of interference in
matters of award of contract would be mala fide, bias, or arbitrariness to
the extent of perversity. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the
question of legality, and irrationality, namely, the Wednesbury criteria of
unreasonableness.
21. It was contended that petitioner’s bid, despite having experience in
“similar services”, if not “same services”, and in compliance with all
other parameters, could not have been rejected without application of
mind. The rejection itself smacks of perversity, irrationality and
arbitrariness.
22. Another aspect highlighted was the Technical Evaluation Report
of the Tender Committee for Assessment/Examination of the Bids
(‘Tender Committee’), which was appended along with the counter
affidavit. As per their proceedings, the committee had unanimously
decided to evaluate the bids on the basis of 3 main parameters out of a
total of 21 technical parameters viz. evaluation on the basis of (i) Private
Securities Agencies (Regulation) Act (‘PSARA/the Act’) license, (ii)
turnover, and (iii) experience.
23. As per the report, only petitioner and respondent no.3 had been
identified as having the PSARA license. As regards evaluation on the
basis of turnover, yet again, both the petitioner and respondent no. 3
were found eligible.
24. As regards evaluation on the basis of experience, the Tender
Committee simply stated in one cursory line in paragraph 11 of the
report that, “taking into account above mentioned criteria of experience,
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 8 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
the Firm/Bidder – M/s SIS Limited was found eligible with respect to
Southern Region, for further examination”.
25. Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that absolutely no
reasoning was given, and, therefore, it smacked of mala fides,
irrationality, and perversity, particularly since the petitioner had also
qualified on the basis of the other two issues, namely PSARA and
turnover.
26. The requirement of a PSARA license was even more important,
considering the PSARA itself is for registration of private security
agencies and requires the licensees to comply with certain regulatory
requirements.
Submission on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2
27. Mr. Vikram Jetly, Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC),
appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 (Union of India through
Ministry of Culture) and respondent no.2 (ASI), countered the
submission made by counsel for petitioner. Counsel for respondents no.
1 and 2 submitted that petitioner was duly notified about the first
Technical Evaluation Report of the Tender Committee, which was
uploaded on the GeM portal on 23rd December 2024, notifying the
findings of the Tender Committee, which contained reasons for
disqualification of petitioner.
28. Petitioner was aware of the reasons for his disqualification and
made a representation on 24th December 2024, submitting yet again
similar documents pertaining to past experience. The documents were
once again considered by the Tender Committee in its meeting on 8 th
January 2025, and it was found that none of the past experience
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 9 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
certificates submitted by petitioner were sufficient to qualify him at the
technical stage.
29. Counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 stated that the
documents mentioned in the representation submitted by petitioner on
24th December 2024, did not qualify him on technical grounds and
adverted to each document as under:
(i) Documents submitted relating to “IndusInd Bank Limited” and
“Ashok Leyland” were not considered in view of being private
institutions;
(ii) Documents pertaining to “IIT Indore” for a value of Rs. 3.6 crores,
was way below the threshold of 80%, 50%, and 40% of the
estimated cost as provided under minimum criteria; and
(iii) Document pertaining to MPESDC was for a value of Rs. 3.22
crores, which was again below the said threshold.
30. Petitioner was then notified of the technical evaluation through
GeM portal on 8th January 2025, with the description, “on evaluation of
all documents, not found eligible”.
31. Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 stated that the current tenders
were not related to any ordinary procurement but concerned the security
and safeguarding of national heritage, i.e. centrally protected
monuments, some of which have been declared as World Heritage Sites.
Therefore, the tendering authority had acted in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the Request for Proposal (‘RFP’) and without mala
fide or bias.
32. It was, therefore, submitted that the Court’s interference may not
be necessary in view of the settled law in this regard. Reliance was
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 10 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
placed on decision of the Supreme Court in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. & Anr. 2016 16 SCC 818, in
particular on paragraphs 11 and 13.
33. The court had held that a mere disagreement with decision-making
process or decision of the administrative authority was no reason for a
constitutional court to interfere.
34. Reliance was also placed on M/S Agmatel India Private Limited v
M/S Resoursys Telecom 2022 5 SCC 362, where the Court was dealing
with rejection of technical bid of petitioner as unreasonable and
arbitrary. It held that “smart mobile phones fall in similar category
products for a tender which was for supply of tablets for school
children.” The principles related to judicial review in tender matters
were articulated by the Court in paragraphs 24,25, and 26.
35. Reliance was also placed on the Vidarbha Irrigation
Development Corp. v M/S Anoj Kumar Agarwala and Ors. 2020 17
SCC 577, in which a tender was called for the balance earthwork to be
done in a canal. When the conditions of the tender came into question,
the court relied upon previous decisions and noted, in paragraphs 14 and
16, that an essential tender condition must be complied with. For ease of
reference, relevant paragraphs are extracted as under:
“14. The law on the subject is well settled.
In Bakshi Security & Personnel Services (P)
Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed (P) Ltd. [Bakshi
Security & Personnel Services (P)
Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed (P) Ltd., (2016) 8
SCC 446] , this Court held : (SCC p. 453, paras
14-16)
“14. The law is settled that an essential
condition of a tender has to be strictly compliedSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 11 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
with. In Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg.
Works [Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg.
Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273] this Court held as
under : (SCC p. 276, para 6)
‘6. … The requirements in a tender notice can
be classified into two categories–those which
lay down the essential conditions of eligibility
and the others which are merely ancillary or
subsidiary with the main object to be achieved
by the condition. In the first case the authority
issuing the tender may be required to enforce
them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open
to the authority to deviate from and not to insist
upon the strict literal compliance with the
condition in appropriate cases.’
15. Similarly in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons
Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. [B.S.N. Joshi &
Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11
SCC 548] this Court held as under : (SCC pp.
571-72, para 66)
‘(i) if there are essential conditions, the same
must be adhered to;
(ii) if there is no power of general relaxation,
ordinarily the same shall not be exercised and
the principle of strict compliance would be
applied where it is possible for all the parties to
comply with all such conditions fully;
(iii) if, however, a deviation is made in relation
to all the parties in regard to any of such
conditions, ordinarily again a power of
relaxation may be held to be existing;
(iv) the parties who have taken the benefit of
such relaxation should not ordinarily be
allowed to take a different stand in relation to
compliance with another part of tender
contract, particularly when he was also not in a
position to comply with all the conditions of
tender fully, unless the court otherwise finds
relaxation of a condition which being essentialSignature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 12 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
in nature could not be relaxed and thus the
same was wholly illegal and without
jurisdiction;
(v) when a decision is taken by the appropriate
authority upon due consideration of the tender
document submitted by all the tenderers on
their own merits and if it is ultimately found
that successful bidders had in fact substantially
complied with the purport and object for which
essential conditions were laid down, the same
may not ordinarily be interfered with;’
16. We also agree with the contention of Shri
Raval that the writ jurisdiction cannot be
utilised to make a fresh bargain between
parties.”
16. It is clear even on a reading of this judgment
that the words used in the tender document cannot
be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous–
they must be given meaning and their necessary
significance. Given the fact that in the present case,
an essential tender condition which had to be strictly
complied with was not so complied with, the
appellant would have no power to condone lack of
such strict compliance. Any such condonation, as
has been done in the present case, would amount to
perversity in the understanding or appreciation of
the terms of the tender conditions, which must be
interfered with by a constitutional court.”
(emphasis added)
36. Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 further emphasized that the
nature of duties of the security guard required at the ASI monuments was
of an extremely special nature and could not be compared to
housekeeping duties, which petitioner had supplied as per the SBI
contract.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 13 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
37. In particular, focus was on “watch and ward duties” as per clause
2 of the “Scope of Work” as required in the tender document at such
monuments.
38. When comparison was made between these duties and services
provided by petitioner, it was revealed that petitioner’s services were
actually in the nature of “caretaker services”, involving internal
surveillance of ATM sites, managing customer queues, preventing
unauthorized use of premises by squatters, ensuring the cleanliness of
glass surfaces, managing garbage bins, and disposal of waste materials,
etc.
39. He, therefore, contended that despite the first Technical
Evaluation Report, as per which petitioner was declared as ‘not
qualified’, and the report having given proper reasons for the
disqualification, two days’ time was given for technical clarifications.
During this period, petitioner submitted his representation and gave
similar documents. Therefore, there was no scope for considering
petitioner to be qualified.
40. Further, it was pointed out that petitioner had withheld from the
Court the first Technical Evaluation Report, which was uploaded on 23rd
December 2024, which had given proper criteria and reasons for
disqualification.
Submissions made on behalf of respondent no. 3(SIS Limited)
41. Respondent no.3 being the successful tenderer/L1, having been
awarded the contract by Letter of Award dated 27 th March 2025,
essentially adopted the arguments of respondent nos.1 and 2, pointing
out that petitioner had initially submitted its experience, which involved
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 14 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
the SBI contract, and thereafter sought technical clarifications, which
were re-submitted on 24th December 2024.
42. Aside from this, he focused on PSARA in particular on Sections
2(g), which defines ‘private security agency’, and Section 4, which
‘prohibits anybody who is not licensed as a private security agency from
carrying on such business’. Reliance was also placed on Section 6,
which provides for “persons not eligible for a license” and Section
13(k), which provides for “cancellation and suspension of license in case
there was any infraction by the private security agency. i.e., negligence,
misappropriation, indiscipline, etc.”
43. He effectively stated that the tender required the agency to be
registered under PSARA and that this requirement had been incorporated
into the terms and conditions of the bid through Bid Corrigendum dated
20th August 2024, mandating the bidders to have a valid legal license and
registration under PSARA in all respective States and Union Territories
under the jurisdiction of the concerned regions of ASI.
Analysis
44. Having heard the counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the
documents submitted, it is clear that the scope of dispute is very narrow
and related to the technical disqualification of petitioner, despite the
petitioner having submitted valid experience certificate from SBI, where
it had provided security services at ATMs in two States (Madhya
Pradesh and Chhattisgarh).
45. Petitioner bid had been rejected on the ground that the SBI
contract termed those services as “caretaking services” as opposed to
“security services”.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 15 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
46. The core issues therefore are, (i) whether the mere use of
terminology in previous experience acquired by petitioner would
disqualify them from being considered for this tender, and (ii) whether
there was any arbitrariness, mala fide, or bias in the decision-making
process of the tendering authority, i.e. respondent nos. 1 and 2.
47. An examination of the bid document, in particular, clauses 2 and
5, which were the focus, would show that the requirement was for
providing “similar/similar type” of services to any Central/State
Government organizations/PSU.
48. It is also clear from the bid document that the category of
personnel required was that for unarmed security guards. While
evaluating the bids, what was to be considered by the Tender Committee
was whether these services performed by a bidder previously were for
supply of unarmed security guards, for the purposes of providing
protection as per the client’s mandate. In the SBI’s case, it was of ATMs,
while as per the tender, it was for ASI monuments.
49. The only unfortunate bit from the petitioner’s point of view, in the
SBI contract, was the use of the term “caretaker.”
50. An examination of scope of work under the SBI contract is
therefore essential. For ease of reference, the scope of work under the
SBI contract is extracted as under:
“3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
3.1 The scope and nature of the work which the
Service Provider has to provide to the Bank (i.e.
caretaker Services) is as follows:
3.1.1 The caretaker shall be available at the ATM
Site for 24 x 7 x 365 in appropriate shifts (8Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 16 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
hours) or in shifts as stipulated by the Bank to
ensure proper housekeeping of the site;
3.1.2 The caretaker shall be in uniform with
proper authorization/Identification
badges/identity card of the caretaker Agency. The
agency will give prior notification to the Branch
Manager of the branch concerned or its
authorized official or Channel Manager about the
caretaker posted at a particular ATM site.
3.1.3 The Caretaker shall manage customers’
queue.
3.1.4 The Caretaker shall prevent use of the
premises by squatters, hawkers or undesirable
characters and stray dogs etc.
3.1.5 The Caretaker shall maintain discreet
internal surveillance of the ATM Site;
3.1.6 The caretaker shall ensure cleanliness of
glass surfaces (using good quality cleansing
material provided by the Service Provider) and
proper cleaning of the ATM and ATM Site (Inside
and outside).
3.1.7 The Caretaker shall assist Customers in
operating the ATM. However, the caretaker shall not
operate the ATM in any manner whatsoever on
Customer’s behalf.
3.1.8 The caretaker shall escalate problems of
any kind (e.g. malfunctioning/ breakdown of ATM
lighting, AC, UPS, access door), and other
incidental difficulties, if any, to vendor concerned
and the Branch Manager / Channel Manager
concerned. The Caretaker will maintain a suitable
register for entering details of such reports made
including persons called etc;
3.1.9 The Caretaker shall promptly call police
station, fire services, etc., in case of emergencies.
3.1.10 The Caretaker shall arrange to empty
garbage bins and arrange for disposal of garbage
and waste materials accumulated within ATM room;
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 17 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
3.1.11 The Caretaker shall guide customers to
Cheque Drop Box, wherever the facility is available
(at present at Onsite ATMs) and indicate availability
of brochures / leaflets etc of SBI, kept on the site,
3.1.12 The Caretaker shall receive complaints/
requests/ suggestions, in writing, from the customers
and provide them with acknowledgement thereof.
Complaints/ requests/suggestions received during a
day will be collected by the branch official on next
day.
3.1.13 Wherever necessary the Caretaker shall,
switch off/on the genset. Refill the fuel provided and
arranged by SBI.
3.1.14 Allow access, in addition to the customers, to
the officials from SBI, Agency engineers or
authorized persons of the ATM Vendors, Managed
Services Vendors or any other person duly
authorized by SBI only on verification of their
identity/authority. Caretaker will maintain an access
register, for such entries where the particulars like
name of the organization, time, purpose and
signature or thumb impression, as the case may be,
have to be recorded. In short, the Caretaker should
maintain the Attendance, Visitors Register,
Complaint Register and Access Register at the ATM
site.
3.1.15 The Caretakers shall guide the customer to the
nearest SBI ATM site in case of failure of service by
the ATM;
3.1.16 The Caretaker should be polite and courteous
while answering the queries of the customers and
otherwise dealing with them or any Visitor. The
caretaker shall exercise restraint and avoid being
provoked.
3.1.17 The Caretaker should have the contact
numbers of the local designated officials of the
Caretaker Agency;
3.1.18 The Caretaker shall take care of the ATM
room ensuring that the site is clean, electrical
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 18 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
fittings and signage are working and switched off
when not required, racks are filled with
brochures/pamphlets when provided at site and
inform the Branch/ Channel Manager for any
further requirement. The Caretakers should ensure
suitable temperature of AC cooling.
3.1.19 The Caretaker shall notify appropriate agency
as and when required to clean site, replace fittings,
etc. or advise MS Vendors Management Centre or
Bank’s designated official. If at any time the ATM is
out of service caretakers should immediately notify
the MS Vendors Management Centre and/or the
Branch/Channel Manager concerned.
3.1.20 In the event of emergency or irregular
situation, escalate to respective agency, SBI and
service Providers Management Centre of agency.
The agency will be responsible to initiate necessary
steps to redress any irregular and/or emergency
situation;
3.1.21 The Caretaker should lock the outside shutter
in place so that it remains open at all times.
3.2 It is clarified that the Caretaker shall not be
armed or shall not carry any firearms either on his
person or keep the same in the ATM site.”
51. A holistic reading would bear out that though the services were
described as “caretaker services”, the requirement was essentially for
“unarmed security guards” at the ATM, who takes care of the full
expanse of issues at the ATM including, securing the safety of the ATM,
ensuring that there are no miscreants, ensuring that there is no damage to
the ATM, premises are effectively kept clean, customers who are visiting
the ATM are duly guided and there is a mechanism to alert the
management in case of any emergency.
52. The services being performed could be further safely classified
into that of providing security, surveillance, housekeeping, customer
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 19 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
guidance, escalation of problems, informing emergency services,
receiving complaints and suggestions, and maintenance of infrastructure.
53. On the other hand, the scope of services required by the
respondent/tendering authority was also for unarmed security guards, for
the provision of the following services, which are extracted as under:
“A. Scope of Work
The Archaeological Survey of India invites e-Bids
on GeM Portal in prescribed form under the LCS
(Low Cost System) method/system comprising of
Two Bid System Technical Bid and Financial Bid
for engagement of 725 man-days of Security
Guards (without Arms) per day from Eligible
Bidders for deployment at various Centrally
Protected Monuments/Sites/Museums and
Establishments of ASI in the South Region as
under:
Details of deployment i.r.o. security guards at
various CPMS/Sites/Museums/Establishment of
ASI are attached
Site in-charge of ASI shall chart-out the duty
places, shift timings and nature of security duty
for all the outsourced security guards and shall
monitor their duties, through the security
Supervisor. The successful Bidder shall be duty
bound to provide 24x7x365 security services as
per the requirements of ASI and such condition
may be factored in the Bids of the intending
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 20 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
Bidders. Cost of all Security Personnel including
the Security Supervisor is to be included in the
Bids.
Security Guards:
The schedule of work to be performed “Round the
Clock” by the Security Guards is as follows:
1. Prevention of damage/theft from the
monuments/museums/sites and/ or part thereof
and regulation of entry/exit of visitors, etc.
2. To perform watch and ward duties at such
monument or part thereof or at such offices or
booking offices at such hours and such time as
may be fixed and allocated.
3. Exercising strict vigilance for protecting the
monuments/museum/sites and other
establishments of ASI from damage, defacement,
and destruction.
4. To keep the monument or the part of monument
under their charge/duty or the office or booking
offices to which they are attached and to
supervise neatness, tidiness and cleanliness,
under the instructions of the Officer-in-Charge,
including such items of works relating to the
maintenance and upkeep of the monuments or its
part thereof, as the case may be.
5. To report loss or damage to the ASI property
immediately to his superior officer as per
instructions.
6. To safeguard the antiquities on display in the
galleries and those lying in the reserve collection
including sculpture sheds at various monuments.
7. Protecting the assets with-in the
monument/museum/sites and other establishments
of ASI.
8. Ensuring proper and orderly flow of visitors and
preventing unauthorized entry in the
monument/museum/sites and other establishments
of ASI.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 21 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
9. Round the clock patrolling of the assigned duty
area in monuments/museums/sites and other
establishment of ASI.
10. Carrying out such other specified takes as laid
down in the Standing Orders to be prepared by
successful Bidder and to be provided by ASI and
its respective officers in respect of the
monuments/museums/sites and other
establishment of ASI.
11. To ensure and report on serviceability of all Fire
Fighting Equipment and Security Lights.
12. To ensure and report on serviceability of
communications and electrical
systems/installations regarding their operational
and functional status on regular basis, SITREP
(Situation Report) to be sent at designated timings
to the Security Control Room. Loss/event
information reporting system.
13.To make available First-Aid materials at the
designated places at all times.
14. Entry of the street-dog and stray cattle into the
premises is to be prevented. They should be driven
out.
15. It should be ensured that flower plants, trees and
grassy lawns are not damaged either by the
personnel or by the visitors or by stray cattle.
16. To display mature behaviour with the staff and
visitors, especially towards female personnel and
female visitors.
17.Regulation of vehicular movement in the
monuments/sites and proper parking of vehicles.
18. Any other duties assigned by the In-charge of
Circle/Site In-charge as and when required.
19. To perform duties under the administrative
control of the respective Site in-charge, through
their Security Supervisor.”
54. Clearly, the perusal and analysis of the above would bear out that
the said services are effectively required for security, vigilance, reporting
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 22 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
of loss and damage, visitor management, infrastructure management,
escalation, housekeeping, regulating movement of visitors, and vehicles
and reporting to supervisors in case of any issue.
55. A basic comparison between the nature of services provided under
the SBI contract and those required by the tenders would show that they
are substantially similar. It is only the context that changes i.e. from an
ATM to a monument.
56. The service and skills required for tendered work is of an unarmed
security guard who is trained for the purpose of providing services as
delineated above.
57. In the opinion of this Court, any reasonable and prudent person
would consider that these are “similar services” and cannot be vastly
distinguished merely on the basis of nomenclature. The SBI contract
would have, for the purposes of their own internal systems, defined these
services as “caretaker services”. Mere use of the ‘caretaker’ phrase does
not dilute, in any manner, the core nature of service i.e. of an unarmed
security guard.
58. Moreover, it is quite clear from the experience certificate given by
the SBI, that petitioner had essentially provided unarmed security guards,
2241 in number.
59. Petitioner’s contention that an interpretation of SBI’s contract had
already been given by SBI, and they were not asking this Court to
interpret SBI’s contract, is possibly correct and apposite.
60. The Court does not have to do an extensive exercise in
interpreting the SBI contract, considering that the experience certificate
itself explicitly states that “security services” were given at the ATMs.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 23 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
61. Petitioner also contends that there was no relaxation of the
conditions, as had been contemplated in Vidarbha Irrigation (supra),
being cited by the respondent.
62. Petitioner’s plea was that the test of a ‘reasonable person’ be
adopted and that the decision of the tendering authority would pass
muster on that basis.
63. It is, therefore, apposite to advert to the seminal decision of the
Supreme Court in Tata Cellular (supra) for this purpose. A
constitutional court, exercising its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, judicially reviewing a tender decision, is only
concerned with the manner in which the decision is taken inter alia
whether it’s illegal and that the decision maker understands the law and
gives proper effect to it, or otherwise was it irrational in the nature of
Wednesbury unreasonableness or was procedurally improper.
64. In this regard, paragraphs 93 and 94 of Tata Cellular (supra) are
extracted as under for quick reference:
“93. In Union of India v. Hindustan Development
Corpn. [(1993) 3 SCC 499] this Court held thus :
(SCC p. 515, para 9)
“… the Government had the right to either accept
or reject the lowest offer but that of course, if
done on a policy, should be on some rational and
reasonable grounds. In Erusian Equipment &
Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. [(1975) 1 SCC 70
: (1975) 2 SCR 674] this Court observed as under
: (SCC p. 75, para 17)‘When the Government is trading with the public,
“the democratic form of Government demands
equality and absence of arbitrariness and
discrimination in such transactions”. The
activities of the Government have a public
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 24 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
element and, therefore, there should be fairness
and equality. The State need not enter into any
contract with anyone, but if it does so, it must do
so fairly without discrimination and without
unfair procedure.’ “
94. The principles deducible from the above are:
(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint
in administrative action.
(2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but
merely reviews the manner in which the decision
was made.
(3) The court does not have the expertise to
correct the administrative decision. If a review of
the administrative decision is permitted it will be
substituting its own decision, without the
necessary expertise which itself may be fallible.
(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be
open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to
tender is in the realm of contract. Normally
speaking, the decision to accept the tender or
award the contract is reached by process of
negotiations through several tiers. More often
than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by
experts.
(5) The Government must have freedom of
contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints
is a necessary concomitant for an administrative
body functioning in an administrative sphere or
quasi-administrative sphere. However, the
decision must not only be tested by the application
of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness
(including its other facts pointed out above) but
must be free from arbitrariness not affected by
bias or actuated by mala fides.
(6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy
administrative burden on the administration and
lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 25 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
Based on these principles we will examine the
facts of this case since they commend to us as the
correct principles.”
(emphasis added)
65. Wednesbury unreasonableness invites the Court to assess a
decision as to whether any authority acting reasonably could have
reached the conclusion or alternatively, no reasonable and prudent
person who had applied his mind could have arrived at that decision.
66. Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 focused mainly on the fact
that the Tender Committee had given its first report; and post the
clarification, had given its second report; while the first report did not
give any reasons, however, second report did state reasons.
67. Even on perusal of the first report uploaded on 23rdDecember
2024, it would show that Tender Committee had set out 21 parameters
and had chosen to assess the bidders on 3 parameters, i.e. PSARA
license, turnover, and experience.
68. While both the petitioner and respondent no.3 qualified on the
basis of PSARA license and turnover, the only issue was that of past
experience, on the basis of which petitioner was disqualified. There is
only one line of reasoning provided in paragraph 11 of the report, which
states as under:
“taking into account above mentioned criteria of
experience, the Firm/Bidder-M/S SIS Limited was
found eligible with respect to Southern Region for
further examination”.
69. It is quite clear that there was no cogent/clear reasoning which
was furnished and merely a decision was handed down by means of the
cryptic paragraph 11, disqualifying petitioner and finding respondent
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 26 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
no. 3 as eligible. No embellishment, no elaboration, no light has been
thrown by the Tender Committee as to on what basis and parameters
they had reached this decision.
70. There is total silence and opacity in the manner in which the
authority arrived at this decision. Clearly, the petitioner was at a loss in
understanding as to why they had been disqualified. If any such clue had
been given, they would have been in a better position to submit any
further documents, if required, or to provide a clarification in that regard.
71. Therefore, reliance on the first report by the respondent nos. 1 and
2 would not assist them. Moreover, the ruse which was put up by the
respondent no. 3’s counsel of a PSARA registration, in fact, works in
favour of the petitioner.
72. The fact that out of 76 bidders, 75, including the petitioner, were
rejected is dispositive of the fact that none except respondent no.3 was
even remotely found eligible. What is more important in this context is
that only two out of 76 i.e. petitioner and respondent no.3, were found to
have PSARA licenses.
73. A license under PSARA was evidently required, considering that
it was a statutory mandate, brought in to regulate the functioning of
private security agencies, seeing the increased demand in business
establishments and other institutions for security.
74. There was a growing concern that many agencies were conducting
operations without due care and were not verifying the antecedents of the
person and the employee. In order to provide some deterrence and filter,
PSARA was brought into force in 2005, mandating only a licensed
agency to provide private security guards.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 27 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
75. The fact that petitioner was a license holder under PSARA also
makes it obvious that they were in the business of providing security
guard services and were not just a fly-by-night operator.
76. Having passed muster on both turnover and PSARA registration,
being deleted on the basis of the proposed ‘mismatch’ in experience
contract with SBI using the word “caretaker” cannot be accepted. Any
prudent person would simply peel off only one thin layer to appreciate
the real purpose of the contract and would have arrived at an undeniable
conclusion that the contract was for security services.
77. The tendering authority could have been in a better in the position
in this situation by expanding the base of the consideration beyond just
one person out of 76, in order to get a favourable bid, and could have
easily asked for a clarification on this issue from the petitioner.
78. Respondent no. 3 placed reliance on Agmatel (supra), inferring
that the author of the tender document is the best person to understand
and appreciate its requirements, cannot be refuted or distinguished.
79. Petitioner’s counsel uses Agmatel (supra) in his favour by stating
that SBI, which was the tendering authority in its tender, was the best
agency to understand and appreciate the requirements. The same had
been done by stating in the experience certificate, and, therefore,
Agmatel (supra) would be read in his favour. Relevant paragraphs of
Agmatel (supra) are extracted as under:
“24. The scope of judicial review in contractual
matters, and particularly in relation to the
process of interpretation of tender document, has
been the subject-matter of discussion in various
decisions of this Court. We need not multiply the
authorities on the subject, as suffice it would be
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 28 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
refer to the three-Judge Bench decision of this
Court in Galaxy Transport Agencies [Galaxy
Transport Agencies v. New J.K. Roadways, Fleet
Owners &Transport Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC
808:2020 SCC OnLine SC 1035] wherein, among
others, the said decision in Afcons
Infrastructure [Afcons Infrastructure
Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16
SCC 818] has also been considered; and this
Court has disapproved the interference by the
High Court in the interpretation by the tender
inviting authority of the eligibility term relating to
the category of vehicles required to be held by the
bidders, in the tender floated for supply of
vehicles for the carriage of troops and equipment.
25. This Court referred to various decisions on
the subject and stated the legal principles as
follows : (Galaxy Transport Agencies
case [Galaxy Transport Agencies v. New J.K.
Roadways, Fleet Owners & Transport
Contractors, (2021) 16 SCC 808 : 2020 SCC
OnLine SC 1035] , SCC paras 14-20)
***
26. The abovementioned statements of law make it
amply clear that the author of the tender
document is taken to be the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements; and
if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance
with the language of the tender document or
subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court
would prefer to keep restraint. Further to that, the
technical evaluation or comparison by the Court
is impermissible; and even if the interpretation
given to the tender document by the person
inviting offers is not as such acceptable to the
constitutional court, that, by itself, would not be a
reason for interfering with the interpretation
given.”
(emphasis added)
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 29 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
80. Reliance by respondents on Afcons (supra) does not sway this
Court’s decision. The Court is not at variance with the principles
reiterated in Afcons (supra). The relevant paragraphs of Afcons (supra)
are extracted as under:
“11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-
SML (Joint Venture Consortium) [Central
Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture
Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 : (2016) 4 SCC
(Civ) 106 : (2016) 8 Scale 99] it was held by this
Court, relying on a host of decisions that the
decision-making process of the employer or
owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the
bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with.
Interference is permissible only if the decision-
making process is mala fide or is intended to
favour someone. Similarly, the decision should
not be interfered with unless the decision is so
arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say
that the decision is one which no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance
with law could have reached. In other words, the
decision-making process or the decision should be
perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or
erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by
GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us.
13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the
decision-making process or the decision of the
administrative authority is no reason for a
constitutional court to interfere. The threshold of
mala fides, intention to favour someone or
arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be
met before the constitutional court interferes with
the decision-making process or the decision.”
(emphasis added)
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 30 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
81. Afcons (supra) also re-emphasised that interference in a
tender/contract is permissible if a Court finds arbitrariness or irrationality
or finds it perverse. In this matter, as adumbrated above, the Court finds
the disqualification of petitioner, based on reasons given, as being
perverse, arbitrary and irrational.
82. It is made clear that this Court is not foisting any interpretation on
the tendering process. What is being assessed is whether the decision-
making process of the tendering authority was arbitrary or irrational,
unreasonable, and in that, the Court leans in favour of accepting the plea
of petitioner and, therefore, allows the prayers in Writ Petitions.
83. Considering that respondent no. 3 was already awarded the
contracts and has been in place since 27th March 2025, the question
would arise as to what would be the consequence of operations being
allowed, whether the petitioner would be given compensation for having
lost out in the tenders or whether respondents no. 1 and 2 would have to
re-tender keeping in mind that the said tenders were floated for two
years.
Conclusion
84. For the reasons stated above, the tendering authority erred in
rejecting the petitioner’s bids by disqualifying it on the basis of stated
past experience. The assessment by the tendering authority, for the
reasons stated above, is in the opinion of this Court arbitrary and
unreasonable, and, therefore, cannot be sustained.
85. The Writ Petitions, thus, are allowed and the two Letters of Award
dated 27th March 2025, issued by respondent no. 2 in favour of
respondent no. 3, are quashed and respondent no. 1 is directed to initiate
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 31 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36
the tender process afresh for the work allotted to respondent no.3
forthwith and complete the same within a period of three months from
date of this order.
86. Till the time the work is allotted in terms of the fresh tenders,
which are to be floated pursuant to this order, respondent no. 3 shall be
allowed to carry on the work allotted to it.
87. Pending applications (if any) stands disposed of.
88. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
ANISH DAYAL, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
AUGUST 01, 2025 /RK/bp/sp
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) No. 792/2025 and W.P. (C) No. 800/2025 Page 32 of 32
Digitally Signed
By:MANISH KUMAR
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:57:36