Delhi High Court Quashes IRCTC Contract to R K Associates Over Tender Norms Violation and Criminal Non-Disclosure [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has quashed the Letter of Award (LoA) dated 17.04.2024, issued by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) in favour of R K Associates, citing violations of tender norms and suppression of material facts.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered the judgment on 22.04.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 6460/2024, titled M/s Deepak and Co. Through Its Partner Smt. Poonam Porwal vs. IRCTC & Anr.

The Court was dealing with the writ petition filed by M/s Deepak and Co. through its partner Smt. Poonam Porwal, challenging the award of the contract on the grounds that the successful bidder, R K Associates, had submitted a defective Integrity Pact (Annexure G) lacking mandatory witness signatures at the time of bid submission. Instead of rejecting the bid as non-compliant, the IRCTC allowed the bidder to rectify the defect after the opening of the financial bid.

The petitioner argued that R K Associates had not submitted a properly executed Integrity Pact, as required under the tender conditions, thereby violating a mandatory requirement.

The Court held that IRCTC had acted in contravention of Clause 3.3 of its tender procedure by permitting R K Associates to cure the deficiency in the Integrity Pact after the financial bid had been opened—rendering the process legally untenable.

The financial bid of R K Associates was opened on 08.04.2024, and later, at 1:11 PM the same day, IRCTC emailed the bidder requesting rectification of the omission. The Hon’ble Court noted that this post-bid correction violated Clause 3.3, which mandates that only technically qualified bids may proceed to the financial evaluation stage.

The Court also noted that R K Associates failed to disclose ongoing criminal proceedings, including a CBI FIR under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court observed that Sections 2(g), 3, and 5 of the Integrity Pact, as well as the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 14.06.2023 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), required such disclosures to maintain transparency and integrity in public procurement.

According to these provisions, bidders are obligated to disclose any such proceedings, even if they occurred more than three years ago, as long as they remain pending.

The Court concluded that non-disclosure adversely affected the bidder’s credibility and constituted a violation of mandatory tender conditions. It further held that the exclusion period under Section 5 (last three years) could not override the broader disqualification criteria outlined in Section 3.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned Letter of Award dated 17.04.2024, issued in favour of R K Associates, with respect to the following six trains:

• 22435-36 (BSB–New Delhi Vande Bharat Express)
• 22415-16 (BSB–New Delhi Vande Bharat Express)
• 12003-04 (NDLS–Lucknow Shatabdi Express)
• 22417-18 (BSB–NDLS Mahamana Express)
• 14013-14 (SLN–Anand Vihar Express)
• 14005-06 (SMI–ANVT Lichchavi Express)

The Court directed the IRCTC to initiate fresh tenders for these trains within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Kirti Uppal, along with Advocates Mr. Himanshu Pathak, Ms. Riya Gulati, Mr. Amit Singh, and Ms. Archista Satyarthi.

Respondent No. 1 (IRCTC) was represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, along with Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, and Mr. Aarya Bhat.

Respondent No. 2 was represented by Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, and Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Jasmeet Singh, Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Mr. Mahinder Singh Hura, Mr. Saif Ali, Mr. Pushpendra S. Bhadoriya, Mr. Vijay Sharma, Ms. Riya Kumar, Mr. Rajat Sinha, Mr. Pranav Menon, Mr. Vaibhav Dubey, and Mr. Saurav.

[Read Judgment]