Delhi High Court Upholds IRCTC Executive Lounge Tender; Holds Petitioner Cannot Seek Tailor-Made Eligibility Criteria After Admitting It Remains Ineligible Even If Relief Granted
Petitioner Lacked Locus to Challenge IRCTC Tender After Admitting It Remained Ineligible, Holds Delhi High Court
Facts
The petitioner, Ten 11 Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., challenged the eligibility conditions contained in an IRCTC e-tender dated 12 June 2026 for operating the Executive Lounge at Platform No. 1, Pune Railway Station. The impugned tender permitted participation only by operators having experience in managing 3-star or higher hotels or lounges/catering outlets at international airports, thereby excluding operators of Railway Executive Lounges.
The petitioner contended that it was already operating Railway Executive Lounges at Mumbai, Chennai, Lucknow and Vadodara Railway Stations and possessed substantial experience in managing such facilities. It therefore sought amendment of the technical eligibility criteria to include Railway Executive Lounge operators within the bidding process.
Issues
- Whether IRCTC’s exclusion of Railway Executive Lounge operators from the tender eligibility criteria was arbitrary or irrational.
- Whether the Court should direct IRCTC to amend the technical eligibility criteria.
- Whether the petitioner could seek further relaxation of the experience requirement after obtaining the principal relief originally sought.
- Whether the petitioner had the locus standi to maintain the writ petition.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner submitted that:
- it successfully operated Executive Lounges at several major railway stations, including Chennai (NSG-1 category);
- excluding experienced Railway Executive Lounge operators while permitting airport lounge operators lacked any rational nexus with the object of the tender;
- Railway Executive Lounge operators possessed direct experience of railway passenger services and therefore stood on a better footing than airport lounge operators;
- during the hearing, after IRCTC agreed to include Railway Executive Lounge operators, the petitioner further sought:
- reduction of the mandatory five-year experience requirement to three years; and
- restriction of participation only to operators of Executive Lounges at NSG-1 Railway Stations.
Respondents’ Arguments
IRCTC contended that:
- the Pune Executive Lounge was conceived as a pilot project aimed at significantly improving service quality;
- the eligibility criteria were deliberately framed to attract operators having experience in 3-star hotels or international airport lounges to provide world-class passenger facilities;
- however, during the hearing, without admitting illegality, IRCTC voluntarily agreed to amend the tender conditions to include operators of Railway Executive Lounges as eligible participants;
- once this concession was made, the petitioner sought entirely new reliefs which were never pleaded in the writ petition;
- courts ordinarily should not interfere with eligibility conditions framed by the tendering authority.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- principles governing judicial review of tender conditions under Article 226;
- the limited scope of judicial interference in prescribing technical eligibility criteria;
- the requirement that relief granted must correspond to the pleadings;
- principles governing locus standi in tender litigation.
The Court reiterated that eligibility conditions are primarily within the domain of the tendering authority and courts ordinarily refrain from rewriting tender conditions unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.
Precedent Analysis
The Court principally applied settled principles governing judicial restraint in tender matters rather than relying upon an elaborate discussion of reported precedents.
It accepted the general proposition relied upon by IRCTC that courts should not interfere merely because different eligibility conditions could also have been framed, particularly where such interference would amount to redesigning the tender in favour of a particular bidder.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that IRCTC had, during the hearing itself, agreed to amend the impugned tender by including Railway Executive Lounge operators within the technical eligibility criteria.
This concession substantially satisfied the principal relief originally claimed by the petitioner.
However, the petitioner then sought entirely new directions requiring:
- reduction of the mandatory experience from five years to three years; and
- limiting eligibility only to operators of NSG-1 Railway Stations.
The Court held that these additional requests:
- were never pleaded in the writ petition;
- had no legal or factual foundation; and
- if granted, would effectively result in a tailor-made tender designed to suit the petitioner alone, which is impermissible in law.
The Court further observed that the petitioner’s own admission that it still lacked the prescribed five years’ experience demonstrated that it would remain ineligible even if the original relief were granted. Consequently, the petitioner lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the challenge.
The Court nevertheless clarified that the broader legal issue regarding exclusion of Railway Executive Lounge operators from future tenders remained open for determination in an appropriate case brought by a genuinely affected party.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court held that once IRCTC voluntarily agreed to include Railway Executive Lounge operators within the eligibility criteria, the petitioner could not seek further modifications designed to suit its own eligibility. Since the petitioner admittedly lacked the prescribed five years’ experience, it remained ineligible even after the proposed amendment and therefore lacked locus standi to challenge the tender. The Court also refused to issue directions that would effectively create a tailor-made tender for a particular bidder, while leaving the larger legal issue open for consideration in an appropriate future case.
Case Details
Case: Ten 11 Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) & Ors.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 8673/2026
Judges: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 4 August 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed. The Court declined to interfere with the impugned tender, held that the petitioner lacked locus standi as it remained ineligible despite IRCTC’s proposed amendment, refused to direct relaxation of eligibility conditions, and left the broader legal issue regarding exclusion of Railway Executive Lounge operators open for determination in a future case
