Delhi High Court Declines To Examine Cartelisation Claims In Tender Dispute, Says Issue Falls Within CCI Domain

The Delhi High Court on Monday refused to examine allegations of cartelisation in a public tender under its writ jurisdiction, holding that such issues require fact-intensive economic analysis and fall within the specialised domain of the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan dismissed Interlink Foods' challenge to its disqualification from a National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd (NAFED) tender, observing that claims of collusion raise disputed questions of fact that are not suited for adjudication in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, particularly in the absence of clear and incontrovertible material.

“The allegations of collusion are founded primarily upon assertions relating to common ownership, business association and familial relationship between certain bidders. Such allegations involve disputed questions of fact requiring economic and market analysis falling within the specialised statutory domain of the CCI. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not undertake a fact-intensive inquiry into issues of cartelisation or anti-competitive conduct, particularly in the absence of clear and incontrovertible material demonstrating mala fides in the tender process.”, it observed.

The case arose from a tender dated February 16, 2026 issued by NAFED for supply of Take Home Ration (THR) under the ICDS scheme in Uttar Pradesh. Interlink's bid, submitted on March 10, 2026, was rejected on April 2, 2026 on the ground that it did not meet the requirements under Clauses A1 and A12 of the tender conditions.

Clause A12 required that a bidder should neither be blacklisted nor have any pending legal, criminal or other disputes relating to THR supplies with any government authority at the time of bidding.

Interlink alleged that its disqualification was arbitrary and discriminatory and also claimed cartelisation among successful bidders.

The Court, however, held that invocation of arbitration by a bidder, which in this case resulted in an award dated January 28, 2026 in favour of Interlink, cannot by itself be treated as a disqualifying dispute under Clause A12.

“Invocation of arbitration for enforcement of statutory or contractual rights cannot, by itself, be construed as a disqualifying 'dispute' within the meaning of Clause A12. Such an interpretation would effectively penalise a bidder for resorting to remedies recognised under law.”, the court observed.

Despite this finding, the Court held that Interlink failed to meet the mandatory eligibility requirement under Clause A1, which required ownership of a manufacturing unit in Uttar Pradesh and had already been upheld in earlier proceedings.

Holding that the allegations of collusion would require a detailed factual inquiry, and noting the absence of clear material to establish mala fides in the tender process, the Court said it would not undertake such an exercise under Article 226.

“In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court declines to undertake any adjudication on the merits of the allegations of collusion, the same being matters falling within the statutory jurisdiction of the CCI. The allegations raised, in any event, do not furnish a ground for interference with the tender process in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Liberty is reserved to the Petitioner to pursue remedies before the competent authority, if so advised.”

The court held that no enforceable right accrued to Interlink as it failed to satisfy an essential eligibility condition, and clarified that it remained open to the petitioner to pursue its allegations before the appropriate statutory authority.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.