M/S Rajender Tourist Through Its Proprietor Mr Ajay Vashisht v. Directorate Of Education & ANR.

$~98 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 4575/2026 and CM APPL. 22276/2026 M/S RAJENDER TOURIST THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR AJAY VASHISHT .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Ritika Gambhir Kohli, Ms.

Kritika Khurana, Mr. Tushar Mudgil, Mr. Kushank Garg, Ms. Akshaya Ganpath, Ms.

Saumya Tiwari and Mr. Ahmar Shad, Advs.

versus DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION & ANR. .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Dhruv Rohatgi, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

O R D E R

% 07.04.2026 1.

The Petitioner prays for quashing Clause 4(c) of the Request for Proposal ['RFP'] issued on 30.03.2026 for appointing Event Management/Production Agency for hiring hotels in order to provide accommodation to players and officials participating in National School Games to be held between 15.04.2026 to 23.04.2026. 2.

The Petitioner claims that it has been rendered illegible in view of Clause 4(c) of the RFP, which reads as under:- "c) The RFP is restricted to the empaneled event management agencies shortlisted vide Order No. F.42(16)/DE/PE&NTEMA/2024-25/2522-34 dated 28.10.2025."

3.

It is the case of the Petitioner that it had no knowledge of the empanelled list or about when it was prepared. 4.

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the Respondents has produced a copy of the list of empanelled Event Management Companies dated 28.10.2025, which was prepared pursuant to the e-tender for empanelment of Event Management The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/04/2026 at 13:13:57

Companies, published on 14.08.2025. This communication contained a list of 13 Event Management Companies which were empanelled for a period of one year, having validity till 29.10.2026. 5.

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner submits that exclusion of the Petitioner from participating in the tender process is arbitrary as the Petitioner had previously successfully completed such an award. She submits that now a new condition has been added in order to oust the Petitioner.

6.

This Court has considered the submissions.

7.

Learned counsel representing the Respondents has pointed out that services of these Event Management Companies are required at a very short notice, hence, a conscious decision was taken to empanel the Event Management Companies and an e-tender was issued in August, 2025, however, the Petitioner never applied. 8.

Having considered the submissions, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere particularly while the Petitioner failed to apply when Empanelment of Event Management Companies was carried out in the months of August 2025, September 2025 and October 2025. The Petitioner is not justified to contend that he has been wrongly excluded from participating in the tender process since the Petitioner missed the bus when it had an opportunity to do so. 9.

Thus, there is no ground to interfere and the present Petition, along with pending application, is dismissed. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

APRIL 07, 2026/sp/kb The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/04/2026 at 13:13:57