[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
M/S 6X vs Union Of India & Anr on 16 March, 2026
$~40, 41, 43 and 46
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 16.03.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF:
40
+ W.P.(C) 14290/2024 and CM APPL. 69348/2024, CM APPL.
15772/2026
M/S 6X .....Petitioner
Through: Rajat Gaur & B S Mathur Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Rohan Jaitley CGSC, Mr.Akshay
Sharma, Mr.Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr.
Varun Pratap Singh Advocates for
UOI.
Mr Premtosh K Mishra CGSC, Mr
Shrey Sharma, Mr Anubhav
Upadhyay Advocates.
Ms.Shweta Bharti, Ms.Tejaswini
Chandrasekhar, Ms. Sonali Khanna,
Mr.Jatin Chaddha, Ms. Mehak ,
Advocates, for respondent/ GeM.
41
+ W.P.(C) 15749/2024
M/S GANPATI INTERGLOBE PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Rana S Biswas, Kartik Chettiar
and Yash Tirpathi Advocates.
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:20.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:11:26 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
versus
UNION OF INDIA GOVERNMENT E-MARKET
PLACE & ORS. ....Respondents
Through: Ms.Shweta Bharti, Ms.Tejaswini
Chandrasekhar, Ms. Sonali Khanna,
Mr.Jatin Chaddha, Ms. Mehak ,
Advocates, for respondent/ GeM.
43
+ W.P.(C) 590/2025 and CM APPL. 2779/2025, CM APPL.
15774/2026
M/S VINAYAK MANUFACTURERS PVT. LTD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Rana S Biswas, Kartik Chettiar,
and Yash Tirpathi Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT E-MARKET PLACE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Shweta Bharti, Ms.Tejaswini
Chandrasekhar, Ms. Sonali Khanna,
Mr.Jatin Chaddha, Ms. Mehak ,
Advocates, for respondent/ GeM.
46
+ W.P.(C) 1645/2025 and CM APPL. 7977/2025, CM APPL.
15776/2026
M/S JAI BALAJI INDUSTRY THROUGH ITS SOLE
PROPRIETOR MRS. PRIYANKA AGARWAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Rana S Biswas, Kartik Chettiar
and Yash Tirpathi Advocates.
versus
GOVERNMENT E-MARKET PLACE
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
SHARMA
Signing Date:20.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:11:26 Page 2 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
REPRESENTATIVE & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms.Shweta Bharti, Ms.Tejaswini
Chandrasekhar, Ms. Sonali Khanna,
Mr.Jatin Chaddha, Ms. Mehak ,
Advocates, for respondent/ GeM.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. In all the afore-captioned writ petitions, the decisions passed in
appeals are under challenge. The sole ground is that the same are non-
speaking.
2. This submission was noted on last date and accordingly it was
directed to bring on record, the minutes of meeting, if it contained any
reasons.
3. The subsequent documents which have been placed on record do not
disclose any adjudication of the issues raised by the petitioners.
4. The documents only indicate that certain comments were forwarded
for approval to the higher authorities. They do not reveal any adjudication to
the contentions urged by the petitioners, nor do they indicate the reasons for
which the petitioners' submissions came to be rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the order
passed in M/s Mishthi Industries Private Limited Thr. Director Vedansh
Garg vs. Union of India and Ors.1 stating that an administrative or quasi-
judicial order, particularly one entailing adverse civil consequences, must be
supported by intelligible reasons.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:20.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:11:26 Page 3 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
opinion that, in the absence of cogent reasons for rejection of the appeals,
the impugned decisions cannot be sustained in law. Merely placing of
subsequent documents would not cure the foundational defect of absence of
reasons in the impugned orders. The Supreme Court in case of Mohinder
Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner2 has unequivocally held that
that when a statutory authority makes an order, its validity must be tested
solely on the reasons recorded therein, and such reasons cannot be
supplemented or improved upon subsequently by way of affidavits or
otherwise. The said principle underscores the requirement of transparency,
fairness and accountability in administrative decision-making, which is a
facet of Article 14 of the Constitution.
7. Applying the aforesaid settled position of law, this Court finds that the
impugned decisions, being bereft of reasons and sought to be justified
subsequently, are unsustainable and are, hereby, set aside.
8. The petition, stands, disposed of.
9. The liberty is granted to the respondent(s) to pass a fresh order after
granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
10. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
MARCH 16, 2026/aks/ss.
Writ Petition No. 30663/2024, Order dated 26.11.2024
(1978) 1 SCC 405
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:20.03.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:11:26 Page 4 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
