$~61 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010425722026 + W.P.(C) 13122/2026 &CM APPL. 61041/2026, CM APPL. 61042/2026 TELECOM WATCHDOG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Mr. Sanyam Jain, Mr. P. Rohit Ram, Ms. K. Singhal, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC with Ms. Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Arpan Narwal, Mr. K. Malik, Mr U. Tyagi, Advs. Mr. Piyush Sharma, Ms. Priyanka Sanyal, Mr. A. K. Sharma, Advs. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, SPP, CBI with Mr. Changez Khan, Adv. for CBI CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 09.09.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This public interest litigation petition has been filed in respect of tender dated 17.03.2025, which is being processed by the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL)-respondent no.2. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, the submission is that as per the tender This is a digitally signed order. 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 14/09/2026 at 17:40:41 condition, the bidder/OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) should not have its own authorisation for access service under unified license issued by the Department of Telecommunications or it should not be a part of a group, in which any of the group company holds authorisation for access service under unified license issued by Department of Telecommunications. The said Clause, however, exempts the Public Sector Undertakings under the Department of Telecommunications. 4. It has been stated further in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the OEM on the basis of whose authorisation respondent nos.3 and 4 have submitted their bids is concerned, now stood acquired by one of the entities, which is a telecom service provider having been granted the licence by the Department of Telecommunications, namely, Bharti Airtel. 5. The said submission has been denied by the learned counsel representing the respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the Union of India has stated that the complaints made in this regard by the petitioner have been referred to the Chief Vigilance Officer, BSNL, which is the tendering authority after preliminary verification of the complaints. Learned counsel representing the respondent no.2, however, states that the issues raised in the complaints by the petitioner have been examined and it has been found that respondent nos.3 and 4 do not infringe the said tender condition. 6. In these circumstances, we direct that a reasoned decision taken on the complaint made by the petitioner shall be communicated to the petitioner within 10 days. 7. The present writ petition along with pending applications stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. This is a digitally signed order. 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 14/09/2026 at 17:40:41 8. We make it clear that we have not made any observation as to the merits of the claim of the respective parties. We also provide that in case, the petitioner still feels aggrieved on receiving the reasons, which may be communicated by the respondent no.2 under this order, it will be open to it to challenge the same before an appropriate Forum/Court. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J SEPTEMBER 9, 2026/j This is a digitally signed order. 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 14/09/2026 at 17:40:41