Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Challenging Pricing For Consular Passport & Visa Services Provided By Third-Party Vendors
The Supreme Court docket is ready to think about the validity of the Union’s current coverage of getting uniform pricing for Consular Passport and Visa Companies, no matter whether or not the applicant avails of different Worth Added Companies.
The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh was listening to the plea filed by a petitioner who’s a citizen of India, residing in Oman.
The petitioner has moved towards the Delhi Excessive Court docket’s order of dismissing his PIL, which challenged the Union’s coverage adjustments relating to the pricing of Consular Passport and Visa Companies (CPV providers) by third-party suppliers.
The Petitioner initially approached the Delhi Excessive Court docket difficult the publication of Request For Proposals (RFP) for CPV Companies, which had been revised by the Union in February 2025.
The impugned RFP was completely different from the unique RFP of 2014, below which “third celebration distributors had been appointed for help in CPV Companies and to render and cost for Worth Added Companies (“VAS”) on the choice of the candidates”.
Nevertheless, as per the RFP of 2025, the third-party distributors at the moment are known as upon to submit a single all-in price no matter whether or not an applicant availed of any VAS or not.
The petitioners’ fundamental floor for problem is that such a revised coverage would “result in an arbitrary improve of as much as 1,617% (One Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen Per cent) within the pricing of sure providers, and that the modified coverage/phrases successfully imposed prices of value-added providers no matter whether or not or not stated providers had been availed, created cross subsidies and additional that the stated adjustments in coverage meant to profit third celebration suppliers.”
The Excessive Court docket dismissed the PIL on the bottom that the petitioner lacked locus standi within the matter. The Court docket rejected the plea on three fundamental facets (1) solely sure phrases of the RFP have been challenged and bidders within the involved RFP have already challenged the publication; (2) the petitioner has to challenged any coverage change of shift in coverage and the plea can’t be thought of as a PIL; (3) the PIL was thought of uncertain for being maintained below territorial jurisdiction.
Earlier than the Supreme Court docket, the petitioner has challenged the reasoning given by the Excessive Court docket in Paragraph 8 for rejecting the petition. The related portion reads :
” Within the current case, we discover that the petitioner has challenged the phrases or the situations of the RFP, which in our opinion can’t be agitated by the petitioner. It’s pertinent to notice that the bidders within the stated RFP have already filed varied writ petitions difficult some situations and/or disqualifications that are partaking the eye of this court docket”
The Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Dheeraj Malhotra, submitted that the involved bidders could have no grievance in regards to the uniform pricing, and that the Excessive Court docket has erred within the above paragraph by referring to the petition of the bidders who’ve challenged sure different situations and disqualifications, to disclaim the petitioner, his proper to say a petition.
Contemplating the identical, the bench agreed to concern discover to the Union within the matter.
The matter will now be heard on July 25.
The petition has been filed with the help of AOR Puneet Singh Bindra.
Case Particulars : RAGHAVENDRA BAGAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.| Petition(s) for Particular Depart to Attraction (C) No(s). 16610/2025
