Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Plea Challenging Pricing For Consular Passport & Visa Services Provided By Third-Party Vendors
The Supreme Court is set to consider the validity of the Union's recent policy of having uniform pricing for Consular Passport and Visa Services, irrespective of whether the applicant avails of other Value Added Services.
The bench of Justice KV Viswanathan and Justice NK Singh was hearing the plea filed by a petitioner who is a citizen of India, residing in Oman.
The petitioner has moved against the Delhi High Court's order of dismissing his PIL, which challenged the Union's policy changes regarding the pricing of Consular Passport and Visa Services (CPV services) by third-party providers.
The Petitioner initially approached the Delhi High Court challenging the publication of Request For Proposals (RFP) for CPV Services, which were revised by the Union in February 2025.
The impugned RFP was different from the original RFP of 2014, under which "third party vendors were appointed for assistance in CPV Services and to render and charge for Value Added Services ("VAS") at the option of the applicants".
However, as per the RFP of 2025, the third-party vendors are now called upon to submit a single all-in cost irrespective of whether an applicant availed of any VAS or not.
The petitioners' main ground for challenge is that such a revised policy would "lead to an arbitrary increase of up to 1,617% (One Thousand Six Hundred and Seventeen Per cent) in the pricing of certain services, and that the changed policy/terms effectively imposed costs of value-added services regardless of whether or not said services were availed, created cross subsidies and further that the said changes in policy intended to benefit third party providers."
The High Court dismissed the PIL on the ground that the petitioner lacked locus standi in the matter. The Court rejected the plea on three main aspects (1) only certain terms of the RFP have been challenged and bidders in the concerned RFP have already challenged the publication; (2) the petitioner has to challenged any policy change of shift in policy and the plea cannot be considered as a PIL; (3) the PIL was considered doubtful for being maintained under territorial jurisdiction.
Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner has challenged the reasoning given by the High Court in Paragraph 8 for rejecting the petition. The relevant portion reads :
" In the present case, we find that the petitioner has challenged the terms or the conditions of the RFP, which in our opinion cannot be agitated by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the bidders in the said RFP have already filed various writ petitions challenging some conditions and/or disqualifications which are engaging the attention of this court"
The Counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Dheeraj Malhotra, submitted that the concerned bidders will have no grievance about the uniform pricing, and that the High Court has erred in the above paragraph by referring to the petition of the bidders who have challenged certain other conditions and disqualifications, to deny the petitioner, his right to mention a petition.
Considering the same, the bench agreed to issue notice to the Union in the matter.
The matter will now be heard on July 25.
The petition has been filed with the assistance of AOR Puneet Singh Bindra.
Case Details : RAGHAVENDRA BAGAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.| Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16610/2025