Case at a Glance
The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a public interest litigation, quashed the award of a Rs 23 crore PMGSY road upgradation contract in Shimla district and ordered re-tendering. In appeal, the Supreme Court voiced reservations about a PIL that mainly raised comparative claims between two bidders, noting the PIL petitioner was the “alter ego” of the unsuccessful bidder. Instead of quashing the award, it gave the contractor three months to complete the entire work at the rates prevailing on 15 March 2024, subject to quality verification, failing which the work is to be re-tendered at market rates.
The work in question is the upgradation of the Matiana–Mahori to Chhaila road, Km 0/00 to 25/650, under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana Package No. HP-09-694, stated to cost Rs 23 crores. It was awarded to the appellant on 15 March 2024. A Division Bench of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in CWPIL No. 30 of 2024 decided on 24 December 2024, allowed the PIL, quashed the award to the appellant and directed the official respondents to re-tender the remaining work within one month.
The factors that weighed with the High Court included contradictory stands of the authorities on whether a complaint by an unsuccessful bidder had been received and withdrawn, whether the appellant’s experience was as sub-contractor or prime contractor, whether he could operate under two names contrary to tender clauses, conditions for sub-contracting, and whether his experience certificate matched the work actually executed. On 7 March 2025, the Supreme Court restrained the creation of third-party rights. By an affidavit dated 3 September 2026, the appellant stated that three km of road with retaining and breast walls had been completed and that he was ready to finish the work at the same rates.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should a PIL that essentially raises comparative claims between competing bidders, brought by a person described as the alter ego of the unsuccessful bidder, lead to the quashing of a public works contract that is already partly executed?
A Practical Middle Path Instead of Quashing
In the judgment headed under Justice Sheel Nagu’s name, the Court recorded its “reservations” about the High Court entertaining a PIL whose grounds mainly concerned the inter se comparative assessment of two bidders. It also observed that a work costing Rs 23 crores may not be of such magnitude as to allow a PIL petitioner to raise wastage of public resources. The fact that the PIL petitioner was the alter ego of the unsuccessful bidder, who had complained and later withdrawn the complaint, was something that “cannot be overlooked”.
Rather than simply setting aside the High Court’s order or upholding the re-tender direction, the Court took into account the appellant’s affidavit that part of the road was complete and his undertaking to finish the work at 2024 rates without compromising quality. It fashioned a time-bound mechanism: three months to complete the entire allotted work at the rates prevailing on the date of award, subject to quality verification by the official respondents, with re-tendering at prevailing market rates as the consequence of failure. The judgment cites no precedents.
What the Court Actually Held
- The appellant was given three months to complete the entire work allotted on 15 March 2024, at the rates prevailing on that date.
- Completion is subject to the official respondents verifying the quality of the work executed.
- If the work is not completed within three months, the official respondents must re-tender the work at the prevailing market rate.
- The interim order of 7 March 2025 was modified accordingly; the same order governs the State’s connected appeal, and the matter is listed in the first week of December 2026 for a compliance report.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It signals judicial caution about PILs that are, in substance, disputes between rival bidders.
- It prioritises completion of a partly built rural road over a fresh tender cycle, while protecting the public through fixed rates and quality checks.
- It shows the Court using a supervised, time-bound remedy instead of an all-or-nothing outcome in a public works dispute.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Contractors
- An undertaking to complete work at original rates, backed by an affidavit on progress, can persuade a court to allow completion.
- Failure to meet a court-fixed deadline can lead to re-tendering at market rates.
- Keep records of work executed and quality compliance; verification will follow.
For Counsel
- Question the bona fides of a PIL petitioner linked to an unsuccessful bidder; the Court said that link cannot be overlooked.
- Argue that comparative eligibility disputes between bidders are not ordinarily matters for a PIL.
- Propose practical alternatives such as time-bound completion where work is partly done.
Key Takeaways
- The Court had reservations about a PIL on inter se bidder disputes.
- The PIL petitioner’s link to the losing bidder could not be overlooked.
- Three months to finish the PMGSY road at 2024 rates.
- Failing completion, re-tender at market rates.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a losing bidder use a PIL to challenge a tender?
The Supreme Court expressed reservations about a PIL whose grounds mainly concerned comparative claims of two bidders, and noted that the PIL petitioner here was the alter ego of the unsuccessful bidder.
Was the High Court’s order quashing the contract upheld?
Not as such. The Supreme Court allowed the contractor three months to complete the work at 2024 rates, subject to quality verification, and directed re-tendering only if he fails.
What happens next?
The matter is listed in the first week of December 2026 for the appellant to file a compliance report.
Conclusion
O.P. Mehta v. Mohinder Kalta, (2026) 09 SC CK 4105 is a pragmatic order. Wary of a PIL that looked like a bidder’s dispute in public-interest clothing, the Supreme Court chose to see a rural road completed at the originally agreed rates, under supervision, rather than restart the tender process.
Practical takeaway: Courts may look at who is really behind a tender PIL, and where work is partly done, a time-bound completion undertaking at original rates can be a workable outcome.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com