Arya Construction Company vs Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency & Ors.

Hon. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral)

Respondent No.2-Chief Engineer, Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency issued ‘Notice Inviting Tender’ (NIT) on 28.01.2026, whereby bids were invited for construction and maintenance work of “L039-Agrakhal-Dewali Motor Road Km.2 to Fart Motor Road, Stage-I and II (Package No.UT11473-05) in District Tehri Garhwal under ‘Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna”. Petitioner responded to the said notice by submitting his bid. According to petitioner, his bid was initially found to be responsive, however, on the representation of other rival bidders, his technical bid was declared to be non-responsive by order dated 18.08.2026 passed by respondent no.3-Tender Evaluation Committee. Thus, petitioner has challenged the decision taken by respondent no.3.

The reason assigned by Tender Evaluation Committee for declaring the bid of petitioner non-responsive is given below: -

Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 (Qualification Information) of Standard Bidding Document (SBD) does not provide any column for disclosing ‘existing commitents’, and it only provides in Column No.7 ‘value of works remaining to be completed’. He further submits that Clause 7 contains an ‘asterisk’ which is explained below the table and provides that a ‘certificate issued by Engineer(s)-in-charge has to be enclosed regarding value of work remaining to be completed’. He submits that since petitioner does not have ongoing work and he simply participated in some other tender process by submitting bid, therefore, the said clause cannot be invoked for rejecting petitioner’s technical bid.

Learned Counsel for petitioner further submits that Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD requires a bidder to give information only regarding ongoing works which are yet to be completed, therefore, petitioner’s technical bid could not have been rejected for non-disclosure of the fact that he participated in a bid for some other work in State of Uttar Pradesh.

Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD is reproduced below for ready reference: -

Learned Counsel for respondents rely heavily on Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD for contending that petitioner suppressed material information that he participated in bidding process for the work of widening and strengthening of Daurala-Mussoorie Road pursuant to ‘Notice Inviting Tender’ issued by Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department. It is pointed out that value of said work was about Rs.15.00 crores and petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder in that bidding process. Thus, it is contended that technical bid of petitioner was rightly rejected for violation of mandatory condition mentioned in Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD.

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 relied upon Clause 4.7(i) of Section 2 of SBD. It reads as under: -

Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4 thus submits that since petitioner made a false declaration that he does not have any ‘existing commitment’ while petitioner participated in a tender process for road construction work in State of Uttar Pradesh, and he was declared successful bidder in that process, therefore, petitioner’s bid capacity was compromised as he could not have simultaneously undertaken two road construction projects in two different States with the resources at his command. He submits that information regarding existing commitments and ongoing construction works is solicited from the bidders to assess their bid capacity, and if a bidder furnishes incorrect or misleading information regarding his resources and liabilities, it has to be viewed seriously and the employer is justified in rejecting his bid.

We find substance in the contentions raised by learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 4. Admittedly, as per Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD, every bidder is required to furnish information, not only about the ongoing works, but also the works for which bids have been submitted by him. Petitioner do not dispute the fact that he submitted bid for widening and strengthening of Daurala-Mussoorie Road pursuant to ‘Notice Inviting Tender’ issued by Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department. The value of said work is more than the value of work for which tender process in-question was initiated. Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD is aimed at securing information regarding bidding capacity of a bidder. Contract for infrastructure projects can be executed by a bidder having sufficient resources at his command including funds, manpower, machinery etc. Before awarding contract, employer is entitled to have an idea about the resources available with a bidder to ensure that upon award of contract, he is able to execute the work as per specifications and within stipulated time.

Learned Counsel for respondents are right in submitting that non-disclosure of information regarding existing commitments and/or ongoing construction works has to be viewed seriously or else bidders will try to hoodwink the employer by submitting misleading information for securing contract.

Since petitioner did not disclose existing commitments in his technical bid despite the condition mentioned in Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD, therefore, employer was justified in rejecting the bid of petitioner. Rejection of petitioner’s bid is referable to sub-clause (i) of Clause 4.7 of Section 2 of SBD.

Learned Counsel for petitioner then submitted that on the date of submission of bid pursuant to ‘Notice Inviting Tender’ issued by respondent no.1, petitioner was not awarded contract for Daurala-Mussoorie Road by Uttar Pradesh Public Works Department. He submitted that in the information sought in tabular format, as mentioned in Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD, there is no column regarding existing commitments, and all the columns seek information only regarding ongoing construction works. He submits that there is an ‘asterisk’ in Column 7 of the table appended to Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD, which requires a certificate from Engineer-in-Charge for value of work remaining to be completed. Thus, he submits that petitioner cannot be blamed for not supplying information regarding his participation in some other tender process. He further submits that on the date of submitting bid in response to ‘Notice Inviting Tender’ issued by respondent no.1, petitioner was not awarded contract for any other work, therefore, he did not have any ‘existing commitment’ on the date he submitted bid for the work in question.

We are not impressed by the contention raised by learned Counsel for petitioner. Immediately above the table mentioned in Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD, following is mentioned in bold letters: -

Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD makes it clear that a bidder is required to submit information regarding the ‘works for which bids have been submitted’ besides the works which are yet to be completed. This leaves no room for doubt that ever bidder is required to submit information not only regarding the ongoing works, but also for other works wherefor bids have been submitted by the bidder. Merely because there is no column in the table given in Clause 1.3.3 regarding works for which bids have been submitted, will not absolve petitioner from the liability to furnish information regarding other works for which he has submitted bids. Participation by petitioner in bidding process for some other road construction work amounts to ‘commitment’, as once he is declared successful in that tender process and contract is awarded to him, then he cannot back out of his obligation under such contract and failure on his part to execute that work, may make him liable to penal action. Thus, participation by petitioner in some other bidding process with same or other employer creates an ‘existing commitment’ and petitioner was under a duty to furnish information regarding such commitment to enable the employer (respondent no.1) to evaluate his bid capacity. Thus, the contention raised by learned Counsel for petitioner is bereft of merit and the same is, accordingly discarded.

Law is well settled that interpretation of tender conditions given by employer or author of the document is to be respected by Courts and judicial interference is permissible only in cases of clear arbitrariness, perversity or mala fides. The employer who drafts the conditions is considered the best authority to understand, appreciate and interpret its specific requirements and clauses. Tendering authorities are granted reasonable flexibility (play in the joints) in both formulating and interpreting tender specifications and essential conditions.

In “Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V R. Construction Ltd. And Ors” reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that superior Courts should not interfere in matters of tenders unless substantial public interest is involved or transaction is mala fide.

In the case of ‘Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and others’ reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617, Hon’ble Supreme Court once again stressed the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in contracts involving the State and its instrumentalities.

In the case of “Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.” reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, it was held that a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. It was further held that owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents, and further that, it is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.

Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘N.G. Projects Limited v. Vinod Kumar Jain and others’ reported in 2022 (6) SCC 127 held as under: -

Learned Counsel for petitioner then submitted that other bidders also did not submit information in terms of Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD, and their technical bid was also liable to be rejected, however, the fact of the matter is that their bid was held to be responsive.

Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, submit that every bidder had the opportunity to make representation within five days against other bidders, whose technical bid was found to be responsive; petitioner although submitted representation questioning eligibility of other bidders, but he did not raise the issue of violation of Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD by other bidders in his representation. Thus, it is contended that petitioner cannot raise an issue which was not raised by him before the Technical Evaluation Committee.

This Court finds substance in the contention made on behalf of respondents. Petitioner had the opportunity to raise the issue of violation of Clause 1.3.3 of SBD by other bidders in his representation. Petitioner did submit representation against bidders whose bids were found technically responsive but he did not raise the issue of infraction of Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD in his representation. That aspect was, therefore, not considered by the authority. An issue which petitioner failed to raise at the appropriate time, cannot be permitted to be raised by him at this belated stage.

Even otherwise also, in the absence of necessary pleadings in the writ petition, this Court declines to examine the question of eligibility of other bidders in this writ petition in which rejection of petitioner’s technical bid is in issue.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any scope for interference in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.