The Supreme Court has expressed reservations over whether the validity of a tender can be challenged through a Public Interest Litigation when the dispute essentially requires a comparative assessment of competing bidders. A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu raised the issue while hearing appeals against a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had quashed the award of a ₹23 crore road upgradation contract and directed re-tendering of the remaining work.
The Supreme Court, while keeping the matter pending, granted the successful contractor three months to complete the entire work allotted to him at the rates prevailing on March 15, 2024. If the work is not completed within that period, subject to verification of its quality by the authorities, the remaining work has to be re-tendered at the prevailing market rate.
Background
The appeals arose from a December 24, 2024 judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in CWPIL No. 30 of 2024.
The High Court had allowed the PIL, quashed the award of work in favour of the successful bidder and directed the official respondents to re-tender the remaining work for upgradation of the Matiana-Mahori-Chhaila road from Km 0/00 to 25/650 under PMGSY Package No. HP-09-694 within one month.
The successful contractor and the State of Himachal Pradesh challenged that decision before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Questions Maintainability of Tender Challenge Through PIL
The Supreme Court identified what it described as the issue that “glares in the face” of the case: whether the validity of a tender, involving assessment of comparative claims of competing tenderers, can be made the subject matter of a PIL.
The Bench observed:
“The aspect which glares in the face in present case is as to whether the issue of validity of a tender, where comparative claims of competing tenderers are to be adjudged, can be raised as subject matter of challenge in a PIL?”
The Court said it had reservations on the issue because the grounds raised before the High Court predominantly related to an inter se comparison between the two bidders whose bids had been received.
It also noted that the cost of the work was ₹23 crore and observed that it was not of such magnitude as would permit the PIL petitioner to raise a plea of wastage of public resources.
Factors Considered by Himachal Pradesh High Court
The Supreme Court recorded the factors that had weighed with the High Court while interfering with the tender process.
One of the issues was the contradictory stand of the official respondents on whether a complaint made by M/s PK Construction Pvt. Ltd., the other bidder, had actually been received and, if so, whether it had later been withdrawn.
The High Court had also examined whether the successful bidder’s experience had been gained as a sub-contractor or as a prime contractor, and whether he could operate under two different names in terms of the tender conditions.
Another consideration was whether the conditions governing sub-contracts had been complied with and whether the nature of work mentioned in the successful bidder’s experience certificate was different from the work actually executed in the past.
PIL Petitioner Was ‘Alter Ego’ of Unsuccessful Bidder
The Supreme Court also took note of the relationship between the PIL petitioner and the unsuccessful bidder.
The Bench recorded:
“It cannot be overlooked that the petitioner before the High Court, as the alter ego of the unsuccessful bidder, filed the PIL questioning the tender process.”
The Court further noted that the unsuccessful bidder had complained against the successful bidder but later withdrew that complaint.
Three Kilometres of Road Work Already Completed
During the hearing, the Supreme Court was informed through an affidavit dated September 3, 2026 that three kilometres of road construction on the Matiana-Mohri Road in Shimla district had already been completed along with retaining and breast walls.
The contractor stated that he was ready and willing to complete the remaining work at the same rates at which the contract had been awarded on March 15, 2024. He also assured the Court that there would be no compromise on the quality of the work.
Three Months Granted to Finish Work
Taking note of that assurance, the Supreme Court granted the contractor three months to complete the entire work allotted to him at the rates prevailing on March 15, 2024.
The Bench directed that if the work is not completed within the three-month period, subject to verification of the quality of the work by the official respondents, the authorities must re-tender the same work at the prevailing market rate.
Matter Listed in December
The Supreme Court deferred the matter to the first week of December 2026, when the contractor has been directed to submit a compliance report.
The order will also govern Civil Appeal No. 12969 of 2026 filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh.
The Court further noted that by an interim order dated March 7, 2025, the official respondents had been restrained from creating third-party rights during the pendency of the appeal. That interim protection was modified to the extent indicated in the present order.
Case Details
Case Title: O.P. Mehta v. Mohinder Kalta & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 12968 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 2036 of 2025), with Civil Appeal No. 12969 of 2026
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Date: September 23, 2026
