1. A bidder in a public tender challenged its disqualification for non-disclosure of alleged prior blacklisting, despite judicial clarification that no such valid blacklisting order existed. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 490
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.
M/S Bridge & Roof Company (India) Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
M/S. Indian Institute Of Technology, Mandi & Anr. - Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 37663 of 2025
Decided On : 03-02-2026
Important Points
Judicial non-interference in tenders upheld absent mala fides or arbitrariness; non-disclosure of challenged blacklisting justifies disqualification if no timely rollback proof provided.
Subject
Contracts - Tenders
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Tenders - Blacklisting declaration - Bidder required to declare if ever blacklisted - Answered ‘No’ despite blacklisting order issued by municipal corporation - Order challenged before commercial court, held not amounting to blacklisting - Tendering authority informed via complaint, issued show cause notice seeking reply and evidence of rollback - Reply submitted claiming no blacklisting but no rollback order provided by stipulated deadline - Financial bid not opened, bidder disqualified - Writ petition challenging disqualification rejected by High Court observing failure to explain blacklisting - Supreme Court declines interference finding High Court took reasonable view, no mala fides, arbitrariness or patent illegality. (Paras 4-6, 10, 18-21)
(B) Tenders - Employer discretion - Reserves right to accept/reject bids without assigning reasons - Evaluation committee decision final - QCBS method with 70% technical, 30% financial weightage - Judicial review limited; no interference absent perversity, illegality or bias - Even if another view possible, not to substitute. (Paras 10, 13, 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
Tender floated for project management consultancy services. Two bidders submitted technical and financial bids. Authority discovered blacklisting information post-technical evaluation, issued show cause, bidder responded but failed to submit rollback evidence timely, leading to disqualification and award to other bidder.
Findings of Court:
No interference with High Court order; clarifies blacklisting orders judicially held not to constitute blacklisting.
Issues: Whether disqualification for non-disclosure of blacklisting justified despite challenge; whether authority acted unfairly by not evaluating composite score; scope of judicial review in tender matters.
Ratio Decidendi: Tendering authority afforded opportunities via show cause; failure to provide rollback proof validates disqualification; courts not to interfere in commercial matters without evidence of unfairness or Article 14 violation; reasonable employer interpretation upheld. Result : Special leave petition dismissed.
(B) Tenders - Employer discretion - Reserves right to accept/reject bids without assigning reasons - Evaluation committee decision final - QCBS method with 70% technical, 30% financial weightage - Judicial review limited; no interference absent perversity, illegality or bias - Even if another view possible, not to substitute. (Paras 10, 13, 14, 18)
Facts of the case:
Tender floated for project management consultancy services. Two bidders submitted technical and financial bids. Authority discovered blacklisting information post-technical evaluation, issued show cause, bidder responded but failed to submit rollback evidence timely, leading to disqualification and award to other bidder.
Findings of Court:
No interference with High Court order; clarifies blacklisting orders judicially held not to constitute blacklisting.
Issues: Whether disqualification for non-disclosure of blacklisting justified despite challenge; whether authority acted unfairly by not evaluating composite score; scope of judicial review in tender matters.
Ratio Decidendi: Tendering authority afforded opportunities via show cause; failure to provide rollback proof validates disqualification; courts not to interfere in commercial matters without evidence of unfairness or Article 14 violation; reasonable employer interpretation upheld. Result : Special leave petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Mishra-1, AOR, Mr. M K Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Adv., Mr. Devansh Pundir, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, Mr. Akhil Mittal, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Kaudal, Adv., Ms. Neema, AOR, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mr. Mohit Arora, AOR,Mr./Ms.Kamal Digpoul, Adv.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anand Mishra-1, AOR, Mr. M K Ghosh, Adv., Ms. Ayushi Rajput, Adv., Mr. Devansh Pundir, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. R Venkataramani, Attorney General for India, Mr. Akhil Mittal, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Kaudal, Adv., Ms. Neema, AOR, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mr. Mohit Arora, AOR,Mr./Ms.Kamal Digpoul, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner argued the non-disclosure was in good faith due to the disputed nature of the blacklisting, while the respondent justified disqualification citing concealment and tender terms. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 16 )
3. The court found the petitioner failed to provide necessary clarifications when prompted, and the respondent acted within its discretionary power to enforce tender declaration requirements. (Para 6 , 18 )
4. Judicial review of tender processes is limited to instances of manifest bias or perversity; courts should not interfere with an employer's discretion in evaluating technical bids and compliance. (Para 13 , 18 )
5. The special leave petition was dismissed, declining to interfere with the High Court's refusal to set aside the disqualification of the petitioner's tender bid. (Para 19 )
6. Does failure to disclose an alleged, but judicially contested, blacklisting status justify disqualification from a tender process?
Yes, if the tender conditions mandate a declaration regarding blacklisting, the bidder is required to disclose the facts accurately; failing to do so, even if the status is legally contested, entitles the employer to disqualify the bid for non-compliance and lack of transparency. (Para 5 , 6 , 13 )
7. What is the scope of judicial review in public tender evaluations?
Courts will not interfere in tender evaluations unless there is evidence of mala fides, arbitrariness, or perversity. The employer maintains the discretion to interpret tender conditions and make binding decisions based on technical and financial evaluation criteria. (Para 13 , 18 )
ORDER :
This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 19682/2025, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein seeking to challenge the action on the part of the respondent no.1- M/s. Indian Institute Of Technology, Mandi (for short ‘IIT, Mandi’) in declining to look into the financial bid of the petitioner came to be rejected.
2. The short facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are as under:-
3. The respondent no.1-IIT, Mandi floated a tender being RFP No.IIT Mandi (CW)/SE-1770/2025-26/1241-43 dated 30.07.2025 for “Project Management Consultancy(PMC) services for planning, design and development for construction of Academic Blocks, 2BHK and 3BHK Housing, and Student Activity Centre (including Sports Complex) and other related works in Indian Institute of Technology, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh.
4. In pursuance of said RFP referred to above, the petitioner submitted its bid, which was in two parts: (1) the technical bid and (2) the financial bid. In the same manner one NBCC (India) Ltd.(for short ‘NBCC’), also offered its bid in two parts i.e. the technical bid and the financial bid. It appears from the materials on record that when time came to open the financial bid, it came to be notice of the respondent no.1 that at some point of time, the petitioner herein was blacklisted by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (for short ‘BMC’) vide order dated 05.09.2024. In accordance with the tender document, the bidders were obliged to make some declarations. One of the columns provided in the tender document relates to the question “whether the bidder PSU has ever been blacklisted by any organization at any time”. As against this question the petitioner answered ‘No’. Since the respondent no.1 came to know about the order of blacklisting, it decided not to open the financial bid offered by the petitioner and thereby disqualified the petitioner from the entire bidding process.
5. In such circumstances, referred to above, the petitioner thought fit to challenge such action referred to above on the part of the respondent no.1 by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court looked into the matter and ultimately thought fit not to interfere and accordingly, rejected the writ petition. While rejecting the writ petition, the High Court observed thus:
“10. The petitioner himself, by choice as such, has not given the details of the blacklisting and the respondent having been informed of the same by some source had also issued show cause notice dated 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-2) asking the petitioner to give reply to the same on or before 24.11.2025 (17.00 hours), while mentioning the letter dated 05.09.2024. Though the reply was given on the same date i.e. 21.11.2025 (Annexure P-3) by the petitioner and justification had been tried to be given that the aforesaid letter was in violation of the Agreement entered into between the BMC & the petitioner- Company and that Senior Civil Judge (Commercial Court), Bhubaneswar as such had also come to the conclusion that there was no blacklisting order passed against the petitioner. The relevant part of the reply to the said show cause reads as under:-
"With reference to the show cause notice received vide aforementioned letter dated 21.11.2025, we wish to submit the following factual and categorical responses for your kind consideration.
It is stated that B AND R was Justified in submitting the undertaking, as per Annexure-ll of the RFP documents, declaring that B AND R had never been blacklisted by Central/State Government/PSUs and B AND R continue to stand by its submission.
The referenced communication, no.36854 dated 05.09.2024, received from the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC), was in violation of AGREEMENT entered into between BMC & B AND R, and was accordingly challenged before the Court of the Sr. Civil Judge (Commercial Court) Bhubaneswar. The BMC thereafter have a
