Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 1167

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SHEEL NAGU, JJ.
O.P. Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Kalta & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12968 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 2036 of 2025) With Civil Appeal No. 12969 of 2026
Decided On : 23-09-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Mr. Puneet Rajta, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Danish Azad, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Kunal Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Kunal Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ravi Tanta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Prashar, Adv. Mr. Maddhav Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, AOR Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Mr. Puneet Rajta, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Anand Prakash, Adv. Mr. T.D. Kashav, Adv. Ms. Varsha Arya, Adv. Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Sarthak Ghonkrokta, AOR

Public Interest Litigations are generally not maintainable for challenging tender awards based on inter-se comparative assessments of bidders, particularly when the petitioner is an alter ego of an unsuccessful bidder and the project magnitude does not justify a plea of wastage of public resources.

Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation (PIL) - Maintainability - Tender process - Whether the validity of a tender, where comparative claims of competing tenderers are to be adjudged, can be raised as the subject matter of a PIL - Reservations expressed when the grounds predominantly deal with inter-se comparative assessment between bidders and the cost of work is not of such magnitude as to allow the petitioner to raise a plea of wastage of public resources (Paras 2, 2.1, 2.2).

(B) PIL - Petitioner as alter ego - Where a petitioner acting as the alter ego of an unsuccessful bidder questions the tender process, it is viewed with skepticism, particularly when the said unsuccessful bidder had previously complained and subsequently withdrawn the complaint (Para 4).

Facts of the case:
A PIL was filed challenging the award of a road upgradation project. The High Court quashed the award in favor of the successful bidder and directed the official respondents to re-tender the remaining work, citing discrepancies in the bidder's experience certificates, the nature of work executed, and the operation under two different names. The successful bidder appealed against this decision.

Findings of Court:
The Court questioned the maintainability of a PIL to resolve comparative disputes between bidders and noted that the petitioner appeared to be a proxy for an unsuccessful bidder. Based on an assurance by the appellant to complete the work without compromising quality, the Court provided a time-bound opportunity to finish the project.

Issues: Whether the validity of a tender, based on comparative assessments of competing bidders, is a maintainable subject for a Public Interest Litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A PIL is not an appropriate forum for adjudicating inter-se comparative claims between tenderers, especially when the expenditure involved does not suggest a systemic wastage of public resources and the petitioner is serving as an alter ego for a disappointed bidder.

Result: Modified interim order; appellant granted three months to complete the work at the rates prevailing at the time of the original award, subject to quality verification, failing which the work shall be re-tendered at market rates.

JUDGMENT

SHEEL NAGU, J.

1. These appeals assail the Division Bench decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, rendered in a PIL bearing CWPIL No.30 of 2024 on 24.12.2024, whereby the PIL was allowed by quashing the award of work in favour of respondent No.5 therein (appellant herein) and directing the official respondents to re-tender the remaining work of upgradation of Matiana, Mahori to Chhaila road, Km. 0/00 to 25/650 under PMGSY package No. HP-09-694 within one month from the date of the judgment.

2. 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?

2.1. We have our reservations since the grounds raised in the PIL before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla pre-dominantly dealt with, inter-se comparative assessment between the two bidders whose bids had been received including respondent No.5 therein (appellant herein).

2.2. Moreso even the cost of work (Rs. 23 crores) was not of such magnitude, which may allow the petitioner in PIL to raise the plea of wastage of public resources.

3. Certain factors which weighed in the mind of the High Court, for rendering the impugned judgment, were as follows:

i. The contradictory stand taken by the official respondents as to whether the complaint made by M/s PK Construction Pvt. Ltd. (the other bidder) was actually received by the official respondents or not and if received then whether it was withdrawn or not.

ii. Whether the experience gained by the appellant was as a sub-contractor or as a prime contractor.

iii. Whether the appellant could have been allowed to operate under two different names in violation of certain clauses of the tender documents.

iv. Though it was admitted in the impugned order that sub-contracts were allowed under the terms and conditions of the tender document but subject to fulfilment of certain conditions which were found missing in the instant case.

v. The nature of work experience gained by appellant, as reflected from his work experience certificate was at variance to the nature of work actually executed in the past.

4. 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 said unsuccessful bidder had complained against the successful bidder and has since withdrawn the complaint.

5. During the course of argument, we were informed vide affidavit of appellant dated 03.09.2026 that three (03) Kms. of road construction is complete along with retaining and breast walls of Matiana to Mohri Road in Distt-Shimla (H.P.) and that appellant is ready and willing to complete the work at the same rates on which the work was awarded to appellant on 15.03.2024. Appellant has assured that quality of work shall not be compromised.

5.1 In view of the aforesaid assurance made by the appellant, we extend a period of three months for the appellant to complete the entire work allotted to him on 15.03.2024 at the rates prevailing as on 15.03.2024. If the work so assigned to the appellant is not completed within the given time of three months subject to the official respondents verifying the quality of the work executed, the official respondents are directed to re-tender the same work at the prevailing market rate.

6. The instant case stands deferred to be listed in the first week of December, for the appellant to submit compliance report of this order.

7. This order shall also govern Civil Appeal No.12969 of 2026 preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh.

8. That by order dated 07.03.2025, this Court had till the pendency of this appeal restrained the official respondents from creating third party rights, which interim order continues to subsist till date.

Therefore, to the extent indicated above in this order, the said interim order dated 07.03.2025 stands modified.

9. List in the 1st week of Dec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(SC) 1167

SUPREME COURT OF INDIADIPANKAR DATTA, SHEEL NAGU, JJ.O.P. Mehta – AppellantVersusMohinder Kalta & Ors. – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 12968 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 2036 of 2025) With Civil Appeal No. 12969 of 2026Decided On : 23-09-2026

Public Interest Litigations are generally not maintainable for challenging tender awards based on inter-se comparative assessments of bidders, particularly when the petitioner is an alter ego of an unsuccessful bidder and the project magnitude does not justify a plea of wastage of public resources.

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, SHEEL NAGU, JJ.
O.P. Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Mohinder Kalta & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 12968 of 2026 (@ SLP (C) No. 2036 of 2025) With Civil Appeal No. 12969 of 2026
Decided On : 23-09-2026