$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 06.04.2026 + W.P.(C) 3434/2026, CM APPL. 16499/2026 M/S HAZOOR MULTI PROJECTS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Yadav and Mr. Manmohan Singh Narula, Advocates.

Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nishant Gautam CGSC with Mr.

Vardhman Kaushik, Ms. Kavya Shukla, Mr. Vineet Negi, Mr. Vibhav V. Nath, Ms. Theresa, Advocates with Mr. Bipul Kumar, GP for R1/UOI Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Kunal Tandon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kapil Arora, Ms. Aditi Tambi, Mr. Kartik Sharma, Ms. Natasha and Ms. Shreni Taran, Advocates for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL

1. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or any direction of like nature thereby quashing/ setting aside the Technical Evaluation Result dated 20.02.2026 whereby the Petitioner‟s bid has been declared “Non-Responsive”; and/or b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or any direction of like nature thereby quashing/setting aside the Financial Bid Result dated 12.03.2026, including the consequential declaration of M/s J Infratech Limited as L-1 bidder, in so far as it excludes the Petitioner from consideration;

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or any direction of like nature directing the Respondent to consider the clarifications of the Petitioner and open the Financial Bid of the Petitioner;

d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or any direction of like nature thereby restraining the Respondent from taking any further steps pursuant to the financial bid result dated 12.03.2026, including issuance of Letter of Acceptance, till the Petitioner‟s bid is reconsidered;

2. The present dispute arises out of the tender invited by respondent no.1/ Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH) for construction of road from 113.25 km to 160.75 km of the Huri-Taliha section of NH-913 (Frontier Highway) to Intermediate Lane on EPC mode in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Corrigendum was issued by the respondent no.1 on 01.09.2025 whereby clause 2.2.2.2(ii) was modified. Subsequent to which, the petitioner submitted its bid.

3. It is the case of the petitioner as contented by Mr. Puneet Taneja, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Amit Yadav that the petitioner is aggrieved by the technical evaluation result dated 20.02.2026 whereby the bid submitted by the petitioner has been arbitrarily declared as “Non- Responsive” and also by the subsequent financial bid result dated 12.03.2026 wherein the petitioner has again been reflected as “Non- Responsive” without due consideration of the clarifications submitted by the petitioner vide emails dated 05.02.2026 and 25.02.2026. It is their case that the respondent no.1 has alleged that the petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirement stipulated under Clause 2.2.2.2(i) & (ii) of the Request for Proposal (RFP). However, while issuing the aforesaid technical evaluation result, the respondent no.1 itself called upon the petitioner to furnish response/clarifications with respect to the declaration of “Non- Responsiveness”. In compliance to the aforesaid, the petitioner furnished detailed replies along with supporting documents demonstrating that the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria under the RFP. Even then the respondent no.1 did not consider the aforesaid clarifications and documents proceeded with the tender process and opened financial bids on 12.03.2026 wherein the bid of the respondent no.2 emerged as L-1.

4. As per Mr. Taneja, the petitioner satisfies the eligibility criteria under Clause 2.2.2.2(i), which is the threshold technical capacity of Rs.7,90,91,76,231/-. The petitioner has executed/received payment of Rs.806.88 crores in the project C