A petition for the award of a contract to a joint venture is not maintainable if filed by only one partner. Furthermore, debarment of a JV partner before the issuance of the Letter of Award (LoA) is a valid ground for tender annulment.

(ORAL)

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

“Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of

a. Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned communication/order dated 27.07.2026 issued by Respondent whereby Tender ID No. 2026-NHAI-268092-I has been cancelled/annulled;

b. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 29.07.2026 issued by Respondent for inviting fresh bids for the very same project;

c. Issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to forthwith issue letter of award and execute Contract Agreement in favour of petitioner pursuant to intimation of H-1 ranking bidder dated 05.06.2026 which was accepted by Petition on 08.06.2026;

d. Direct the respondent to produce complete file pertaining to aforesaid tender before this Hon’ble court;

e. Pass an order allowing the costs of the present petition in favour of petitioner and against the respondent;

f. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case or in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioner is challenging the decision of the respondent dated 27.07.2026 whereby the respondent has decided to annul the tender which was issued by the respondent for Supervision Consultancy Service for rehabilitation and strengthening of the existing service road & construction of new service roads, RCC drains along with overlay on main carriageway and other ancillary works.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the present petition by the petitioner shall not be maintainable for the reason that the bid for the aforesaid work was submitted by the petitioner with two different entities as joint venture being M/s. Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd. and M/s Manglam Infra & Engineering Limited, who have not filed the petition.

4. Mr. Rajive R Raj, learned counsel for the respondent states, he does not have instructions on the reason for annulment.

5. In any case, he states, M/s Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd. has been debarred by the NHAI as being a non-performer under Clause 7.4.2 of the Consultancy Agreement for participation in the future bids of the NHAI for a period of six months from the date of the notice.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this annulment is not a bonafide one, inasmuch, as the joint venture having been declared as H-1/successful bidder, the only requirement for the respondent was to issue Letter of Award (LoA) in favour of JV and could not have, without specifying the reasons, annul the tender. He relies upon the instructions issued by the Department of Expenditure, Government of India to say that debarment could not have a retrospective effect inasmuch as the JV having been found to be successful, and only LoA was to be issued, this debarment shall not have any bearing insofar as the award of this tender is concerned.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Abhay Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed before us the letter dated 18.07.2026 of the NHAI addressed to M/s. Yongma Engineering Co. Ltd. debarring the said company would state that the same being on the ground of non–performance shall have a bearing insofar as the present tender is concerned. According to him, even assuming the JV was declared to be a successful tenderer, no LoA was issued before 18.07.2026, as such the said ground to annul the tender shall be valid.

8. In this regard, he has drawn our attention to page 49 more specifically Clause 1.4 of the agreement to contend that the respondent has reserved its right to annul the selection process at any time prior to the award of the contract without thereby incurring any liability to the Consultants.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, insofar as the submission of the