1. Challenge to technical evaluation result declaring petitioner's bid non-responsive for failing to meet additional work criteria for bridges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11226/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dayan Krishnan, Sandeep Sharma, Samir Malik, Varad Nath, Varun Kalra, Sarthak Manan, Snehal Kaila, Krishan Kumar
For the Respondents: Ayush Gaur, Ridhi Kapoor, Shivranjani, Varun Parasha, Sanjay Jain, Ankur Mittal, Abhay Gupta, Ipshita Dutta, Simran Goel, Harshita Sukhija, Nishank Tripathi, Rishika Agrawal, Shreyan Srivastava
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dayan Krishnan, Sandeep Sharma, Samir Malik, Varad Nath, Varun Kalra, Sarthak Manan, Snehal Kaila, Krishan Kumar
For the Respondents: Ayush Gaur, Ridhi Kapoor, Shivranjani, Varun Parasha, Sanjay Jain, Ankur Mittal, Abhay Gupta, Ipshita Dutta, Simran Goel, Harshita Sukhija, Nishank Tripathi, Rishika Agrawal, Shreyan Srivastava
The tendering authority, as the author of the RFP, has the primary right to interpret its terms. Technical disqualification based on industry-standard definitions and verified experience certificates is valid and not arbitrary.
Headnote:(A) Tendering Process - Technical Evaluation - Interpretation of 'Span' - The tendering authority, as the author of the RFP, is the best person to interpret its requirements. If the industry standard (IRC-5/2024) defines 'span' as the distance between center lines of adjacent supports, the bidder cannot claim the total length of the structure as the 'span'. (Para 23, 30, 35)
(B) Bidding Process - Experience Certificates - Veracity of documents - A bidder is responsible for the correctness of the experience certificates submitted; the authority is entitled to verify such documents and issue a show cause notice if contradictions are found. (Para 44, 46)
(C) Writ Jurisdiction - Judicial Review of Technical Disqualification - The court will not interfere with the decision of the tendering authority if the disqualification is based on a consistent and rational interpretation of the RFP criteria and industry standards. (Para 35)
Issues: Whether the petitioner's bid was rightly declared 'Non-Responsive' based on the interpretation of 'span' length in the experience certificate.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed its experience certificate demonstrated a span length meeting the required criteria, while the respondent authority disputed the interpretation of the span measurement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Court found the respondent applied a consistent and standard industry definition of 'span', and the petitioner's bid was correctly evaluated as non-compliant. (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 )
4. The author of the Request for Proposal is the best interpreter of its own documents, provided the interpretation is consistent and not arbitrary. (Para 35 )
5. Petition dismissed as meritless with costs of Rs. 25,000; interim orders vacated. (Para 50 , 51 )
6. What is the scope of judicial review of a bidder's disqualification in a public procurement process?
The court will not interfere with the decision of the contracting authority unless it is found to be arbitrary, irrational, or perverse. (Para 35 )
7. Can an earlier judgment in a related writ petition preclude the authority from verifying bid documents?
No, such a judgment does not act as estoppel; the authority can independently verify the correctness of documents submitted by a bidder. (Para 44 , 45 )
8. How is the term 'span' of a bridge defined for the purpose of technical evaluation in a tender?
The term 'span' is defined under IRC-5/2024 as the horizontal distance between the center lines of adjacent supports of a bridge superstructure. (Para 23 )
9. Is a bidder responsible for the accuracy of a certificate issued by a third party that it relies upon?
Yes, a bidder cannot avoid liability for incorrect information in a relied-upon certificate merely because it is not the author. (Para 46 )
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Technical Evaluation Result dated 31.07.2026 [‘impugned result’] whereby the petitioner’s Technical bid has been declared as ‘Non-Responsive’ pursuant to the Request for Proposal [‘RFP’] dated 23.01.2026 for Package-VIII of the Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway Project.
1.1. The petitioner’s bid has been declared ‘Non-Responsive’ on the ground that it fails to meet with the Additional Work Criteria [Bridges] prescribed under clause 2.2.2.2 (ii) of the RFP, as modified by Corrigendum No. 4 dated 15.04.2026 [‘modified clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP’].
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Petitioner is an engineering and construction company engaged in the execution of large-scale highway and infrastructure projects including national highways and expressways.
2.1. It is stated that on 23.01.2026 respondent no. 2 i.e., National Highway Authority of India [‘NHAI’] issued a RFP bearing Bid/Package No. NHAI/2026/PIU-Surat/VME-Pkg-VIII/e-304898 for the project titled ‘Balance Work for Construction of 8-lane Access Controlled Expressway from km 154.600 to km 190.000 of Vadodara -Mumbai Expressway (Jujuwa to Gandeva Section) in the State of Gujarat (Package -VIII)’ [‘subject RFP’]on EPC, Engineering, Procurement & Construction Mode mode.
2.2. It is stated that on 04.05.2026 the petitioner submitted its bid in response to the aforesaid subject RFP together with all the required documents. Thereafter, on 21.05.2026, respondent no. 2 issued a letter to the petitioner seeking clarification, in relation to petitioner’s technical bid, and further asked the petitioner to furnish its response on or before 28.05.2026. It is stated that on 03.06.2026, the petitioner submitted its clarification response.
2.3. It is stated that, on 25.06.2026 respondent no. 2, published the Technical Evaluation Result declaring the petitioner’s Technical bid as ‘Non-Responsive’ on the ground that the petitioner had failed to furnish the Provisional Completion Certificate [‘PCC’] along with the Experience Certificate in terms of Clause 2.2.2.2 (ii) of the RFP.
2.4. It is stated that aggrieved by the Technical Evaluation Result dated 25.06.2026, the petitioner challenged the rejection by filing a petition W.P.(C) 8524/2026. Vide judgement dated 03.07.2026 this Court set aside the Technical Evaluation Result dated 25.06.2026 and directed respondent no. 2 to undertake a fresh evaluation of the petitioner’s Technical bid after taking into consideration the PCC dated 30.06.2026.
2.5. It is stated that, on 28.07.2026 respondent no. 2 proceeded to issue a Show Cause Notice [‘SCN’] alleging that the petitioner, in order to secure eligibility pertaining to a minimum ‘span’ length of 53.6 mts., had somehow secured an Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 issued by Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. [‘MSRDC’] which stated a different ‘span’ length for the same structure as compared to the earlier Experience Certificate dated 13.05.2023 issued by MSRDC. It is stated that the petitioner was directed to submit its reply to the SCN before 04.08.2026.
2.6. It is stated that, however, even without awaiting the response of the petitioner, on 31.07.2026 the respondent no. 2 published the impugned result declaring the petitioner’s bid as ‘Non-Responsive’.
2.7. The respondent no. 2 issued a separate letter dated 31.07.2026 setting out the reasons for disqualifying the Technical bid. The said letter records that the petitioner’s bid fails to meet the qualification prescribed under Additional Work Criteria (Bridges) prescribed as per modified clause 2.2.2.2 (ii) of RFP.
3. The SCN dated 28.07.2026 and the Technical Evaluation Result dated31.07.2026 has been impugned in the present writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
4. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the reasons recorded by responden
