Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 17444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ
Construction Engineers – Appellant
Versus
Indian Rail and Ropeway Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 11095/2026 | CM APPL. 51266/2026 | CM APPL. 51268/2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Uttam Dutt, Deepak Prakash, Nachiketa Vajpayee, Manshi Sinha, Ridhika Singh
For the Respondents: Swati Sinha, Barnali Mukherjee
The court held that a tendering authority must provide the reasons for rejecting a technical bid to ensure transparency and allow the aggrieved party to pursue available legal remedies against the rejection or the subsequent award of the contract.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Tender Process - Rejection of Technical Bid - Failure to provide reasons for declaring a technical bid non-responsive prevents the bidder from seeking appropriate legal remedies; the authority is directed to convey the reasons for rejection to ensure transparency. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the respondent is required to provide the reasons for the rejection of the petitioner's technical bid to enable the petitioner to seek legal remedies.
O R D E R
CM APPL. 51266/2026
(for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM APPL. 51268/2026
(File lengthy synopsis and list of dates)
3. This is an application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates.
4. For the reasons as stated in the application, the same is allowed.
5. The application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 11095/2026
6. This petition has been listed before the Court in terms of the supplementary list circulated in the post lunch session on a mentioning made before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
7. This petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
“i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction thereby Quashing and setting aside the Respondent’s decision whereby the petitioner’s technical bid has been declared nonresponsive/ rejected on the alleged ground of non-uploading of the "bid document" under clause 11.4(g) of the instructions to bidders, together with all consequential actions taken pursuant thereto for the tender issued by the respondent bearing IFB NO. IPRCL/DELHI/J&K/01, dated 03.06.2026; and
ii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction thereby directing the Respondent to treat the petitioner’s technical bid as technically responsive and to evaluate the same strictly in accordance with the terms of the tender document, uninfluenced by the impugned interpretation of clause 11.4(g), for the tender issued by the respondent bearing IFB NO. IPRCL/DELHI/J&K/01, dated 03.06.2026; and
iii) Pass such further or other order(s), as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice.”
8. According to Mr. Uttam Dutt, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner had submitted bid for construction of terminal building with allied facilities at Zero Bridge, Amira Kadal, Maharaj Gunj, Pantha Chowk and Chhatabal Shrine, J&K which is rejected by the Technical Evaluation Committee by simply stating rejected. The Committee has not given any reason for rejecting the bid. He states that as per his information, the financial bids have not been opened.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits as per her instructions, the financial bids have been opened at 1:26 P.M. and a Letter of Acceptance dated 05.08.2026 has also been issued to the successful party, who has accepted the same.
10. If that be so, noting the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent directing the respondent to convey the reasons of rejection of the bid of the petitioner by tomorrow 12:00 noon to enable the petitioner seek such remedy as available in law both on the reasons conveyed and the Letter of Acceptance, if so advised, we dispose of the petition.
