BASANT BALLABH PUNETHA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
November 04, 2026
Writ Petition (M/B) No.500 of 2026
Basant Ballabh Punetha ----Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ----Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, learned Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned
Standing Counsel and Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
(per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
JUDGMENT:
1. Petitioner is a registered contractor in ‘A’ category
with State Public Works Department. He responded to a
Notice Inviting Tender by submitting bid in Two-Bid System.
His technical bid, however, was declared to be non-responsive
by the Technical Evaluation Committee, vide order dated
11.05.2026.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the
decision, whereby his technical bid was declared to be non-
responsive. The reasons indicated for declaring petitioner’s
1
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
bid as non-responsive are mentioned in the Bid Evaluation
Report of Part I of Bids, which are as follows:-
S.No. Name of
Bidder
Brief reasons for rejection
1. Basant Ballabh
Punetha
1. Submitted similar nature of certificate is
inappropriate (not fulfilling the criteria as per NIT
clause No.-19) (P-19,21)
2. Suspicious technical person details
submitted P-110
3. Petitioner submitted representation against
rejection of his technical bid. His representation was also
rejected by a reasoned order, which is extracted below:-
“Contractor have stated that the experience certificate was
attached as per the tender requirements, a detailed scrutiny
reveals that the work executed does not align with the specific
technical parameters defined in Clause No.19 of NIT
“Bidder should have completed as single work of Complete
Stage as per SBD having hill side cutting component equal
1/3 of the hill side cutting value as per BOQ
OR
Bidder should have completed a single work of Stage-II or
Complete Stage of value as mentioned in SBD and an
additional work of Stage-I having hill side cutting
Component equal to 1/3 of the hill side cutting value as per BoQ”
of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).
The nature of the work mentioned in your submitted certificate
(P-19, 21) does not fulfill the eligibility criteria required for this
specific project. Consequently, it has been marked as
inappropriate .
Regarding the degree certificates and affidavits provided for
technical staff, the department noted discrepancies that raise
concern regarding the authenticity and current engagement of the
personnel listed.
Upon verification, the details provided at Page 110 were found to
be suspicious/non-verifiable in accordance with the
department’s standard verification protocols. Merely attaching an
2
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
affidavit does not override the requirement for verifiable and
credible document.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner’s technical bid was wrongly declared to be non-
responsive, inasmuch as, as sub-contractor, petitioner had
executed the work of hill side cutting on behalf of another
firm, namely, M/s Ganga Prasad Punetha, in respect of
contract no.UT-09-515, Upgradation of Madkot to Bauna
Motor Road, Block Munsyari, District Pithoragarh under
PMGSY and the benefit of experience earned by petitioner in
the said work was wrongly overlooked.
5. It is further contended that petitioner had named a
technical person and also uploaded his affidavit stating he is
willing and would be available for discharging duties as Site
Engineer, in case contract is awarded to the petitioner,
however, the nomination made by petitioner was brushed
aside by saying that the detail of technical person was found
to be suspicious.
6. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for
Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency (respondent
nos.2 and 3) submits that experience of hill side cutting work,
alleged to be done by the petitioner, was of much lesser value
than what was required. He drew attention of this Court to
3
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
Clause 19 of the NIT, which is reproduced below :-
“19. Bidder should have completed a single work of Complete
Stage as per SBD having hill side cutting component equal to
rd
1/3 of the hill side cutting value as per BoQ.”
7. Learned counsel for the parties are unanimous on
the point that the value of work of hill side cutting in the
rd
contract in question is ₹ 96,12,788; thus, 1/3 of the said
amount would be ₹ 32,04,262.67.
8. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 further
submits that the communication dated 16.06.2026 issued by
General Manager (Civil), BRIDCUL Headquarters, clearly
indicates that the value of work of hill side cutting in the
contract which was awarded by BRIDCUL to M/s Ganga
Prasad Punetha, was only ₹ 12,23,800.00 (exclusive of GST),
therefore, the experience of the petitioner was not as
required by the NIT.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, refers
to Clause 6 of the communication dated 16.06.2026 issued by
the General Manager (Civil), BRIDCUL Headquarters, wherein
it is mentioned that value of hill side cutting work should
have been mentioned as ₹ 6242515.32.
10. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 further
submits that the technical person, named by petitioner, in his
4
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
technical bid, who has to work as Site Engineer, is presently
more than 79 years of age. Thus, it is contended that a
person, who is that old, cannot efficiently discharge duties in
a high altitude area and this was another reason for declaring
petitioner’s technical bid as non-responsive.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that petitioner’s technical bid could not have been declared to
be non-responsive merely because technical person was an
old man and, if at all it was creating a doubt, in that event
also, petitioner should have been given an opportunity to
replace the technical person by another technical
professional, who is comparatively young.
12. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter as the
reasons assigned for declaring petitioner’s bid to be non-
responsive cannot be said to be so arbitrary so as to warrant
interference of this Court while exercising power of judicial
review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. Even otherwise also, in such matters, scope of
judicial review is very limited. In the case of Central
Coalfields Limited & another vs. SLL-SML (Joint
Venture Consortium) & others, reported as (2016) 8
SCC 622 it was held that decision making process of the
5
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the
bid of a project tender should not be interfered with and
interference would be permissible only if the decision making
process is mala fide or intended to favour someone. It was
further held that the decision should not be interfered with
unless it is so arbitrary or irrational that the court can say
that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting
reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have
reached.
14. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited Vs.
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another,
reported as (2016) 16 SCC 818. Para 13 and 15 of said
judgment are reproduced below:-
“13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision-
making process or the decision of the administrative authority
is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The
threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or
arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the
constitutional court interferes with the decision-making process
or the decision.
15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project,
having authored the tender documents, is the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its
documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender documents,
unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or
appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender
conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a
project may give an interpretation to the tender documents
6
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by
itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation
given.”
15. In Raunaq International Ltd vs I.V.R.
Construction Ltd. And Ors reported as (1999) 1 SCC
492, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“11. When a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging
the award of a contract by a public authority or the State, the
court must be satisfied that there is some element of public
interest involved in entertaining such a petition. If, for
example, the dispute is purely between two tenderers, the
court must be very careful to see if there is any element of
public interest involved in the litigation. A mere difference in
the prices offered by the two tenderers may or may not be
decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in
intervening in such a commercial transaction. It is important to
bear in mind that by court intervention, the proposed project
may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost far more
than any saving which the court would ultimately effect in
public money by deciding the dispute in favour of one tenderer
or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the court is satisfied
that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the
transaction is entered into mala fide, the court should not
intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival
tenderers.
12. …..
13. Hence before entertaining a writ petition and passing any
interim orders in such petitions, the court must carefully weigh
conflicting public interests. Only when it comes to a conclusion
that there is an overwhelming public interest in entertaining
the petition, the court should intervene.
14. Where there is an allegation of mala fides or an allegation
that the contract has been entered into for collateral purposes
and the court is satisfied on the material before it that the
allegation needs further examination, the court would be
7
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
entitled to entertain the petition. But even here, the court
must weigh the consequences in balance before granting
interim orders.
15. Where the decision-making process has been structured
and the tender conditions set out the requirements, the court
is entitled to examine whether these requirements have been
considered. However, if any relaxation is granted for bona fide
reasons, the tender conditions permit such relaxation and the
decision is arrived at for legitimate reasons after a fair
consideration of all offers, the court should hesitate to
intervene.”
16. In the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin
International Airport Ltd. and others, reported as
(2000) 2 SCC 617, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
“7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its
corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and
agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision
of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority of India [(1979) 3 SCC 489] , Fertilizer
Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC
568] , CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC
(Tax) 75] , Tata Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651]
, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra [(1997) 1 SCC
134] and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.
[(1999) 1 SCC 492] The award of a contract, whether it is by a
private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a
commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision
considerations which are paramount are commercial
considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive
at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender
and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into
negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers
made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for
awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona
8
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation.
It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the
highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations,
instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the
norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and
cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is
not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the
decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by
mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its
corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public
duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is
found in the decision-making process the court must exercise
its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution
and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and
not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should
always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to
decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when
it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest
requires interference, the court should intervene.”
17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s N.G.
Projects Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Jain & others, reported
as (2022) 6 SCC 127 has held that the constitutional Courts
should refrain from interfering with tender process for
infrastructure projects, as interference in such matters stalls
projects of national importance and results in cost overrun.
Paragraph nos. 21 to 23 of the said judgment are extracted
below:-
“21. Since the construction of road is an infrastructure project
and keeping in view the intent of the legislature that
infrastructure projects should not be stayed, the High Court
would have been well advised to hold its hand to stay the
9
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
construction of the infrastructure project. Such provision
should be kept in view even by the writ court while exercising
its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22. The satisfaction whether a bidder satisfies the tender
condition is primarily upon the authority inviting the bids. Such
authority is aware of expectations from the tenderers while
evaluating the consequences of non-performance. In the
tender in question, there were 15 bidders. Bids of 13 tenderers
were found to be unresponsive i.e. not satisfying the tender
conditions. The writ petitioner was one of them. It is not the
case of the writ petitioner that action of the Technical
Evaluation Committee was actuated by extraneous
considerations or was mala fide. Therefore, on the same set of
facts, different conclusions can be arrived at in a bona fide
manner by the Technical Evaluation Committee. Since the view
of the Technical Evaluation Committee was not to the liking of
the writ petitioner, such decision does not warrant for
interference in a grant of contract to a successful bidder.
23. In view of the above judgments of this Court, the writ
court should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the
decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the bid
of a tenderer. The Court does not have the expertise to
examine the terms and conditions of the present day economic
activities of the State and this limitation should be kept in
view. Courts should be even more reluctant in interfering with
contracts involving technical issues as there is a requirement
of the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon such issues. The
approach of the Court should be not to find fault with
magnifying glass in its hands, rather the Court should examine
as to whether the decision-making process is after complying
with the procedure contemplated by the tender conditions. If
the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that the
tender has been granted in a mala fide manner, still the Court
should refrain from interfering in the grant of tender but
instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful
exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract.
10
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional
costs on the State and is also against public interest.
Therefore, the State and its citizens suffer twice, firstly by
paying escalation costs and secondly, by being deprived of the
infrastructure for which the present day Governments are
expected to work.”
18. In the case of Tata Motors Ltd. Vs. Brihan
Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking
(BEST) and others, reported as (2023) 19 SCC 1 ,
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that ordinarily, a writ court
should refrain itself from imposing its decision over the
decision of the employer as to whether or not to accept the
bid of a tenderer unless something very gross or palpable is
pointed out. Para 55 of the said judgment is reproduced
below:
“55. Ordinarily, a writ court should refrain itself from imposing
its decision over the decision of the employer as to whether or
not to accept the bid of a tenderer unless something very
gross or palpable is pointed out. The court ordinarily should
not interfere in matters relating to tender or contract. To set at
naught the entire tender process at the stage when the
contract is well underway, would not be in public interest.
Initiating a fresh tender process at this stage may consume lot
of time and also loss to the public exchequer to the tune of
crores of rupees. The financial burden/implications on the
public exchequer that the State may have to meet with if the
Court directs issue of a fresh tender notice, should be one of
the guiding factors that the Court should keep in mind. This is
evident from a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in
Assn. of Registration Plates v. Union of India [Assn. of
Registration Plates v. Union of India, (2005) 1 SCC 679].”
11
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
19. Two reasons have been indicated for declaring
petitioner’s technical bid as non-responsive. Both the reasons
are referable to the conditions of NIT. The first reason is that
petitioner does not have sufficient experience of dealing with
similar project. The opinion formed by the Technical
Evaluation Committee cannot be said to be without any basis
as the letter issued by General Manager (Civil), BRIDCUL
Headquarters, indicates that the value of hill side cutting
work done by petitioner as sub-contractor of M/s Ganga
Prasad Punetha was less than ₹ 12.50 lakhs, while one should
have minimum experience of undertaking hill side cutting
work of the value of ₹ 3204262.67.
20. Similarly, the technical person named by the
petitioner, who has to discharge duties as Site Engineer, was
79 years old. Petitioner contends that the same person is
employed by him for the last six years. Since the road
construction work under the contract in question has to be
undertaken in adverse climatic conditions in a high altitude
area, therefore, the opinion formed by the employer about
the technical person named by petitioner, is not interferable
under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
12
UKHC010104102026
2026:UHC:10183-DB
21. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the legal
position, as discussed above, we do not find any scope for
interference in the matter. Writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed. Interim order dated 30.06.2026 is
vacated.
22. No order as to costs.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 04.11.2026
Rajni
13