MANEESH CONSTRUCTION THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, A.C.J.
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
th
29 October , 2026
Writ Petition (M/B) No.134 of 2025
Maneesh Construction through its authorized partner
Maneesh Saran
------Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others -----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Abhijay Negi and Mr. Priyansh Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent no.1.
Mr. Vipul Sharma and Mr. Siddhartha Bankoti, learned counsel for
respondent no.2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT: ( per Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J. )
1. Rural Works Department invited bids for
construction of Circuit House at Pithoragarh in two bid
system. Petitioner submitted bid in response to the
notice inviting tender, however, his technical bid was
declared to be non-responsive vide order dated
28.03.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has
approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the decision as taken by the
employer of Uttarakhand Rural Works Department to
disqualify the technical bid as submitted by the
petitioner by the impugned order dated 28th March,
2025 along with 24th March, 2025. (Annexure No.7
and 13).
ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of
certiorari to quash the opening of the financial bid
(Annexure 15) of the private Respondent Number 2
1
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
as being discriminatory to the Petitioner and contrary
to the E-Procurement Rules.
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent Uttarakhand
Rural Works Department to consider the technical bid
of the petitioner in the further stages of the pending
process as initiated by the advertisement dated 21st
February, 2025. (Annexure No.2).
iv. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus commanding the respondent Uttarakhand
Rural Works Department to ensure the due
compliance of the Uttarakhand E-Procurement Rules,
2017, as has been done previously with regard to the
complaint technical bid of the petitioner firm in the
earlier round of tender even in the present tender
st
pursuant to the advertisement dated 21 February,
2025.”
2. The Bid Evaluation Report of Part-1 of bids is
enclosed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Relevant
extract of the said report qua the petitioner is extracted
below:
2 Maneesh
1. “The contractor has not
Construction
attached the required forms LIT-1
(Pending Litigation) and PER-2
(Personnel Resume) as specified
in annexure in the Standard
Bidding Document (SBD)
uploaded. Submission of these
forms is mandatory as per Clause
12 and 27.1 c of the Instructions
to Bidders (ITB) Failure to submit
these forms or any alteration in
the prescribed text renders the
bid ineligible for evaluation."
2- The contractor has submitted
two bids using the same
registration ID, on the employer's
government e procurement portal
https//www.uktenders.gov.in as
2
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
[email protected],
as evident in letter of technical
bid in both the bids which is a
violation of the provisions of the
Standard Bidding Document
(SBD). As per Clause 4.3 (b) and
(c) of the Instructions to by
Bidders (ITB) under the heading
'Conflict of Interest,' submission
of multiple bids by the same
entity or its affiliates is considered
a conflict of interest and is strictly
prohibited. Therefore, the
contractor is ineligible for...
3. Perusal of above extracted Bid Evaluation
Report reveals that petitioner’s bid was found to be
non-responsive due to following reasons:
i) Information regarding pending litigation
was not submitted in prescribed form i.e.
LIT-1.
ii) Resume of proposed personnel was not
submitted in prescribed form i.e. PER-2
iii) Petitioner had submitted two bids using
the same registration I.D. on the
e-procurement portal of the employer which
is violative of Clause 4.3 (b) & (c) of the
instructions to bidders.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner’s technical bid was wrongly declared as
non-responsive; petitioner submitted information
3
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
regarding pending litigation in the prescribed performa;
petitioner has nothing to do with the other bidder i.e.
M/s Sunehari Bagh Builders Pvt. Ltd. who wrongly
mentioned petitioner’s email I.D. in its technical bid. He
further submits that petitioner has no relationship
whatsoever with directors/ promoters of M/s Sunehari
Bagh Builders Pvt. Ltd.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed by Mr.
Kamlesh Kumar Joshi, Executive Engineer, Rural Works
Department, Division Bhimtal at Nainital. Paragraph
nos. 5 & 13 of the said counter affidavit are reproduced
below:
“5. That the petitioner, along with three other
bidders, submitted their respective bids for the
project on or before 23.03.2025. The technical
bids were opened on 24.03.2025 at 2:00 p.m.,
wherein the petitioner’s bid was initially found to
be technically responsive. However, upon
detailed scrutiny of the documents by the
Technical Evaluation Committee, in accordance
with the provisions of the Instructions to Bidders
(ITB) as contained in the Standard Bidding
Document, it was observed that the petitioner
and one M/s Sunehari Bagh Builders Pvt. Ltd.
had both mentioned the same user ID in their
respective Letters of Technical Bid. This was
found to be in clear violation of Clauses 12,
27.1(c), and 4.3(c), (d), and (e) of the ITB.
Furthermore, the petitioner failed to submit the
mandatory forms LIT-1 and PER-2 in the
prescribed formats, as required under the
Standard Bidding Document. In view of these
discrepancies and violations, the petitioner's bid
was declared non-responsive in the technical
evaluation conducted by the Tender Committee.
The outcome of the technical evaluation was
duly uploaded by the Department on the
4
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
Uttarakhand e-procurement portal on
25.03.2025 at 6:00 p.m. the notice specifically
mentioned that any aggrieved party could
submit a complaint with respect to the technical
evaluation within three days of the publication of
the result, through email. In accordance with
the said condition, the petitioner submitted a
complaint later that night on 25.03.2025. The
said complaint was examined by the Department
on the following day, i.e., 26.03.2025. After due
consideration, the Tender Committee finalized
the Complaint Resolution Report on 28.03.2025
at 5:00 p.m., and the same was duly
communicated to the petitioner via email on the
same day.
13. That it is also pertinent to bring on record
that both Sunehari Bagh Builder and the
petitioner got their respective documents and
affidavits notarized by the same Notary Public,
on the same date and at the same time. The
identical timestamp and the use of the same
Notary strongly indicate a coordinated act.,
which come under violation of ITB on the
movement when both bidder used the same ID.
A true and correct/typed copy of the details
respective documents and affidavits notarized
by the same Notary Public in this regard is being
annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.
9 & 10 to this affidavit.”
6. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner
not only failed to submit requisite information regarding
pending litigation and personnel resume in prescribed
format but he also deliberately suppressed the
information regarding WPMB No.90/2025 filed by him,
which was pending at the time of submission of bid by
petitioner.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.2 submits that petitioner’s contention that M/s
Sunehari Bagh Builders Pvt. Ltd. wrongly mentioned
5
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
petitioner’s I.D. in its technical bid is an afterthought
and petitioner has not indicated what steps he has
taken against M/s Sunehari Bagh Builders Pvt. Ltd. for
wrongly using his email ID.
8. Upon perusal of documents enclosed with the
writ petition, we find that information regarding
pending litigation was not submitted by petitioner in
the prescribed form i.e. LIT-1. Similarly, resume of
proposed personnel which was submitted by petitioner
was not as required by the Standard Bidding
Document.
9. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner
had attempted to form a cartel to anyhow grab the
contract even by adopting unfair means. Learned State
Counsel points out that not only M/s Sunehari Bagh
Builders Pvt. Ltd. had mentioned email I.D. of
petitioner in its bid for future communication but its bid
document was notarized by the same notary who
notarized petitioner’s bid and the affidavit filed in
support of the bid was also sworn on the same date
and time as that of petitioner.
10. Since the bid submitted by petitioner failed to
meet the requirement of the Standard Bidding
6
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
Document thus, employer was justified in rejecting his
technical bid. Even otherwise also submission of two
bids using the same registration I.D. indicates an
attempt at cartelization. Since the employer had asked
every bidder to submit information regarding pending
litigation but petitioner did not submit information
regarding the writ petition which was filed by him and
was pending on the date of submission of bid.
11. A bid which does not bind the bidder to his
offer is no bid in the eyes of law. A binding bid is a firm
legal offer that obligates the bidder to honour their
terms once accepted, whereas a non binding proposal
or a “no-bid” decision means no enforceable
commitment has been established. Binding bid, when
submitted, acts as a legal commitment. Once accepted
by the buyer or employer, the bidder must complete
the transaction or face default penalties.
12. 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 employer
or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid
7
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
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.
13. In the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited
v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., reported in
(2016) 16 SCC 818 , has held as under:-
“ 13 . In other words, a mere disagreement with the
decisionmaking 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.”
14. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra) , it
was further held that the owner or employer of a
project, having authored the tender documents, is the
best person to understand and appreciate its
requirements and interpret its documents;
constitutional Courts must defer to his understanding
and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there
is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or
8
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
appreciation or in the application of the terms of the
tender conditions. It was further held that it is possible
that the owner or employer of a project may give an
interpretation to the tender documents, which 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.
9
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
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 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
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
10
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
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 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
11
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
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. 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
12
UKHC010043942025
2026:UHC:9849-DB
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].”
19. In view of the legal position, as discussed
above, the relief as claimed by the petitioner cannot be
granted. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed.
20. Interim order dated 02.04.2025 is vacated.
21. The employer shall now proceed in the
matter, as per law.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)
29.10.2026 29.10.2026
KK/SS
13