Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited vs Union Of India & Anr.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 03.07.2026
+ W.P.(C) 8524/2026
ROADWAY SOLUTIONS INDIA
INFRA LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr.
Ravi Prakash, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Samir Malik, Mr. Varun Kalra, Ms.
Snehal Kaila and Mr. Krishan Kumar,
Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma ASG with Mr.
Ankur Mittal CGSC, Mr. Abhay
Gupta, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. R.V.
Prabhat, Mr. Shubham Sharma and
Mr. Naman, Advs. for R-1/UOI
Mr. Nipun Jain, Govt. Pleader for R-
1/UOI
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Mr. Abhay Gupta
and Ms. Ipsita Dutta, Advs. for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
1. The present writ petition has been filed by petitioner challenging the
decision of the National Highways Authority of India [‘NHAI’]/respondent
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 1 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
no. 2 declaring its technical bid as ‘Non-Responsive’ in the tender dated
23.01.2026 for the balance work of Package-VIII of the Vadodara-Mumbai
Expressway Project. The petitioner seeks quashing of the technical
evaluation result dated 25.06.2026 and a direction to respondent no. 2 to
undertake a fresh evaluation of its technical bid after duly considering the
clarification response and supporting documents submitted by the petitioner
on 03.06.2026, in accordance with the statement recorded before the Delhi
High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8250/2026 on 19.06.2026.
2. Facts stated in the petition are as under: -
2.1 The petitioner is an established infrastructure company engaged in
execution of large highway projects and has been associated with Package-
VIII of the Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway since its inception. The project
was earlier awarded to the petitioner twice, first under the Hybrid Annuity
Mode [‘HAM’] in 2021, and subsequently under the Engineering,
Procurement & Construction Mode [‘EPC Mode’] in 2023. Disputes arising
from both contracts primarily concerned non-availability of land and right of
way, leading to termination of the contracts and consequent arbitral
proceedings. In relation to the HAM contract, arbitral proceedings
culminated in an award in favour of the petitioner, while disputes
concerning the termination of the EPC contract remain pending in
arbitration.
2.2 The petitioner relies upon the previous award of contracts to contend
that the technical eligibility of the petitioner to perform the contract is,
therefore, not in dispute as it has been associated with the execution of the
project since its inception.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 2 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
2.3 On 23.01.2026, NHAI issued a fresh Request for Proposal [‘RFP’] for
1
the same Bid/Package No. NHAI/2026/PIU-Surat/VME-Pkg-VIII/e-304898
under the EPC mode. The petitioner submitted its Technical Bid along with
all requisite documents. During evaluation, respondent no. 2 issued a
communication dated 21.05.2026 seeking certain clarifications in relation to
the petitioner’s Technical Bid and required the petitioner to furnish its
response on or before 28.05.2026. The petitioner furnished a detailed
clarification response on 03.06.2026 together with supporting documents.
2.4 However, since the response was submitted beyond 28.05.2026, the
petitioner apprehended that its clarification may not be taken into
consideration and therefore, approached the Vacation Bench by filing
W.P.(C) No. 8250/2026 seeking a limited direction that respondent no. 2
consider its clarification response before taking a decision on the Technical
Bid. On 19.06.2026, the writ petition was disposed of after counsel for
respondent no. 2 stated before the Court that the petitioner’s clarification
response and accompanying documents would be considered prior to any
decision being taken on the bid.
2.5 Subsequently, on 25.06.2026, NHAI published the technical
evaluation results declaring the petitioner’s bid ‘Non-Responsive’.
According to the petitioner, the evaluation result does not disclose any
reasons for such rejection, nor does it indicate whether the clarification
response dated 03.06.2026 was considered.
2.6 The petitioner contends that the impugned decision is arbitrary, non-
1
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)"
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 3 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
speaking, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, contrary to the terms of
the RFP, and inconsistent with the statement made before the coordinate
Bench of this Court and the order dated 19.06.2026. The petitioner therefore
seeks judicial intervention for setting aside the impugned decision and
directing a fresh and fair evaluation of its technical bid.
Findings and Analysis
3. The petitioner participated in the RFP issued by respondent no. 2 and
submitted its Technical Bid on 04.05.2026 together with all the documents.
4. In the writ petition, it is stated that respondent no. 2 has published the
impugned Technical Evaluation result dated 25.06.2026 on its e-
procurement portal where the petitioner’s bid has been declared ‘Non-
Responsive’. It is stated that the result does not disclose any reasons for
declaring the petitioner’s Technical Bid as Non-Responsive. The impugned
result annexed with the petition at Annexure 18 reads as under:
“Sir,
Please refer to your bid submitted for the subject. The result of
Technical Evaluation as per clause 2.19 of the RFP is as under:
S.
No.
Name of the Bidder Status
1/9 M/s Agrawal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Non-Responsive
2/9 M/s Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. Responsive
3/9 M/s Bansal Construction Works
Pvt. Ltd.
Responsive
4/9 M/s Ceigall India Limited Responsive
5/9 M/s GR Infraprojects Limited Responsive
6/9 M/s GHV (India) Pvt. Ltd. Non-Responsive
7/9 M/s Kalthia Engineering and
Construction Ltd.
Responsive
8/9 M/s PNC Infratech Ltd. Responsive
9/9 M/s Roadway Solutions India
Infra Limited
Non-Responsive
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 4 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
2. Financial Bid of the above-mentioned technically
responsive/eligible bidders shall be opened after display of result of
Technical Evaluation on the web portal for 7 days (i.e., till
02.07.2026).”
5. The entire petition is premised on the fact that the reasons for
declaring the bid Non-Responsive have not been communicated to the
petitioner.
6. However, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.07.2026,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner handed over a
short-affidavit dated 30.06.2026 enclosing therewith the communication
dated 25.06.2026 received by it from respondent no. 2 setting out the
reasons for declaring its bid non-responsive. The contents of the letter dated
25.06.2026 reads as under:
“Sir,
This is in reference to your bid submitted for the subject project
and the subsequent clarifications sought by the Authority during the
technical evaluation process.
2. The Authority has thoroughly reviewed your submissions,
including your reply to our clarification request. It has been found that
the deficiencies identified during the evaluation have not been
addressed. The Bidder has resubmitted the same Experience Certificate
that was included in the original Bid and has failed to submit the
documentary evidence for the following specific requirement:
• The PCC and/or CC required to demonstrate compliance with
Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP have not been submitted.
3. In the absence of the mandatory documents and information
prescribed under the RFP, the eligibility of the Bidder under Clause
2.2.2.2(ii) cannot be established. Accordingly, the Bid is considered
Technically Non-Responsive and not recommended for further
consideration in the bidding process .”
7. The petitioner contends that the sole reason cited by respondent no. 2
for declaring the bid Non-Responsive is non-submission of a Provisional
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 5 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
Completion Certificate [‘PCC’] along with the Experience Certificate dated
17.04.2026 as per clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP, which is arbitrary as all the
information contained in a PCC or completion certificate has already been
recorded in the said Experience Certificate.
8. The respondent no. 2 confirms that the sole reason for declaring the
bid Non-Responsive is non-submission of a PCC along with the Experience
Certificate dated 17.04.2026. respondent no. 2 submits that it is immaterial
that the information contained in a PCC would be duplication of the contents
of the said Experience Certificate, as submission of PCC stipulated in the
format prescribed for issuance of the Experience Certificate.
9. The short issue arising for consideration is the issue of compliance of
Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP. The relevant Clause reads as under:
“2.2.2.2 Technical Capacity
(i) … …
(ii) For normal Highway projects (including Major
Bridges/ROB/Flyovers/Tunnels): Provided that at least:
one COMPLETED Project i.e., CC/ PCC issued within Original
Scheduled Completion date (without any EOT granted by
Authority) for National Highway or Expressway with 4 – lane or
above configuration with work costing not less than amount equal
to 35% of EPC of the Project – Single Project – i.e., Rs. 516.49 Cr
(exclusive of GST) in the last 5 (five) financial years preceding the
Bid Due Date or till the Bid Due Date. In case the claimed/(s) are
subcontracting/JV project in such a case Approval from the Govt.
Authority/Client is required (restricted to allowable sub-
contracting limit/JV share in original contract).
For the avoidance of doubt, it is clarified that ‘similar completed
work’ shall mean a completed work components similar to the
work for which bid has been invited. Execution of work, which
does not include all major components, shall not be considered as
completion of similar work.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 6 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
Furthermore, in order to claim experience for similar completed
work, the bidder must submit the Experience attached at
Annexure-IX of Appendix-IA, in addition to the certificate from
the Statutory Auditor/Client as specified in Annex-IV of
Appendix-IA. Certificate
For the projects executed by NHAI, the Experience Certificate
shall be issued by the concerned GM (T) at NHAI HQ based on the
recommendation of the Project Director.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this RFP,
it shall be the responsibility of the Bidder to ensure the
compliance of the requirement of above clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of
RFP, else the bidder will be considered Nonresponsive for the
project .”
(the portion in bold and italics is as per the original text )
10. The said Clause, cross-references to the requirement of submission of
Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 by the bidder from its client as per
the format of Annexure IX in Appendix IA. Though, the format of
Experience Certificate runs into three pages, however, only the relevant
extract is being extracted hereunder for consideration of the pleas of the
parties in this writ:
“Appendix-IA
Annexure -IX
Draft Format of Experience Certificate for EPC Projects
(To be issued on the Letterhead of NHAI)
NHAI/PIU/..../2025/.... Date:
EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE
(TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN)
This is to certify that the Authority (Name…….), engaged M/s. [Name
of EPC Contractor] as the EPC Contractor for execution of the project
titled "[Name of work]" awarded under Engineering, Procurement &
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 7 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
Construction (EPC) mode.
2. The details of the project & contractor are as under:
… …”
11. The respondent no. 2 relies upon the requirement of PCC mentioned
at pages 75 and 76 of the Annexure IX at Appendix IA, which reads as
under:
“In addition to the above certificates, Bidders are required to provide
the followings additional information also duly certified by the Client
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this RFP for
the project, it shall be the responsibility of the Bidder to ensure the
compliance of the above requirement, else the bidder will be
considered Non-responsive for the project ”
(the portion in bold and italics is as per the original text )
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 8 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that there is no dispute
that the petitioner has duly submitted the Experience Certificate dated
17.04.2026 as required as per Annexure IX Appendix IA from its client i.e.,
Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. [‘MSRDC’] contents of
which shows that the petitioner has the requisite experience as required
under Clause 2.2.2.2(ii). He states that the only reason cited by respondent
no. 2 for declaring the bid Non-Responsive is that along with this
Experience Certificate, a copy of the PCC has not been submitted. He states
that the details contained in the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026,
issued by the petitioner makes a complete declaration of the relevant
information also found in a PCC and the requirement of enclosing of copy of
the PCC is a mere duplication exercise. He submits that notwithstanding its
aforesaid submissions, the petitioner has now also obtained the PCC dated
30.06.2026 from its client MSRDC and the same is enclosed as an Annexure
A-2 to the short affidavit dated 30.06.2026.
13. In response, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the respondents’
states that the PCC dated 30.06.2026 which has now been handed over along
with the short affidavit dated 30.06.2026 ought to have been submitted along
with the bid or at the least with the clarification dated 03.06.2026. He
submits that there is no doubt that the contents of the PCC dated 30.06.2026
are already enlisted in the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026,
however, since the stipulation at the proforma of Annexure IX Appendix IA
requires a copy of the PCC to be enclosed, the same should have been
provided within the stipulated time.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 9 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
He contends that since the format of Annexure IX at Appendix IA
clearly instructed the bidder to enclose a copy of the PCC, the petitioner
herein had due notice of the said requirement of the tender and sufficient
opportunity was granted to the petitioner to furnish the said information vide
letter dated 21.05.2026. The respondent no. 2 has relied upon the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited and Anr. v. SLL-
2
SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Ors. to contend that since
submission of PCC was a specific term of the format, respondent’s decision
to not condone its non-compliance cannot be termed as arbitrary.
14. The petitioner has sought to repel the aforesaid submission of the
respondent no. 2 by contending that keeping in view the fact that the PCC is
a duplication of the contents of the Experience Certificate, which was duly
submitted with the bid on 04.05.2026, rejection of the bid for non-
submission of the PCC is a hyper-technical approach adopted by the
respondent no. 2 and hence, arbitrary which should be interfered by the
Court in its writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of
the Coordinate Bench in S and P Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.
3
National Highways Authority of India . It further submits that since it has
now also obtained a formal PCC from MSRDC on 30.06.2026, the
deficiency, if any, in the bid stands addressed.
15. The respondent no. 2, however, states that at this belated stage, it
cannot permit the petitioner to redress the deficiency by accepting the PCC
dated 30.06.2026. It contends that petitioner should have taken appropriate
steps for having the said PCC issued prior to 03.06.2026.
2
(2016) 8 SCC 622, at paras 27 to 36
3
2026 SCC OnLine Del 4384, at paras 63 to 65 and 72
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 10 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
16. The short issue arising for consideration in this petition is thus,
whether the submission of the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 per
the format of Annexure IX, of Appendix IA, in compliance with Clause
2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP was in-order, or not, for considering the bid of the
petitioner compliant with the said Clause OR whether the petitioner’s bid
has been rightly declared Non-Responsive for non-submission of the PCC
dated 30.06.2026, in addition to the Experience Certificate dated
17.04.2026.
17. As noted above, the petitioner has contended that the contents of the
PCC dated 30.06.2026 are identical with the contents of the Experience
Certificate dated 17.04.2026 and to this extent the filing of the same is
merely a duplication of the information. It contends that the PCC in no
manner improves the quality of the information required under Clause
2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP for adjudging the technical capacity of the bidder.
However, respondent no. 2 has contended that even though it may be correct
that the information provided in the PCC is a duplication of the information
provided in the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026, since submission
of the PCC is the express requirement of the format prescribed in the RFP,
its non-submission is a valid ground for declaring the bid of the petitioner
Non-Responsive.
18. For deciding this issue, we deem it appropriate to set out the relevant
extract of the entire PCC dated 30.06.2026 and Experience Certificate dated
17.04.2026, both issued by MSRDC, hereunder:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 11 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
“PROVISIONAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
We, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. ,
acting as the Authority, under and in accordance with the Agreement
dated 20.11.2018 (the "Agreement"), for " Construction of access
controlled Nagpur-Mumbai Super communication Expressway
(Maharashtra Samruddhi Mahamarg in the state of Maharashtra on
EPC mode for Package 07, From Km 296.000 to 347.190 (section-
Village Bande to village Sawargaon Mal in district Buldhana" on
Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) basis through M/s
Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd. (Approved Sub-Contractor)
appointed by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (EPC Contractor of
the Project) , hereby certify that the Tests in accordance with Article 12
of the Agreement have been successfully undertaken to determine
compliance of the scope of the Sub-contract of the Project Highway
with the provisions of the Agreement, and we are satisfied that the
Project Highway can be safely and reliably placed in service of the
users thereof.
It is certified that, in terms of the aforesaid Subcontract Agreement, all
works forming part of Project Highway have been provisionally
completed, and the Project Highway is hereby declared it for entry into
operation on this the 31 August 2021.
In addition to the above certificate, the following additional information
is provided hereunder in response to the request made by the
Subcontractor;
Construction Period as per Contract
Agreement
30 months
Original date of completion (without EOT) 09.10.2021
Sub-Contract Value excluding GST 1312.23
Crore
Date of issuance of Provisional
Completion Certificate
As Above
”
(the portion in bold and italics is as per the original text )
The Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 though runs into three
pages, however, the relevant extract of the said Experience Certificate which
replicates the information provided in the PCC dated 30.06.2026 is being
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 12 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
extracted for consideration of the pleas of the parties, hereunder:
19. A comparison of the extract of the Experience Certificate dated
17.04.2026 and the PCC dated 30.06.2026 shows that the information
provided in the said PCC is in conformity with the information provided in
the said Experience Certificate. Also, the information provided in the PCC is
a repetition of the information provided in the Experience Certificate. To
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 13 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
this extent, the submission of the petitioner that the information in the PCC
is a duplication of the information already provided in the Experience
Certificate is duly borne out.
20. We may note that the format of the Experience Certificate at
Annexure IX at Appendix IA is a detailed format running into three pages
where the client of the bidder is required to provide detailed information of
the work executed by the bidder. The details sought by the respondent no. 2
in the format of the Experience Certificate in the RFP is far in excess of the
information which the client ordinarily provides in the PCC or CC. It is
apparent that the details sought in the Experience Certificate are required by
the respondent no. 2 to assess the technical capacity of the bidder and this
format has been tailor made for the subject RFP. The Experience Certificate
is required to be obtained by the bidder from its client contemporaneously,
in the present date, for submission with the bid. As per the RFP, PCC is
required to be ‘enclosed’ with the Experience Certificate. The effect of the
enclosure is that it corroborates the information furnished by the client in the
Experience Certificate.
21. We note that there is no dispute with respect to the veracity of the
Experience Certificate issued by MSRDC. Pertinently, the author of the
Experience Certificate is the client i.e., MSRDC and it is not a self-
declaration by the petitioner. The contents of the PCC now produced by the
petitioner are identical to the contents of the Experience Certificate, which
already stands filed with the respondent no. 2. Thus, all the information
required by the respondent no. 2 for assessing the technical capacity of the
petitioner as per Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP stood filed with Experience
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 14 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
Certificate. In view of the evident duplication of the information, we had
enquired from the respondent no.2 with respect to the necessity of having
the PCC, when the Experience Certificate was issued by the client itself and
already contained the precise information given in the PCC. The
respondent’s counsel had no answer to this query and submitted that since
there is no challenge to this condition of the RFP requiring a PCC in
addition to the Experience Certificate, and thus a bidder who fails to provide
the PCC is liable to have its bid rejected. The aforesaid answer of the
respondent no. 2 shows that there is no dispute that the information sought
in the Experience Certificate and the PCC is same and the information
provided in the PCC does not in any manner enhance the information
provided to the respondent no. 2 for evaluation of the technical capacity of
the bidder.
22. In our considered opinion, had the Experience Certificate been a self-
declaration by the bidder, the requirement of furnishing a PCC issued by the
client would have served a legitimate purpose of corroborating the
information disclosed in the Experience Certificate. However, in the present
case, the Experience Certificate itself has been issued by the client, namely
MSRDC, and its authenticity is not in dispute. In such circumstances,
insistence upon submission of a separate PCC issued by the same authority
amounts to an unduly technical approach, particularly when the PCC does
not furnish any additional or superior information beyond what is already
contained in the Experience Certificate and, therefore, does not materially
aid the assessment of the bidder’s technical capacity.
23. The facts also show that the PCC has been issued by MSRDC only on
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 15 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
30.06.2026 at the request of the petitioner, and it had not been otherwise
issued prior thereto to the contractor and the sub-contractor. It appears that
prior to this MSRDC had not issued a PCC to the contractor or the sub-
Contractor and therefore, as a matter of fact no PCC existed. In these
circumstances submission of the PCC along with the bid was not possible
for the petitioner and therefore, this is not a case of omission by the bidder.
24. We find that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of S
and P Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is apposite in the facts
of this case. The information sought by the respondent no. 2 for assessing
the technical capacity of the bidder as per Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP has
been duly provided by furnishing the Experience Certificate dated
17.04.2026, veracity whereof is not in dispute. The exclusion of the
petitioner from the bidding process for non-filing of the PCC along with the
Experience Certificate, even though it duplicates the information already
filed, in our opinion, qualifies as a hyper technical approach by the
respondent no. 2.
25. Though, we are unable to accept the submission of the respondent no.
2 that non-submission of the PCC amounts to non-compliance with the
essential term of the RFP and justifies rejection of the bid, we, however,
note that since the PCC has since been obtained by the petitioner on
30.06.2026 and has been filed prior to the financial bids being opened, the
deficiency, if any, stands cured. The participation of the petitioner will
enhance the competitiveness of the tender process and is in public interest.
26. The reliance placed by the respondent on the judgment of Central
Coalfields Limited (supra) is misplaced in the facts of the present case. The
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 16 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
principle enunciated therein, namely that the employer is ordinarily entitled
to insist upon strict compliance with essential tender conditions, has no
application where the substantive requirement underlying the condition
already stands fulfilled. In the present case, the object of Clause 2.2.2.2(ii)
of the RFP was to enable the Authority to assess the technical capacity and
experience of the bidder. The requisite information for such assessment was
comprehensively furnished through the Experience Certificate dated
17.04.2026, duly issued by the client, MSRDC, the authenticity and contents
whereof have not been disputed by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no.
2 has also been unable to demonstrate that the PCC would have supplied any
additional material information relevant to the evaluation of the bidder’s
eligibility. Once the Experience Certificate issued by the client MSRDC had
been furnished and the technical credentials of the petitioner stood duly
evidenced thereby, the essential requirement of the RFP stood substantially
complied with. Moreso, no PCC had in fact been issued by MSRDC prior to
30.06.2026 and, therefore, the petitioner could not have furnished a
document which was not in existence at the relevant time.
27. We, accordingly, set aside the Technical Evaluation result dated
25.06.2026, insofar as it declares the petitioner’s bid as Non-Responsive on
the ground of non-submission of the PCC in compliance with Clause
2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP. The respondent no. 2 is directed to evaluate the
petitioner’s technical bid after duly taking into consideration the PCC dated
30.06.2026 and consider the financial bid of the petitioner along with the
other technically qualified bidders.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 17 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53
28. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed. Pending
applications stand disposed of.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
msh/AM
JULY 03, 2026/
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 8524/2026 Page 18 of 18
Signed By:HEMANT
PRATAP SINGH
Signing Date:03.07.2026
20:53