M/S SHIV CONSTRUCTION JOINT VENTURES vs UNION OF INDIA

UKHC010156272026

2026:UHC:8031-DB
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order with
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
SL. No. Date
Signatures


WPMB/725/2026
M/s Shiv Construction Joint Ventures
--Petitioner

Versus
Union Of India and others
--Respondents
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. Priyansh Mittal, Advocate holding brief
of Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Suniti Bhatt, Standing Counsel for
Union of India through video conferencing.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate with Mr.
Paritosh Dalakoti, Advocate for the caveator.
Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent
No. 3 through video conferencing.
Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for respondent
No. 4.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following reliefs:
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of
certiorari to quash the resolution dated 29/08/2026 of
the Technical Evaluation Committee (Annexure No.
7; Page Nos. 70 to 83) by which the technical bid has
been declared as a qualified technical bid of M/S.
Narayan Singh.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of
mandamus commanding the respondents to act upon
the representation of 25th July 2026 (Annexure No. 6;
Page Nos. 66 to 69) and to ensure strict adherence to
the basic aspects of the standard bidding document.”

3. Petitioner submitted bid in response to a NIT,
issued by Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development
Agency. Technical bid submitted by petitioner was
found to be responsive; however, upon opening

UKHC010156272026

2026:UHC:8031-DB
financial bid, he was found to be third lowest
bidder (L3), while respondent No. 6 was found to
be L1. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has
approached this Court.
4. The only ground of challenge raised by the
petitioner is that the experience certificate, which
has been relied upon for declaring respondent No.
6 to be successful bidder, was issued on
07.02.2026 while NIT was issued on 28.01.2026.
Thus, it is contended that a certificate which is
issued subsequent to issuance of NIT cannot be
relied upon.
5. The experience certificate dated 07.02.2026
issued by Executive Engineer, National Highway
Division, PWD, Barkot, Uttarkashi is on record as
Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Perusal of the said
document reveals that respondent No. 6 was
engaged as sub-contractor in the work of
Rehabilitation and Upgradation of
Single/Intermediate Lane to 2 Lane from existing
Chainage (Km 64.525 to Km 74.700).
6. Said certificate further reveals that date of
commencement of work was 19.03.2025 and as
per remark made at the bottom of the certificate,
the work mentioned in the certificate has been
completed satisfactory.

UKHC010156272026

2026:UHC:8031-DB
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that regarding same contract, respondent No. 6
declared in his bid that it is an ongoing work and
at some other place he mentioned that the work is
completed. Thus it is contended that the bid
submitted by respondent No. 6 could not have
been accepted.
8. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing
for Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development
Agency, on instructions, submits that work of sub
contract awarded to respondent No. 6 was
completed on 21.01.2026, which is much before
issuance of NIT. He submits that merely because
the experience certificate was issued at a later date
will not denude respondent No. 6 of the benefit of
the work, which was completed by him on
21.01.2026.
9. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the
matter.
10. There is growing tendency on the part of
unsuccessful bidders to challenge tender process
on some ground or other. Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of M/s N.G. Projects Limited Vs. M/s
Vinod Kumar Jain and others, reported as 2022
LiveLaw (SC) 302 however has held that process
of award of contract should not be lightly

UKHC010156272026

2026:UHC:8031-DB
interfered. Para 21 and 22 of the said judgment is
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 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 malafide. 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.”

11. For the reasons as discussed above, the writ
petition fails and is dismissed.







(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
07.09.2026

Mahinder/



MAHINDER
SINGH
Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a
18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1
BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH
Date: 2026.09.07 20:29:12 +05'30'