MS TARA DATT PALARIA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
- Court
- Uttarakhand High Court
UKHC010093222026
2026:UHC:9412-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 435 of 2026
14 October, 2026
Ms. Tara Datt Palaria … Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, ACJ.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhydy, J.
(Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, ACJ)
1. Petitioner’s technical bid, submitted for the
work of hill side cutting and muck disposal work (Phase
II stage-I) and Construction of wall and cross drainage
work (Phase-II stage-2) in Kathgodam to Ranibag
section of National Highway No. 87, was declared to be
non-responsive for the following reason:-
“As per Sec. IV, Cl 2.2 (C) and Form Tech-13(B) Bidder do
not upload Existing Commitments certificate issued by
Chartered Accountant.”
2. Petitioner contends that he submitted
certificate issued by Executive Engineer of the
Executing Agency and there was no requirement of
submitting certificate duly signed by Chartered
Accountant. He relies upon Clause 2.2 (C) Section IV of
Standard Document for Procurement of Works
(Government of Uttarakhand), which is extracted
below:-
“C. Bidders who meet the above specified minimum
qualifying criteria, will only be qualified, if their available bid
capacity is more than the total tender value. The available
bid capacity will be calculated as under:
Assessed Available Bid Capacity=(A x N x 2 – B)
1
UKHC010093222026
2026:UHC:9412-DB
A= Maximum value of civil Engineering works executed
in any single year during the last five years (updated to the
price level of the financial year 2024-25 @ 5% per year
indicated taking into account the completed as well as works
in progress).
N= Number of years prescribed for completion of the
works for which bids are invited (period of 6 months to be
taken as (1/2) half-year and more than six months as one
year).
B= Value, at the current price level, of the existing
commitments on on-going works to be completed during the
period of completion of the works for which bids are
invited).
Note- The Statements showing the value of existing
commitments and ongoing works as well as the stipulated
period of completion remaining for each of the works listed
should be countersigned by the Engineer-in Charge, not
below the rank of an Executive Engineer or equivalent.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that the defect, if any, in petitioner’s technical
bid does not affect his bid capacity, therefore, his
technical bid could not have been declared to be non-
responsive only on the ground that Chartered
Accountant’s certificate, in respect of existing
commitments, was not uploaded.
4. Learned State Counsel, however, drew
attention of this Court to proforma of Form Tech 13
(Information on Bid Capacity) enclosed at page 56 of
the writ petition, which provides that while furnishing
information regarding existing commitment or on-going
works, a bidder is also required to submit certificate
issued by Chartered Accountant with certificate of
Executive Engineer. The information, which every
bidder is required to submit, is mentioned in tabular
form, which is reproduced below:-
“ B) Existing Commitments and on-going Works:
2
UKHC010093222026
2026:UHC:9412-DB
Description
of Work
Place
&
State
Contract
No.
Name and
address of
Employer
Value of
Contract
(Rs.)
Stipulated
period of
Completion
Value of
works
remaining to
be
completed
(Rs.)
Anticipated
date of
Completion
Note: Certificate issued by Chartered Accountant should be submitted
along with work order and Certificate issued by Executive
Engineer/Competent Authority on progress of work.”
5. This Court finds substance in the submission
made by learned State Counsel. Since Form Tech 13
prescribes that Chartered Accountant’s certificate
regarding existing commitments and on-going works
has to be submitted by every bidder and petitioner did
not submit Chartered Accountant’s certificate,
therefore, rejection of petitioner’s technical bid on the
ground that such certificate was not furnished, cannot
be faulted.
6. The expression “existing commitment” used
in Standard Bidding Document of Uttarakhand Rural
Roads Development Agency was considered by
coordinate Bench in WPMB No. 756 of 2026 vide
judgment dated 10.01.2026. Relevant extract of the
judgment in that writ petition is reproduced below:-
“ 14. Clause 1.3.3 of Section 3 of SBD makes it clear that a
bidder is required to submit information regarding the ‘works
for which bids have been submitted’ besides the works which
are yet to be completed. This leaves no room for doubt that
ever bidder is required to submit information not only
regarding the ongoing works, but also for other works
wherefor bids have been submitted by the bidder. Merely
because there is no column in the table given in Clause 1.3.3
regarding works for which bids have been submitted, will not
absolve petitioner from the liability to furnish information
regarding other works for which he has submitted bids.
Participation by petitioner in bidding process for some other
road construction work amounts to ‘commitment’, as once he
is declared successful in that tender process and contract is
awarded to him, then he cannot back out of his obligation
under such contract and failure on his part to execute that
work, may make him liable to penal action. Thus,
participation by petitioner in some other bidding process with
3
UKHC010093222026
2026:UHC:9412-DB
same or other employer creates an ‘existing commitment’
and petitioner was under a duty to furnish information
regarding such commitment to enable the employer
(respondent no.1) to evaluate his bid capacity. Thus, the
contention raised by learned Counsel for petitioner is bereft
of merit and the same is, accordingly discarded.”
7. 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 of a project
tender should not be interfered with and interference is
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.
8. 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
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.”
9. 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.
4
UKHC010093222026
2026:UHC:9412-DB
Constitutional Courts must defer to his 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, which is not acceptable to the
Constitutional Courts, but that by itself is not a reason
for interfering with the interpretation given.
10. 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
5
UKHC010093222026
2026:UHC:9412-DB
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.”
11. In the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin
International Airport Ltd. and others, reported as
(2000) 2 SCC 617 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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 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
6
UKHC010093222026
2026:UHC:9412-DB
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.”
12. 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 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
7
UKHC010093222026
2026:UHC:9412-DB
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.
13. Learned State Counsel points out that in
recent times, due to influx of tourists to Nainital and
Kainchi Dham, vehicular movement has increased
manifold and because of the bottleneck created at
Ranibagh due to landslide, huge problem of traffic jam
is being faced everyday and people are stranded for
several hours altogether. Thus, it is contended that the
project in question, for which tender process was held,
is not only necessary for easing the problem of traffic
jam, but it is also a project of strategic importance.
14. As discussed above, petitioner failed to
submit Chartered Account’s certificate, which every
bidder was required to submit. Thus, we do not find
any scope for interference in the matter. Accordingly,
the writ petition fails and is dismissed. Interim order, if
any, stands vacated.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, ACJ
____________________________
SUBHADH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 14.10.2026
Aswal
Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a0 8b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DA CF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.10.16 03:33:42 -07'00'
NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL
8