Inter-se tender disputes between competing bidders cannot ordinarily be adjudicated through a PIL.

The appeals challenged the Division Bench judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in PIL No. CWPIL No. 30 of 2024, which quashed the award of work to the appellant and directed the authorities to re-tender the remaining work for upgrading the Matiana–Mahori/Chhaila road under PMGSY Package No. HP-09-694.

The PIL principally questioned the comparative eligibility and evaluation of the appellant’s bid vis-à-vis another bidder, M/s PK Construction Pvt. Ltd.

The High Court considered, inter alia, contradictory official positions concerning a complaint by the unsuccessful bidder, the appellant’s experience as a sub-contractor or prime contractor, the use of two different names, compliance with sub-contracting conditions, and discrepancies between the appellant’s experience certificate and the work actually performed.

The Supreme Court also noted that the PIL petitioner was allegedly the alter ego of the unsuccessful bidder, whose complaint against the appellant had subsequently been withdrawn.

During the appeal, the appellant stated that approximately three kilometres of road, including retaining and breast walls, had been completed and undertook to complete the work at the rates prevailing when the contract was awarded on 15 March 2024.

Whether the validity of a tender, involving an inter se comparative assessment of competing bidders, can properly be challenged through a public interest litigation?

Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was justified in quashing the award of work and directing re-tendering?

Whether the appellant should be permitted to complete the awarded work subject to a time limit and verification of the quality of construction?

The Court applied the principle that public interest litigation is not ordinarily an appropriate vehicle for resolving essentially private or inter se disputes concerning the comparative eligibility and evaluation of competing tenderers, particularly where the petitioner is connected with an unsuccessful bidder.

Judicial review of tender matters must remain consistent with the public-interest character of PIL and cannot be used to advance the commercial claims of a rival bidder.

The Court also exercised its remedial discretion to mould relief in light of subsequent events, the progress of the work, the appellant’s undertaking to complete it at the original rates, and the requirement that public works satisfy applicable quality standards.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Supreme Court expressed reservations about the High Court’s entertaining the tender challenge as a PIL because the dispute predominantly concerned comparative assessment between two bidders, while the project cost of approximately ₹23 crores was not, by itself, sufficient to establish the alleged wastage of public resources.

The Court further noted that the PIL petitioner appeared to be the alter ego of the unsuccessful bidder, whose complaint had been withdrawn, indicating that the proceeding potentially served a private commercial interest rather than a genuine public cause.

Although the High Court had identified several irregularities concerning the appellant’s experience, sub-contracting arrangements, use of different names, and the treatment of the rival bidder’s complaint, the Supreme Court considered the subsequent completion of part of the work and the appellant’s undertaking to complete the balance at the original rates.

It therefore moulded the relief by allowing the appellant a final three-month period, subject to verification of the quality of the work, instead of requiring immediate re-tendering.

It permitted the appellant to complete the entire work awarded on 15 March 2024 within three months, at the rates prevailing on that date, subject to official verification that the work conformed to the required quality standards.

If the work was not completed within that period, the official respondents were directed to re-tender it at the prevailing market rate.

The same order governed the State’s connected appeal, Civil Appeal No. 12969 of 2026.

The interim order dated 7 March 2025 restraining the creation of third-party rights was modified to that extent, and the matter was directed to be listed in the first week of December 2026 for the appellant’s compliance report.