Rule 4.2.3 of Procurement Rules applies to high-value lump sum contracts involving design and execution.

The Public Works Department (PWD), Nainital, issued a tender notice dated 30.04.2026 for hillside cutting, muck disposal, and construction work on National Highway No. 87

The Petitioner challenged Clause 11.1(A)(ix) of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB), which mandated that bidders visit the site with a departmental engineer and obtain a certificate from the Executive Engineer to be considered responsive

Additionally, the Petitioner challenged the non-disclosure of individual item rates in the Bill of Quantities (BOQ), alleging a violation of Rule 4.7.3 of the Procurement Rules, 2025

During the proceedings, the State informed the Court that the controversial site-visit clause had been deleted via a corrigendum dated 04.05.2026

1. Whether Clause 11.1 Sub-Clause (A)(ix) of the ITB, requiring a site-visit certificate, was arbitrary and liable to be quashed

2. Whether the respondents were required to specify rates of individual items in the BOQ under Rule 4.7.3, or if the disclosure of a lump sum amount was permissible under Rule 4.2.3 of the Uttarakhand Procurement Rules, 2025

Rule 4.2.2 applies to "Item Contracts" for work of an emergent nature or specific lower-value thresholds (up to Rs. 10 lacs), requiring detailed item rates

Conversely, Rule 4.2.3 governs high-value contracts (exceeding Rs. 10 lacs) involving design, procurement, and execution, allowing for "Lump Sum" estimated amounts

Regarding the first issue, the Court noted that the State had already deleted the restrictive site-visit clause via corrigendum, rendering the Petitioner's grievance on that point moot

On the second issue, the Court rejected the Petitioner’s reliance on Rule 4.7.3/4.2.2. It accepted the State’s contention that because the contract value was Rs. 546.83 lacs—significantly exceeding the Rs. 10 lac threshold—and involved complex works like hillside cutting and drainage design, it fell squarely under Rule 4.2.3

The Court reasoned that the detailed tendering process for high-value lump sum contracts does not necessitate the disclosure of individual item rates as required in emergent item-rate contracts under Rule 4.2.2

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the interim order was vacated