Uttarakhand HC Upholds Contractor’s Road-Bid Rejection Over Insufficient Hill-Cutting Experience And 79-Year-Old Engineer For High-Altitude Work

The petitioner, a registered ‘A’ category PWD contractor, challenged the Technical Evaluation Committee’s decision dated 11 May 2026 declaring his bid non-responsive.

The rejection rested on two grounds: his experience certificate did not satisfy Clause 19 of the NIT, and the details of his proposed technical person were considered suspicious or non-verifiable.

The petitioner relied on hill-side cutting work he said he had executed as a sub-contractor and argued that the nominated Site Engineer’s affidavit confirmed his availability.

The NIT required experience in hill-side cutting worth at least one-third of the relevant BOQ value—₹32,04,262.67. The agency stated that the petitioner’s claimed work was worth only ₹12,23,800, while the proposed Site Engineer was 79 years old.

The petitioner sought judicial review under Article 226.

Article 226 judicial review of tender decisions is limited: courts do not substitute their assessment for that of the tendering authority unless the decision-making process is mala fide, intended to favour someone, arbitrary, irrational, perverse, or contrary to the tender conditions.

Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622, and Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corp., (2016) 16 SCC 818, require deference to the employer’s interpretation of tender documents absent mala fides or perversity.

Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492, and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617, require the court to weigh public interest and avoid intervention absent a substantial public-interest justification or a vitiated decision-making process.

M/s N.G. Projects Ltd. v. Vinod Kumar Jain, (2022) 6 SCC 127, and Tata Motors Ltd. v. BEST, (2023) 19 SCC 1, reinforce restraint in tender matters, particularly where interference may delay infrastructure projects or impose public costs.

The Court found a factual basis for the Committee’s assessment that the petitioner’s claimed hill-side cutting experience fell substantially below the ₹32,04,262.67 threshold: the agency’s communication placed the value at ₹12,23,800, and the Court accepted that assessment as supporting the finding of insufficient experience.

It also held that the employer could consider the proposed Site Engineer’s age in light of the adverse climatic and high-altitude conditions of the project; the Court found no basis to characterize that assessment as an impermissible or arbitrary exercise of judgment.

Applying the limited-review principles governing tender decisions, the Court found neither ground sufficiently arbitrary to justify intervention.

It dismissed the writ petition, vacated the interim order dated 30 June 2026, and made no order as to costs.