Writ Petition Alleging Contractual Mistake Involving Disputed Facts is Not Maintainable Under Article 226.

The Respondent (NHAI) invited bids on April 2, 2026, for a user fee collection agency for the Delhi-Amritsar-Katra Expressway for a three-month period

A corrigendum was issued on April 6, 2026, specifying that remittances would be revised as and when three specific new fee plazas became operational

The Petitioner submitted a bid and was declared the highest bidder (H-1) on April 10, 2026

On April 13, 2026, the Petitioner represented to the NHAI that it had made a bona fide mistake because the tender documents allegedly created a false impression that eleven plazas were already operational, whereas only eight were functional

Despite this, NHAI issued a Letter of Award (LoA) on April 17, 2026

The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the LoA or to be allowed to withdraw its bid without penalty

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the dispute involves contested questions of fact regarding a bona fide mistake in a commercial contract?

2. Whether the court can grant relief based on the apprehension of future penal actions such as blacklisting or forfeiture?

The court applied the principle that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited and does not extend to resolving disputed questions of fact requiring evidence, which are better suited for a civil suit

It further noted that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 (vested in the Supreme Court) or writ jurisdiction in cases of mechanical typographical errors—as seen in M/s. Omsairam Steels & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Director of Mines and Geology BBSR and Ceigall India Ltd. v. NHAI—cannot be invoked where the facts are distinct and suggest a substantive commercial dispute.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s claim—that it was misled by the tender documents—is a factual dispute that requires the appreciation of evidence, making it unsuitable for summary writ proceedings

The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the Petitioner: Omsairam Steels involved a clear human error where the Supreme Court exercised Article 142 powers, and Ceigall India involved a minor typographical omission of the word "crore"

In the present case, the court found the Petitioner's grievance was based on an interpretation of the NIT terms which did not qualify as an undisputed clerical error

Furthermore, the Court held that a writ cannot be entertained based on the mere "apprehension" of blacklisting or forfeiture, as such actions had not yet occurred

The Court held that the Petitioner must avail alternative remedies, such as a civil suit, to resolve the factual controversy

The Court reserved liberty for the Petitioner to approach the writ court again should the NHAI pass an actual order of blacklisting or other severe civil consequences in the future

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly