SC says no PILs to challenge tenders between competing bidders.

The Supreme Court has held that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is not maintainable to adjudicate upon the validity of a tender process involving comparative assessment of rival bidders.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu said courts must be circumspect while entertaining such challenges through PILs, particularly where the litigation is initiated by an entity acting as an alter ego of an unsuccessful bidder.

Court observed that a PIL is not the appropriate remedy for challenging a tender process involving comparative claims of competing bidders, particularly where the project cost is not of such magnitude as to suggest significant wastage of public resources.

The observation came in appeals filed by O P Mehta and the State against the Himachal Pradesh High Court's December 24, 2024 judgment, through which the high court had allowed a PIL, quashed the award of a contract for upgradation of a road under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY), and directed retendering within one month.

Why Did Supreme Court Question The PIL?

The Supreme Court said the issue that "glares in the face" was whether the validity of a tender, where comparative claims of competing tenderers have to be adjudged, could be made the subject matter of a PIL.

"We have our reservations since the grounds raised in the PIL before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla pre-dominantly dealt with, inter-se comparative assessment between the two bidders whose bids had been received including respondent No.5 therein (appellant herein)," the Bench said.

Court further pointed out that the cost of the work, at Rs 23 crore, was not of such magnitude that it would permit the PIL petitioner to raise a plea of wastage of public resources.

The high court, while allowing the PIL, had examined contradictory stands taken by the official respondents on whether a complaint made by M/s PK Construction Pvt Ltd, the other bidder, had actually been received and, if so, whether it had subsequently been withdrawn.

It had also examined whether the experience relied upon by the appellant was acquired as a sub-contractor or as a prime contractor, and whether the appellant could have been allowed to operate under two different names in violation of the tender conditions.

The high court had noted that although sub-contracts were permitted under the tender conditions, this was subject to fulfilment of certain requirements, which it found were missing in the present case.

It had further observed that the nature of work experience reflected in the appellant's work experience certificate was at variance with the nature of work actually executed by him in the past.

Supreme Court Notes PIL Was Filed By Alter Ego Of Unsuccessful Bidder

The Supreme Court also took note of the circumstances in which the PIL had been instituted.

"It cannot be overlooked that the petitioner before the High Court, as the alter ego of the unsuccessful bidder, filed the PIL questioning the tender process. The said unsuccessful bidder had complained against the successful bidder and has since withdrawn the complaint," Court said.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court was also informed through an affidavit filed by the appellant on September 3, 2026 that three kilometres of road construction, along with retaining and breast walls, had been completed on the Matiana to Mohri Road in Shimla district.

The appellant stated that he was ready and willing to complete the remaining work at the same rates at which the contract had been awarded on March 15, 2024, and assured the court that the quality of the work would not be compromised.

What Did Supreme Court Direct On The Road Project?

In view of the assurance, the Supreme Court extended by three months the time granted to the appellant to complete the entire work allotted to him on March 15, 2024, at the rates prevailing on that date.

"If the work so assigned to the appellant is not completed within the given time of three months subject to the official respondents verifying the quality of the work executed, the official respondents are directed to re-tender the same work at the prevailing market rate," the Bench said.

Court directed that the matter be listed in the first week of December, when the appellant would submit a compliance report.

Case Title: O P Mehta Vs Mohinder Kalta & Ors

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu 

Date of Judgment: September 23, 2026

Tags: