Supreme Court Warns Against Interim Orders Virtually Deciding Strategic Tender Disputes

The Supreme Court has emphasised that interim directions in matters relating to evaluation of bids, particularly for projects of strategic national importance, should not be passed without effectively disposing of the writ petition on merits.

A Bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe stressed that courts must ensure parties are given sufficient opportunity to contest the matter before passing such significant interim orders.

Court made the observation while setting aside an interim order of the Sikkim High Court that stayed the tender evaluation process for the construction of the Rishi-Rongli-Kupup road in Sikkim.

Why did the Supreme Court set aside the high court's interim order?

The Supreme Court held that the reasoning adopted by the high court while passing the interim direction had virtually disposed of the writ petition on merits. It said this could not have been the approach while passing an interim order in a matter relating to evaluation of bids, particularly when the project was of strategic importance to the nation.

The appeals were filed by Rajinder Infrastructure Pvt Ltd against the interim order passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok on December 3, 2025.

What was the tender dispute?

On May 5, 2025, the Border Roads Organisation (BRO), a specialised statutory agency under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, invited bids for construction of the Rishi-Rongli-Kupup road in Sikkim, an infrastructure project of strategic importance to the nation.

Rajinder Infrastructure and Respondent No. 6, Hill Brow Metallics & Construction Pvt. Ltd., participated in the tender process.

Rajinder Infrastructure furnished an undertaking on June 18, 2025 and submitted an 'Integrity Pact Format'. On the basis of these and other documents, it was declared qualified in the Technical Bid on October 4, 2025.

The financial bid was opened on October 22, 2025. Rajinder Infrastructure emerged as the lowest bidder and was declared L-1. A Letter of Acceptance (LOA) was subsequently issued to it on November 17, 2025, while Hill Brow Metallics was declared L-2.

Why did Hill Brow Metallics approach the high court?

On November 6, 2025, Hill Brow Metallics issued legal notices to Rajinder Infrastructure and BRO, alleging that the appellant had failed to disclose incomplete ongoing projects and past debarment orders passed against it by the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) and the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) in connection with participation in tenders.

On November 12, 2025, Hill Brow Metallics filed a writ petition before the Sikkim High Court challenging the results of the technical bid.

It sought setting aside of the Summary of Technical Evaluation, a direction restraining BRO from issuing a Letter of Award in favour of Rajinder Infrastructure, and a declaration that Hill Brow Metallics be selected as the bidder for both the Technical and Financial Bids.

Pending disposal of the writ petition, it also sought a stay on the Summary of Technical Evaluation and all consequential tender processes.

The high court subsequently stayed the Summary of Technical Evaluation dated October 4, 2025, along with consequential steps relating to the LOA issued on November 17, 2025.

What was Rajinder Infrastructure's grievance?

Rajinder Infrastructure, being the successful bidder, challenged the legality and validity of the interim order.

It submitted that when the writ petition first came up before the high court on November 28, 2025, its counsel entered appearance and sought a copy of the writ petition. The high court listed the matter on the next working day, December 1, 2025, and reserved it for interim orders.

The appellant argued that it was not given sufficient opportunity to contest the writ petition. It also submitted that important facts relating to the matter could not be placed before the court before the interim order was pronounced.

The appellant further pointed out that the project was of national importance and was to be undertaken in extreme weather conditions.

The Centre also supported the appellant, arguing that projects of this nature could not be delayed and that such an interim order could not have been passed in the absence of compelling circumstances, which, according to it, did not exist.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

"Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that the reasoning adopted by the high court with respect to the interim direction virtually disposes of the writ petition on merits. This could not have been the approach for passing interim orders in matters relating to evaluation of bids, particularly for projects of strategic importance to this nation," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeals and set aside the high court's interim directions.

Without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, since the order under challenge was interim in nature, the Bench held that the interest of justice would be served by setting aside the interim directions and requesting the high court to take up the writ petition and dispose of it on merits as expeditiously as possible.

Case Title: Rajinder Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs Ministry of Defence & Ors

Bench: Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe 

Date of Judgment: August 4, 2026