M/S Progressive Construction Company Ballia Thru. Authorised Signatory Partner Namely Bade Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC9 Apr 2026WRIC/3647/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a road-widening tender in Jhansi Defence Industrial Corridor after the petitioner's technical bid was marked 'unresponsive' without reasons and the financial bid opened minutes later. Court found a justiciable point and stayed the entire tender process until the next date.

What did the court decide?

Entire impugned tender process stayed till next listing date (13.04.2026); no extension of stay without hearing parties.

M/S Progressive Construction Company Ballia… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 3647 of 2026

¶3

M/S Progressive Construction Company Ballia Thru. Authorised Signatory Partner Namely Bade Lal

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. And 7 Others

¶7

ep. o. n ers			.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek Rajendra Tripathi	Dhaon, Kumar	Priyank Dubey,	Yadav, Ujjwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 3

¶9

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

¶10

Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in Court today is taken on record.

¶11

Heard Shri S.C. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Abhishek Dhaon, Advocate appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and perused the record.

¶12

The present petition seeks to lay a challenge to the tender process relating to widening and strengthening of two lanes in Ramnagar Bainda Erach Road (16 Km to 26 and 30 (900) to 32 (325) of ODR under Jhansi Defence Industrial Corridor in District Jhansi.

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner that the technical bid of the petitioner has been termed to be 'unresponsive' on the "Prahari Portal" on 06.04.2026 at 16:03 p.m. along with three other renderers (parties) without assigning any reason and surprisingly the financial bid had been opened immediately after few minutes, on that very day. According to him, the entire tender process seems to be mala fide to favour a single particular party, who had quoted a higher bid than the petitioner. He further submits

¶14

WRIC No. 3647 of 2026

¶15

¶16

that the entire bidding process has been stage-manged as is apparent from the hurry in opening the financial bid and processing the tender for issue of LOA, without granting any opportunity to any tenderer to ventilate their grievances. He further submits that not only the technical bid of the petitioner had been rejected without assigning any reason but even the report of the Local Tender Committee (LTC), which has been mentioned and is the basis of passing the impugned order dated 06.04.2026, had not been supplied to him. Thus, he says that the entire tender process is opaque and against the public policy.

¶17

The questions posed by this Court to the learned counsel for the Staterespondents are:

¶18

i) As to whether copy of the report of the Local Tender Committee ( स्थानीय िनिवदा सिमित ), which had been made the basis for terming the technical bid of the petitioner to be "unresponsive" on the 'Prahari Portal', had been supplied to the petitioner or not? and

¶19

ii) As to whether any reason was assigned to the parties for rejection of their technical bids?

¶20

Learned Standing Counsel seeks time to take instructions in this matter. On his request, list this matter on Monday i.e. 13.04.2026, within top ten in the list of fresh cases.

¶21

Prima facie , we are of the view that the petitioner has been able to show a justiciable point, which requires urgent interference. The balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, till the next date of listing, the entire impugned tender process shall remain stayed. It is made clear that there shall be no extension of stay, for any reason, on the next date, without hearing the parties.

¶22

(Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.)

¶23

April 9, 2026 MVS/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Progressive Construction Company Ballia Thru. Authorised Signatory Partner Namely Bade Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Progressive Construction Company Ballia Thru. Authorised Signatory Partner Namely Bade Lal v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Works Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ankit vs Union of India Thru.Secy.Ministry of Elec. and Information Technology New Delhi and Another

Chandrahas Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home General Lko and Another

Shishupal Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko. and 3 Others

Kamini Shrivastva vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Shardendu Prakash Ojha vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

M/S City Culture Having Its Office at Seventh Thru Its Partner Arun Gupta vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi and Another