A contractor erroneously quoted an annual remittance figure instead of the daily figure in an NHAI toll plaza tender and was penalised Rs.10 lakhs and debarred for three months. The Court upheld the penalty but curtailed the debarment to the period already undergone on proportionality grounds, holding the error bonafide.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~40
RNR CAB SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohit Jasuja, Mr. Shaun Jomo and Mr. Mohd. Zaid Suleman, Advocates.
versus
NHAI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Santosh Kumar, Standing Counsel with Mr. Kartik Gupta, Ms. Nidhi Rani, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Mr. Adithya Ramani and MR. Devansh Malhotra, Advocates for NHAI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
J U D G E M E N T
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J: (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6011/2025 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:1 6.05.2025 18:03:01
Page 1 of 6
immediately brought it to the notice of respondent/NHAI by way of a letter dated 19.11.2024, explaining the unintentional nature of the mistake and requesting that the said bid may not be considered. The petitioner also gave assurances that no such error would occur in future and requested that no coercive action be taken, including annulment or cancellation of the bid.
06.03.2025 and the petitioner again emerged as the H-1 bidder on 07.03.2025. However, no LOA was issued to the petitioner since the Punjab and Haryana High Court had only allowed participation in the bidding process.
in view of the bonafide and inadvertent mistake and keeping in view the deposit of penalty amount, the debarment for a period of three months in such facts is highly disproportionate and harsh and may be quashed and set aside.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6011/2025 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:1 6.05.2025 18:03:01
Page 4 of 6
which is the annual remittance amount, while submitting the bid document. The case of the petitioner is that such action was inadvertent and the error was bona fide. The petitioner also emphasized that the said error was immediately brought to the notice of respondent/NHAI immediately on the next day i.e. 19.11.2024 when the bids were opened. It is also not disputed by respondent/NHAI that the petitioner had, as ordered, deposited the penalty amount of Rs.10 lakhs without a demur or protest. Though the submission of learned counsel for the respondent/NHAI on the aspect of strict and stringent measures to be taken is well appreciated, yet, one cannot lose sight of the fact that such errors could also be bonafide and in this case, the mistake does not seem to be malafide. Nothing has been placed on record by respondent/NHAI to even, prima facie, demonstrate before us that the petitioner has indulged in any such infraction of the terms of the tender wilfully. In the aforesaid view, we are unable to accede to the submission of respondent/NHAI that in every case, not only penalty, but also debarment order must necessarily be passed and upheld without examining the bona fide nature of such error.
Chandigarh, would be treated as the period of debarment already undergone.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 13, 2025 /yrj/rl
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 6011/2025 By:VINOD KUMAR Signing Da te:1 6.05.2025 18:03:01
Page 6 of 6
2 issues framed by the court
Was the NHAI debarment order dated 14.02.2025 disproportionate to a bonafide error in bid figures?
Should NHAI be directed to complete the Saliwada Toll Plaza tender treating petitioner's H-1 bid as valid?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RNR CAB SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
NHAI
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Tushar Rao Gedela
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
