NHAI declared the bidder's technical bid Non-Responsive for not enclosing a Provisional Completion Certificate with its Experience Certificate. The Court held the PCC duplicated information already certified by the client MSRDC and no PCC existed when bids were filed; rejecting the bid was hyper-technical.
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.
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ROADWAY SOLUTIONS INDIA INFRA LIMITED
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Ravi Prakash, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Samir Malik, Mr. Varun Kalra, Ms. Snehal Kaila and Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma ASG with Mr. Ankur Mittal CGSC, Mr. Abhay Gupta, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. R.V. Prabhat, Mr. Shubham Sharma and Mr. Naman, Advs. for R-1/UOI
Mr. Nipun Jain, Govt. Pleader for R- 1/UOI
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Mr. Abhay Gupta and Ms. Ipsita Dutta, Advs. for R-2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J. (ORAL)
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 1 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
no. 2 declaring its technical bid as ‘Non-Responsive’ in the tender dated 23.01.2026 for the balance work of Package-VIII of the Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway Project. The petitioner seeks quashing of the technical evaluation result dated 25.06.2026 and a direction to respondent no. 2 to undertake a fresh evaluation of its technical bid after duly considering the clarification response and supporting documents submitted by the petitioner on 03.06.2026, in accordance with the statement recorded before the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) No. 8250/2026 on 19.06.2026.
2.1 The petitioner is an established infrastructure company engaged in execution of large highway projects and has been associated with PackageVIII of the Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway since its inception. The project was earlier awarded to the petitioner twice, first under the Hybrid Annuity Mode [‘HAM’] in 2021, and subsequently under the Engineering, Procurement & Construction Mode [‘EPC Mode’] in 2023. Disputes arising from both contracts primarily concerned non-availability of land and right of way, leading to termination of the contracts and consequent arbitral proceedings. In relation to the HAM contract, arbitral proceedings culminated in an award in favour of the petitioner, while disputes concerning the termination of the EPC contract remain pending in arbitration.
2.2 The petitioner relies upon the previous award of contracts to contend that the technical eligibility of the petitioner to perform the contract is, therefore, not in dispute as it has been associated with the execution of the project since its inception.
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 2 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
2.3 On 23.01.2026, NHAI issued a fresh Request for Proposal [‘RFP’] for the same Bid/Package No. NHAI/2026/PIU-Surat/VME-Pkg-VIII/e-3048981 under the EPC mode. The petitioner submitted its Technical Bid along with all requisite documents. During evaluation, respondent no. 2 issued a communication dated 21.05.2026 seeking certain clarifications in relation to the petitioner’s Technical Bid and required the petitioner to furnish its response on or before 28.05.2026. The petitioner furnished a detailed clarification response on 03.06.2026 together with supporting documents.
2.4 However, since the response was submitted beyond 28.05.2026, the petitioner apprehended that its clarification may not be taken into consideration and therefore, approached the Vacation Bench by filing W.P.(C) No. 8250/2026 seeking a limited direction that respondent no. 2 consider its clarification response before taking a decision on the Technical Bid. On 19.06.2026, the writ petition was disposed of after counsel for respondent no. 2 stated before the Court that the petitioner’s clarification response and accompanying documents would be considered prior to any decision being taken on the bid.
2.5 Subsequently, on 25.06.2026, NHAI published the technical evaluation results declaring the petitioner’s bid ‘Non-Responsive’. According to the petitioner, the evaluation result does not disclose any reasons for such rejection, nor does it indicate whether the clarification response dated 03.06.2026 was considered.
2.6 The petitioner contends that the impugned decision is arbitrary, non-
1 for the project titled "Balance Work for Construction of 8- Lane Access Controlled Expressway from Km 154.600 to Km 190.000 of Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway (Jujuwa to Gandeva Section) in the State of Gujarat (Package-VIII)"
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 3 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
speaking, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, contrary to the terms of the RFP, and inconsistent with the statement made before the coordinate Bench of this Court and the order dated 19.06.2026. The petitioner therefore seeks judicial intervention for setting aside the impugned decision and directing a fresh and fair evaluation of its technical bid.
Findings and Analysis
“Sir,
Please refer to your bid submitted for the subject. The result of Technical Evaluation as per clause 2.19 of the RFP is as under:
| S. No. |
Name of the Bidder | Status |
|---|---|---|
| 1/9 | M/s Agrawal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. | Non-Responsive |
| 2/9 | M/s Ashoka Buildcon Ltd. | Responsive |
| 3/9 | M/s Bansal Construction Works Pvt. Ltd. |
Responsive |
| 4/9 | M/s Ceigall India Limited | Responsive |
| 5/9 | M/s GR Infraprojects Limited | Responsive |
| 6/9 | M/s GHV (India) Pvt. Ltd. | Non-Responsive |
| 7/9 | M/s Kalthia Engineering and Construction Ltd. |
Responsive |
| 8/9 | M/s PNC Infratech Ltd. | Responsive |
| 9/9 | M/s Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited |
Non-Responsive |
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 4 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
“Sir,
This is in reference to your bid submitted for the subject project and the subsequent clarifications sought by the Authority during the technical evaluation process.
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 5 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
Completion Certificate [‘PCC’] along with the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 as per clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP, which is arbitrary as all the information contained in a PCC or completion certificate has already been recorded in the said Experience Certificate.
“2.2.2.2 Technical Capacity
one COMPLETED Project i.e., CC/ PCC issued within Original Scheduled Completion date (without any EOT granted by Authority) for National Highway or Expressway with 4 – lane or above configuration with work costing not less than amount equal to 35% of EPC of the Project – Single Project – i.e., Rs. 516.49 Cr (exclusive of GST) in the last 5 (five) financial years preceding the Bid Due Date or till the Bid Due Date. In case the claimed/(s) are subcontracting/JV project in such a case Approval from the Govt. Authority/Client is required (restricted to allowable subcontracting limit/JV share in original contract).
For the avoidance of doubt, it is clarified that ‘similar completed work’ shall mean a completed work components similar to the work for which bid has been invited. Execution of work, which does not include all major components, shall not be considered as completion of similar work.
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 6 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
Furthermore, in order to claim experience for similar completed work, the bidder must submit the Experience attached at Annexure-IX of Appendix-IA, in addition to the certificate from the Statutory Auditor/Client as specified in Annex-IV of Appendix-IA. Certificate
For the projects executed by NHAI, the Experience Certificate shall be issued by the concerned GM (T) at NHAI HQ based on the recommendation of the Project Director.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this RFP, it shall be the responsibility of the Bidder to ensure the compliance of the requirement of above clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of RFP, else the bidder will be considered Nonresponsive for the project .”
(the portion in bold and italics is as per the original text )
“Appendix-IA Annexure -IX
Draft Format of Experience Certificate for EPC Projects
(To be issued on the Letterhead of NHAI)
NHAI/PIU/..../2025/....
Date:
EXPERIENCE CERTIFICATE (TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN)
This is to certify that the Authority (Name…….), engaged M/s. [Name of EPC Contractor] as the EPC Contractor for execution of the project titled "[Name of work]" awarded under Engineering, Procurement &
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 7 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
Construction (EPC) mode.
2. The details of the project & contractor are as under:
… …”
“In addition to the above certificates, Bidders are required to provide the followings additional information also duly certified by the Client
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this RFP for the project, it shall be the responsibility of the Bidder to ensure the compliance of the above requirement, else the bidder will be considered Non-responsive for the project ”
(the portion in bold and italics is as per the original text )
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 8 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 9 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
He contends that since the format of Annexure IX at Appendix IA clearly instructed the bidder to enclose a copy of the PCC, the petitioner herein had due notice of the said requirement of the tender and sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to furnish the said information vide letter dated 21.05.2026. The respondent no. 2 has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited and Anr. v. SLLSML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Ors.2 to contend that since submission of PCC was a specific term of the format, respondent’s decision to not condone its non-compliance cannot be termed as arbitrary.
2 (2016) 8 SCC 622, at paras 27 to 36
3 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4384, at paras 63 to 65 and 72
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 10 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 11 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
”
“PROVISIONAL COMPLETION CERTIFICATE
We, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. , acting as the Authority, under and in accordance with the Agreement dated 20.11.2018 (the "Agreement"), for " Construction of access controlled Nagpur-Mumbai Super communication Expressway (Maharashtra Samruddhi Mahamarg in the state of Maharashtra on EPC mode for Package 07, From Km 296.000 to 347.190 (sectionVillage Bande to village Sawargaon Mal in district Buldhana" on Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) basis through M/s Roadway Solutions India Infra Ltd. (Approved Sub-Contractor) appointed by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (EPC Contractor of the Project) , hereby certify that the Tests in accordance with Article 12 of the Agreement have been successfully undertaken to determine compliance of the scope of the Sub-contract of the Project Highway with the provisions of the Agreement, and we are satisfied that the Project Highway can be safely and reliably placed in service of the users thereof.
It is certified that, in terms of the aforesaid Subcontract Agreement, all works forming part of Project Highway have been provisionally completed, and the Project Highway is hereby declared it for entry into operation on this the 31 August 2021.
In addition to the above certificate, the following additional information is provided hereunder in response to the request made by the
Subcontractor;
| Construction Period as per Contract Agreement |
30 months |
|---|---|
| Original date of completion (without EOT) | 09.10.2021 |
| Sub-Contract Value excluding GST | 1312.23 Crore |
| Date of issuance of Provisional Completion Certificate |
As Above |
(the portion in bold and italics is as per the original text )
The Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 though runs into three pages, however, the relevant extract of the said Experience Certificate which replicates the information provided in the PCC dated 30.06.2026 is being
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 12 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
extracted for consideration of the pleas of the parties, hereunder:
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 13 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
this extent, the submission of the petitioner that the information in the PCC is a duplication of the information already provided in the Experience Certificate is duly borne out.
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 14 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
Certificate. In view of the evident duplication of the information, we had enquired from the respondent no.2 with respect to the necessity of having the PCC, when the Experience Certificate was issued by the client itself and already contained the precise information given in the PCC. The respondent’s counsel had no answer to this query and submitted that since there is no challenge to this condition of the RFP requiring a PCC in addition to the Experience Certificate, and thus a bidder who fails to provide the PCC is liable to have its bid rejected. The aforesaid answer of the respondent no. 2 shows that there is no dispute that the information sought in the Experience Certificate and the PCC is same and the information provided in the PCC does not in any manner enhance the information provided to the respondent no. 2 for evaluation of the technical capacity of the bidder.
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 15 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
30.06.2026 at the request of the petitioner, and it had not been otherwise issued prior thereto to the contractor and the sub-contractor. It appears that prior to this MSRDC had not issued a PCC to the contractor or the subContractor and therefore, as a matter of fact no PCC existed. In these circumstances submission of the PCC along with the bid was not possible for the petitioner and therefore, this is not a case of omission by the bidder. 24. We find that the reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment of S and P Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is apposite in the facts of this case. The information sought by the respondent no. 2 for assessing the technical capacity of the bidder as per Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP has been duly provided by furnishing the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026, veracity whereof is not in dispute. The exclusion of the petitioner from the bidding process for non-filing of the PCC along with the Experience Certificate, even though it duplicates the information already filed, in our opinion, qualifies as a hyper technical approach by the respondent no. 2.
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 16 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
principle enunciated therein, namely that the employer is ordinarily entitled to insist upon strict compliance with essential tender conditions, has no application where the substantive requirement underlying the condition already stands fulfilled. In the present case, the object of Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP was to enable the Authority to assess the technical capacity and experience of the bidder. The requisite information for such assessment was comprehensively furnished through the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026, duly issued by the client, MSRDC, the authenticity and contents whereof have not been disputed by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 has also been unable to demonstrate that the PCC would have supplied any additional material information relevant to the evaluation of the bidder’s eligibility. Once the Experience Certificate issued by the client MSRDC had been furnished and the technical credentials of the petitioner stood duly evidenced thereby, the essential requirement of the RFP stood substantially complied with. Moreso, no PCC had in fact been issued by MSRDC prior to 30.06.2026 and, therefore, the petitioner could not have furnished a document which was not in existence at the relevant time.
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 17 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JULY 03, 2026/ msh/AM
W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Page 18 of 18
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HEMANT PRATAP SINGH Signing Da te:0 3.07.2026 20:53
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a bid could be declared Non-Responsive solely for non-submission of a PCC alongside an Experience Certificate issued by the client containing identical information under Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Coalfields Limited and Anr. v. SLLSML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Ors.Distinguished¶26
(2016) 8 SCC 622 · Who else cites this
S and P Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of IndiaFollowed¶24
2026 SCC OnLine Del 4384 · Who else cites this
Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited
Union of India
National Highways Authority of India
V. Kameswar Rao
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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
