Ms Crystal Infrastructure Vs Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ms Crystal Infrastructure Vs Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the bid of respondent no. 3 was wrongly held non-responsive for failure to submit original documents, notwithstanding the National Rural Roads Development Agency circular dated 25.01.2026 stating that scanned copies would suffice, such that two responsive bids would have existed and financial bids could have been opened. +1 more

Court's answer

Where only a single bid is found responsive, re-tendering has to be done as per the prescribed guidelines; the respondents took the re-tendering decision as per the prescribed norms, the rejected bidder (respondent no. 3) did not challenge his rejection, and the petitioner retains the opportunity to participate in the fresh tender process.

Ratio / Principle

No ground is made out for interference with the decision taken by the respondents to re-tender.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tender/re-tendering – single responsive bid: Writ Petition (M/B) 337 of 2026, High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, decided 04.05.2026 (Division Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J., authoring the judgment, with Subhash Upadhyay, J.). MS Crystal Infrastructure assailed the Tender Evaluation Committee's order dated 24.04.2026 recommending re-tendering because, after technical evaluation under the E-procurement notice dated 28.01.2026, only the petitioner's bid remained responsive, the bid of respondent no. 3 having been rejected as non-responsive (under para 5 of NIT12(P-IV) 202526 read with Section 1, Clause 6.2 and Section 2, Clause 12.2(d) of the Standard Bidding Documents requiring submission of original documents). The petitioner urged that a National Rural Roads Development Agency circular letter dated 25.01.2026 clarified scanned copies sufficed, so respondent no. 3's bid was wrongly rejected. Holding: it is undisputed that where only a single bid is found responsive, re-tendering has to be done per the prescribed guidelines; respondent no. 3 did not challenge his rejection; the respondents acted per prescribed norms and the petitioner may participate in the fresh tender process; hence no ground for interference. Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of.

2026:UHC:3348-DB

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY 4th May, 2026

Writ Petition (M/B) 337 of 2026

MS Crystal Infrastructure ------Petitioner

Versus

Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency and others -----Respondents

Presence:-

Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2.

JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)

The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 24.04.2026, passed by Tender Evaluation Committee, Uttarakhand Rural Roads Development Agency (respondent no. 2 herein), whereby it was recommended that since only single bidder was found responsive in part 1 of the bidding process i.e. Technical Evaluation Round, the same was not acceptable and, accordingly, a recommendation was made for re-tendering.

The petitioner and respondent no. 3 submitted their bids in pursuance of E-procurement notice dated 28.01.2026 issued under the Pradhan anti Gram Sarak Yojna. The Tender Evaluation Committee, as noted above, observed that in the technical round

1

2026:UHC:3348-DB

only a single bid remained after evaluation, as the bid of respondent no.3 was found to be non-responsive, and therefore, decided to go for re-tendering.

The case of the petitioner is that the bid of respondent no.3 was rejected on the ground of nonresponsiveness in terms of para 5 of NIT12(P-IV) 202526, dated 28.01.2026 read with Section 1, Clause 6.2 and Section 2, Clause 12.2(d) of the Standard Bidding Documents, which required submission of the Original Documents by the bidders. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the National Rural Roads Development Agency, vide a circular letter dated 25.01.2026, clarified that the scanned copies of the documents/affidavits would suffice and that originals were not required to be uploaded with the bid.

It is urged that in such circumstances, the bid of respondent no.3 was wrongly held to be nonresponsive and if the said bid is treated to be responsive, there would have been two bids and thus, no impediment in proceeding to the second stage of the bidding process i.e. opening of the financial bids.

Undoubtedly, after the rejection of the bid of respondent no.3, the petitioner remained the sole

2

2026:UHC:3348-DB

bidder. It is also not in disputes that where only a single bid is found responsive, then as per the prescribed guidelines, re-tendering has to be done. Respondent no.3, whose bid has been rejected in the technical round, has not come forward to challenge the rejection of his bid. The respondents have taken decision for retendering as per the prescribed norms. The petitioner will also have opportunity to participate in the fresh tender process.

Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that no ground is made out for interference with the decision taken by the respondents.

The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

Dated: 04.05.2026 Kaushal

3

2026:UHC:3348-DB

4