Delhi High Court Holds NHAI Cannot Reject Technical Bid on Hyper-Technical Ground When Experience Certificate Proves Eligibility
Delhi High Court Sets Aside NHAI’s Rejection of Roadway Solutions’ Technical Bid, Holds Non-Submission of Duplicate PCC Was Hyper-Technical
Facts
The Delhi High Court was dealing with a writ petition filed by Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited challenging the decision of the National Highways Authority of India declaring its technical bid as “Non-Responsive” in a tender dated 23.01.2026 for the balance work of Package-VIII of the Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway Project. The petitioner sought quashing of the technical evaluation result dated 25.06.2026 and requested a fresh evaluation of its technical bid after considering its clarification response and supporting documents submitted on 03.06.2026.
The petitioner had earlier been associated with the same project and had been awarded the contract twice, first under Hybrid Annuity Mode in 2021 and later under EPC Mode in 2023. Disputes relating to earlier contracts had arisen primarily due to non-availability of land and right of way. In the fresh tender, NHAI issued a clarification request on 21.05.2026, to which the petitioner responded on 03.06.2026.
NHAI subsequently declared the petitioner’s bid “Non-Responsive” on 25.06.2026. The technical evaluation table showed nine bidders, out of which Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited was placed at serial no. 9 and marked “Non-Responsive”. The reason later communicated by NHAI was that the petitioner had not submitted a Provisional Completion Certificate or Completion Certificate along with its Experience Certificate as required under Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP.
Issues
- Whether NHAI was justified in declaring the petitioner’s technical bid as non-responsive for non-submission of the Provisional Completion Certificate.
- Whether the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 issued by Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. substantially satisfied the requirements of Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP.
- Whether insistence on a separate PCC, when the Experience Certificate contained the same information and was issued by the client itself, amounted to a hyper-technical approach.
- Whether the PCC obtained by the petitioner on 30.06.2026 could be considered before opening of financial bids.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that it had duly submitted the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 issued by its client, Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., and that the said certificate contained all information required to establish its technical capacity under Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP.
It was submitted that the only ground for rejection was non-submission of the PCC, even though all information contained in the PCC was already available in the Experience Certificate. According to the petitioner, insisting on a separate PCC was merely a duplication exercise and rejection of the bid on this ground was arbitrary and hyper-technical.
The petitioner further submitted that it had subsequently obtained the PCC from MSRDC on 30.06.2026 and filed it before the financial bids were opened. It relied on S and P Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India to argue that technical evaluation should not be reduced to a rigid and mechanical exercise where the substantive eligibility requirement is already fulfilled.
Respondent’s Arguments
NHAI argued that submission of PCC was an express requirement under the RFP format and that the petitioner was bound to comply with it. It submitted that the PCC ought to have been submitted either with the bid or at least with the clarification response dated 03.06.2026.
NHAI contended that even if the information contained in the PCC was already available in the Experience Certificate, the RFP specifically required the PCC to be enclosed. Therefore, the petitioner’s failure to submit the document justified rejection of the bid as non-responsive.
The respondents relied on Central Coalfields Limited v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) to argue that tendering authorities are entitled to insist upon strict compliance with tender conditions and that non-compliance with a prescribed document requirement cannot be condoned.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) of the RFP, which required bidders to demonstrate experience of at least one completed National Highway or Expressway project of four lanes or above, with work value not less than 35% of the EPC cost of the project. The clause also required submission of an Experience Certificate in the prescribed format and placed responsibility on the bidder to ensure compliance.
The Court noted that the Experience Certificate format under Annexure IX was a detailed format created specifically for the tender and required the client to provide detailed information about the work executed by the bidder. The PCC was required to be enclosed with the Experience Certificate primarily to corroborate the information contained in the certificate.
The Court found that in this case, the Experience Certificate was not a self-declaration by the bidder but was issued by MSRDC itself, which was the client. Its authenticity was not disputed by NHAI. The Court compared the Experience Certificate dated 17.04.2026 with the PCC dated 30.06.2026 and found that the PCC merely repeated the same information already contained in the Experience Certificate.
Precedent Analysis
The Court accepted the petitioner’s reliance on S and P Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India, holding that the facts of the present case showed a hyper-technical rejection despite substantive compliance with the tender requirement.
The Court distinguished Central Coalfields Limited v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), relied upon by NHAI. It held that the principle of strict compliance with essential tender conditions does not apply where the substantive requirement underlying the condition is already fulfilled.
The Court observed that the object of Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) was to enable NHAI to assess technical capacity. Since the Experience Certificate issued by MSRDC contained all relevant information and its authenticity was undisputed, the essential requirement of the RFP stood substantially complied with.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that where an Experience Certificate is issued by the client itself and contains all relevant details required for technical evaluation, insistence on a separate PCC from the same authority, containing no additional information, would be unduly technical.
The Court also noted that no PCC had in fact been issued by MSRDC before 30.06.2026. Therefore, it was not a case where the petitioner had omitted to submit an existing document. Since the PCC was later obtained and filed before the financial bids were opened, any deficiency stood cured.
The Court further observed that allowing the petitioner’s participation would enhance competitiveness in the tender process and would be in public interest.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the technical evaluation result dated 25.06.2026 insofar as it declared Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited’s bid as non-responsive for non-submission of the PCC.
The Court directed NHAI to evaluate the petitioner’s technical bid after considering the PCC dated 30.06.2026 and to consider the petitioner’s financial bid along with the other technically qualified bidders.
Case Details
Case: Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P.(C) 8524/2026
Judge: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 03 July 2026
Result: Petition allowed; technical rejection set aside; NHAI directed to evaluate petitioner’s technical bid after considering PCC dated 30.06.2026 and consider its financial bid with other qualified bidders.
