Delhi High Court Upholds NHAI’s Rejection of Expressway Bid; Holds 41.5-Metre Bridge Span Failed Mandatory 53.6-Metre Experience Requirement and Allows Debarment Inquiry to Continue
Delhi High Court Upholds NHAI’s Rejection of Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway Bid; Finds Bidder’s 41.5-Metre Bridge Span Failed Mandatory 53.6-Metre Experience Requirement
Facts
The petitioner, Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited, an engineering and construction company engaged in highway and infrastructure projects, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging NHAI’s Technical Evaluation Result dated 31 July 2026. Its technical bid for Package VIII of the Vadodara-Mumbai Expressway Project had been declared “Non-Responsive.”
NHAI had issued the RFP on 23 January 2026 for the balance construction of an 8-lane access-controlled expressway from km 154.600 to km 190.000, Jujuwa to Gandeva Section in Gujarat, on EPC mode.
The relevant Additional Work Criteria under modified Clause 2.2.2.2(ii) required a bidder to demonstrate prior experience of completing at least one similar Major Bridge/ROB/Flyover having a span of at least 53.6 metres and a structural length of at least 132 metres. The 53.6-metre requirement represented 80% of the longest span of the relevant structure proposed under the project.
The petitioner relied upon its prior work for Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC), particularly a Vehicular Overpass (VOP) constructed at Chainage 316+759.
The controversy arose because two Experience Certificates issued by MSRDC for the same project gave different span specifications.
The certificate dated 17 April 2026 described the VOP at Chainage 316+759 as 1×15m + 1×55.80m + 1×15m, whereas an earlier certificate dated 13 May 2023 described the same VOP as 2×41.50m. Similar differences appeared for the VOP at Chainage 344+075. The Court found the inconsistency between the certificates prima facie evident.
NHAI sought clarification directly from MSRDC. MSRDC’s clarification dated 27 July 2026 confirmed that the VOP at Chainage 316+759 comprised two spans of 41.50 metres each, with the overall structural length being 83 metres.
NHAI consequently concluded that the petitioner lacked the mandatory experience of constructing a bridge having a span of at least 53.6 metres and declared its technical bid non-responsive.
Separately, NHAI issued a Show Cause Notice dated 28 July 2026 concerning alleged misrepresentation/fraudulent practice in relation to the experience certificate and contemplated debarment proceedings. The petitioner challenged both the technical disqualification and the show-cause notice.
Issues
The principal issues before the High Court were:
- Whether the petitioner satisfied the mandatory requirement of having prior experience in constructing a bridge with a span of at least 53.6 metres.
- Whether the VOP at Chainage 316+759 should be regarded as having a single 83-metre span, as claimed by the petitioner, or two separate 41.5-metre spans, as maintained by NHAI.
- How the expression “span” in the RFP was required to be measured and whether NHAI could rely upon the definition contained in IRC-5/2024.
- Whether NHAI’s interpretation of its own tender condition was arbitrary, irrational or contrary to the tender documents.
- Whether NHAI was entitled to seek clarification from MSRDC after discovering material inconsistencies between the two Experience Certificates.
- Whether the Court’s earlier judgment dated 3 July 2026 prevented NHAI from verifying the petitioner’s technical experience.
- Whether the petitioner could avoid responsibility for inaccuracies in an Experience Certificate on the ground that the document had been issued by MSRDC.
- Whether the Court should quash the Show Cause Notice concerning alleged misrepresentation and possible debarment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that it possessed the necessary technical experience.
Its principal case was that the VOP at Chainage 316+759 had an overall length of 83 metres, which exceeded the mandatory threshold of 53.6 metres. It argued that the span should be measured from the left abutment to the right abutment and therefore treated as 83 metres rather than two separate spans of 41.5 metres each.
The petitioner also argued that the Experience Certificate dated 17 April 2026 had been issued by MSRDC itself on the basis of its project records. Therefore, the petitioner could not be accused of manipulating the contents of a certificate issued by the project authority.
It pointed out that MSRDC had earlier confirmed details concerning the relevant structures after examining approved General Arrangement Drawings, design records, as-built drawings and project documentation.
The petitioner further argued that the RFP itself did not prescribe any particular methodology for calculating “span.” Therefore, NHAI could not subsequently import the definition contained in IRC-5/2024 to disqualify it.
Another argument was that the earlier Delhi High Court judgment dated 3 July 2026 in W.P.(C) 8524/2026 restricted NHAI’s jurisdiction during fresh evaluation and prevented it from reopening or independently verifying the Experience Certificate. According to the petitioner, such verification amounted to a fishing and roving inquiry.
Alternatively, it argued that the proposed structure relied upon for fixing the 53.6-metre threshold was a Minor Bridge, whereas the eligibility condition spoke of experience concerning a Major Bridge/ROB/Flyover. It therefore questioned the applicability of the threshold itself.
The petitioner additionally argued that the relevant 67-metre measurement in the proposed bridge drawing was a skew dimension and that a smaller square dimension of 37.949 metres should instead be considered. If that figure were adopted, its prior 41.5-metre span would satisfy the experience requirement.
Respondent’s Arguments
NHAI contended that the modified RFP condition was mandatory and expressly required experience in constructing at least one similar bridge, ROB or flyover with a span equal to or exceeding 53.6 metres.
It argued that the petitioner’s own earlier Experience Certificate dated 13 May 2023 showed that the VOP at Chainage 316+759 consisted of two spans of 41.5 metres each, while the VOP at Chainage 344+075 consisted of two 35-metre spans. Neither met the 53.6-metre threshold.
NHAI relied upon MSRDC’s subsequent clarification and the as-built drawings to establish that 83 metres represented the total structural length, rather than one continuous span.
It also relied upon IRC-5/2024, under which “span” means the horizontal distance between the centre lines of adjacent supports of a bridge superstructure.
NHAI maintained that this was an accepted industry standard and was incorporated into the RFP.
It further relied upon Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom for the principle that the author of a tender document is ordinarily the best person to understand and interpret its requirements.
Analysis of the Law
1. Mandatory technical eligibility had to be satisfied strictly
The Court treated the 53.6-metre span requirement as a mandatory technical qualification.
The petitioner had participated in the tender with knowledge of this criterion and had attempted to establish compliance with it. It was therefore bound to demonstrate from the record that its prior experience actually met the prescribed threshold.
2. “Span” meant distance between adjacent supports, not entire bridge length
This became the central issue.
Under IRC-5/2024, span means the horizontal distance between the centre lines of adjacent supports.
For the VOP at Chainage 316+759, the adjacent supports were:
A1 (abutment) → P1 (pier) = 41.5 metres
and
P1 (pier) → A2 (abutment) = 41.5 metres.
The petitioner sought to combine these two spans and measure from A1 all the way to A2, producing an overall figure of 83 metres.
The Court rejected this interpretation as incorrect.
3. 83 metres was structural length, not one span
The MSRDC clarification and as-built drawings were decisive.
They separately described:
- Span arrangement: 2 × 41.50 metres; and
- Total structural length: 83 metres.
The Court found that the as-built drawing also depicted two separate spans of 41.5 metres each, consistent with the IRC definition.
Therefore, the petitioner could not convert the overall structural length into a single span merely to satisfy the tender eligibility requirement.
4. NHAI applied the same measurement standard to both structures
The Court compared the petitioner’s previous VOP with the proposed Minor Bridge under the RFP.
For the proposed bridge, the RFP treated the distance from abutment A1 to pier P1 as one 67-metre span, and P1 to A2 as the second span.
The same methodology applied to the petitioner’s VOP yielded a span of only 41.5 metres from A1 to P1.
The Court therefore found NHAI’s interpretation internally consistent.
5. NHAI’s interpretation was neither arbitrary nor irrational
The Court held that NHAI, as author of the RFP, had interpreted “span” consistently with:
- the tender drawings;
- MSRDC’s clarification;
- the as-built drawings;
- IRC-5/2024; and
- accepted industry standards.
Accordingly, its interpretation could not be characterised as arbitrary or irrational.
6. Petitioner’s alternative “Minor Bridge” argument failed
The petitioner argued that because the proposed reference structure was described as a Minor Bridge, the experience requirement concerning Major Bridges/ROBs/Flyovers should not apply.
The Court rejected this contention because the petitioner had participated in the bidding process with full notice of the qualification criterion and had itself attempted to demonstrate compliance with it.
7. Skew-dimension argument was also rejected
The petitioner alternatively argued that the RFP’s 67-metre measurement was a skew dimension and that the smaller 37.949-metre square dimension should be used.
The Court rejected this as “misleading and a red herring.”
It observed that MSRDC itself had similarly recorded the petitioner’s 41.5-metre span using the skew dimension. The same basis of measurement therefore had to be applied consistently.
Precedent Analysis
Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom
The principal precedent applied by the Court was Agmatel India Pvt. Ltd. v. Resoursys Telecom, (2022) 5 SCC 362.
NHAI relied upon it to argue that the author of the tender document is best placed to interpret its requirements.
The High Court found the reliance apposite.
NHAI’s interpretation of “span” as the distance between the centre lines of adjacent supports was supported by the RFP’s own bridge drawings and was consistently applied to the petitioner’s previous project.
The Court therefore concluded that NHAI’s interpretation was neither arbitrary nor irrational, leaving no basis for interference in judicial review.
The precedent was thus important not merely for general judicial restraint in tender matters, but specifically for recognising the procuring authority’s primacy in interpreting technical tender requirements where that interpretation is supported by the tender documents and is reasonable.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found no infirmity in NHAI’s decision declaring the petitioner’s bid non-responsive.
The crucial factual finding was that the VOP relied upon by the petitioner had two separate spans of 41.5 metres each, rather than one span measuring 83 metres.
Since the RFP required previous experience of a span of at least 53.6 metres, the petitioner did not satisfy the mandatory technical qualification.
The Court also dealt with the conflicting Experience Certificates.
It expressed concern over the material contradictions between the certificates dated 13 May 2023 and 17 April 2026 relating to the same structures and held that NHAI was fully entitled to seek clarification directly from MSRDC.
The earlier judgment dated 3 July 2026 did not prevent NHAI from verifying the Experience Certificate. MSRDC’s subsequent clarification substantiated NHAI’s concerns.
Significantly, the Court also rejected the petitioner’s contention that it could not be responsible for an Experience Certificate because MSRDC had authored it.
The Court held that once the petitioner obtained and relied upon the certificate as part of its bid credentials, it was responsible for verifying its correctness and could not avoid responsibility merely because another entity had issued it.
However, the Court carefully refrained from deciding whether the Experience Certificate dated 17 April 2026 was actually false or fraudulent, because that question remained under consideration in the pending debarment proceedings pursuant to the Show Cause Notice.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld NHAI’s decision declaring Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited’s technical bid Non-Responsive.
It held that the petitioner’s previous VOP consisted of two 41.5-metre spans, and its attempt to treat the total 83-metre structural length as one span was incorrect. Consequently, it failed the mandatory 53.6-metre minimum span experience criterion.
The Court also refused to interfere with the Show Cause Notice dated 28 July 2026. The petitioner was permitted to file its reply within three days, after which NHAI was directed to adjudicate the notice in accordance with law.
The petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000 payable to NHAI, pending applications were disposed of, and interim orders were vacated.
Case Details
Case: Roadway Solutions India Infra Limited v. Union of India & Anr.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: W.P.(C) 11226/2026
Judges: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Date: 21 August 2026
Result: Petition dismissed with ₹25,000 costs; NHAI’s technical disqualification upheld and challenge to debarment show-cause proceedings rejected
