Supreme Court: a PIL is not the forum to relitigate a tender dispute between rival bidders

The Supreme Court dealt with appeals against a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had allowed a public interest litigation (PIL) and quashed the award of a Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana road-upgradation contract (Matiana-Mahori-Chhaila road) to O.P. Mehta, directing a re-tender. The PIL had been filed after a rival, unsuccessful bidder complained to, and then withdrew its complaint before, the awarding authority. The Court recorded its reservations about allowing a PIL to raise what was, in substance, an inter-se comparison between two competing tenderers over who met the eligibility conditions - including whether Mehta's work experience was as a sub-contractor or a prime contractor, and whether he could operate under two names.

It noted the contract value, about Rs. 23 crore, was not of a magnitude that would justify a plea of "wastage of public resources" in a PIL, and observed that the PIL petitioner was effectively standing in for the unsuccessful bidder. Rather than deciding the tender's validity itself, the Court accepted Mehta's undertaking to complete the balance work within three months at the rates originally awarded, failing which the authorities could re-tender at prevailing market rates, and modified an earlier interim order restraining third-party rights accordingly.