O.P. MEHTA v. MOHINDER KALTA & ORS.

2026 INSC 1037

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.12968 OF 2026 (@ SLP (C) NO.2036 OF 2025)

O.P. MEHTA ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

MOHINDER KALTA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.12969 OF 2026

JUDGMENT

SHEEL NAGU, J.

1. These appeals assail the Division Bench

decision of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh,

Shimla, rendered in a PIL bearing CWPIL No.30 of

2024 on 24.12.2024, whereby the PIL was allowed by

quashing the award of work in favour of respondent Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by rashmi dhyani pant Date: 2026.09.23 No.5 therein (appellant herein) and directing the 16:59:49 IST Reason:

official respondents to re-tender the remaining work of

Page 1 of 6

upgradation of Matiana, Mahori to Chhaila road, Km.

0/00 to 25/650 under PMGSY package No. HP-09-694

within one month from the date of the judgment.

2. The aspect which glares in the face in present

case is as to whether the issue of validity of a tender,

where comparative claims of competing tenderers are

to be adjudged, can be raised as subject matter of

challenge in a PIL?

2.1. We have our reservations since the grounds

raised in the PIL before the High Court of Himachal

Pradesh, Shimla pre-dominantly dealt with, inter-se

comparative assessment between the two bidders

whose bids had been received including respondent

No.5 therein (appellant herein).

2.2. Moreso even the cost of work (Rs. 23 crores)

was not of such magnitude, which may allow the

petitioner in PIL to raise the plea of wastage of public

resources.

Page 2 of 6

3. Certain factors which weighed in the mind of

the High Court, for rendering the impugned judgment,

were as follows:

i. The contradictory stand taken by the

official respondents as to whether the complaint

made by M/s PK Construction Pvt. Ltd. (the

other bidder) was actually received by the

official respondents or not and if received then

whether it was withdrawn or not.

ii. Whether the experience gained by the

appellant was as a sub-contractor or as a prime

contractor.

iii. Whether the appellant could have been

allowed to operate under two different names in

violation of certain clauses of the tender

documents.

iv. Though it was admitted in the impugned

order that sub-contracts were allowed under the

terms and conditions of the tender document

but subject to fulfilment of certain conditions

which were found missing in the instant case.

Page 3 of 6

v. The nature of work experience gained by

appellant, as reflected from his work experience

certificate was at variance to the nature of work

actually executed in the past.

4. It cannot be overlooked that the petitioner

before the High Court, as the alter ego of the

unsuccessful bidder, filed the PIL questioning the

tender process. The said unsuccessful bidder had

complained against the successful bidder and has

since withdrawn the complaint.

5. During the course of argument, we were

informed vide affidavit of appellant dated 03.09.2026

that three (03) Kms. of road construction is complete

along with retaining and breast walls of Matiana to

Mohri Road in Distt-Shimla (H.P.) and that appellant

is ready and willing to complete the work at the same

rates on which the work was awarded to appellant on

15.03.2024. Appellant has assured that quality of

work shall not be compromised.

Page 4 of 6

5.1 In view of the aforesaid assurance made by the

appellant, we extend a period of three months for the

appellant to complete the entire work allotted to him

on 15.03.2024 at the rates prevailing as on

15.03.2024. If the work so assigned to the appellant is

not completed within the given time of three months

subject to the official respondents verifying the quality

of the work executed, the official respondents are

directed to re-tender the same work at the prevailing

market rate.

6. The instant case stands deferred to be listed in

the first week of December, for the appellant to submit

compliance report of this order.

7. This order shall also govern Civil Appeal

No.12969 of 2026 preferred by the State of Himachal

Pradesh.

8. That by order dated 07.03.2025, this Court

had till the pendency of this appeal restrained the

official respondents from creating third party rights,

which interim order continues to subsist till date.

Page 5 of 6

Therefore, to the extent indicated above in this order,

the said interim order dated 07.03.2025 stands

modified.

9. List in the 1st week of December, 2026, for

appellant to file compliance report.

……………………………...J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

…...………………………...J. (SHEEL NAGU) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 23, 2026

Page 6 of 6