Hardev Construction Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

2026 INSC 1110 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.25855 of 2026)

Hardev Construction Private Limited ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Union of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant’s bid for the project ‘Engineering

Procurement and Construction (EPC) of Construction of guide

bunds, Launching Aprons and Associated River Protection

Works etc. in connection with Bikramshila-Katareah New Line

Rail Link Project on EPC Mode"-Bid/ Package No. ECR-CAO-C-

S-EPC-05-25-26 dated 06.01.2026’ was rejected for reason of

non-submission of original of the Bid Security furnished; Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Date: 2026.10.12 stipulated vide Clause 2.20.6 (ii) of the Request For Proposal 15:51:04 IST Reason:

(RFP), as indicated in the e-portal of the respondent, a copy

CA@ SLP (C) No.25855 of 2026 Page 1 of 7

of which is produced at Annexure P3. The Division Bench of

the Patna High Court affirmed the rejection, which is

impugned in the instant appeal.

3. We heard Sri A. K. De, learned Counsel for the

appellant, Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar, learned A.S.G.

for the respondent-Ministry of Railways and Ms. Nina R.

Nariman, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent, who was

the successful tenderer.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the

rejection was only on the ground that the appellant had not

submitted the original of the Bid Security furnished, which in

the case of the appellant was submitted through the e-

payment Gateway of Authority. The Bid Security was remitted

to the account of the respondent through e-payment, the

receipt of which in the digital form was scanned and

uploaded along with the bid.

5. Learned A.S.G. for the respondent-Ministry of

Railways, however, points out that Clause 2.20.6(ii)

specifically requires the original to be submitted, and in that

circumstance, the rejection was proper. Learned Counsel for

the 3rd respondent relied on the decision in Prakash

CA@ SLP (C) No.25855 of 2026 Page 2 of 7

Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v. Mandeepa

Enterprises and Others1 to argue that the awarder is the best

equipped to understand and appreciate its requirements and

interpret bid documents and the Constitutional Courts should

defer to such understanding and appreciation of the tender

documents. There is no elbow room insofar as producing the

original documents, is the 3rd respondent’s contention.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant also points out that

his financial bid was far lower than that of the 3rd respondent

and this causes loss to the exchequer. Learned A.S.G. alertly

points out that there was no opportunity to compare the

financial bids, since the appellant had failed in its technical

bid at the inception, for non-production of the required

original receipt, and in that circumstance, the appellant’s

financial bid was never opened.

7. Clause 2.20.6 of the RFP, produced as Annexure P1,

speaks of submission of Bid Security in the form of Bank

Guarantee/ Account Payee Demand Draft/Fixed Deposit

Receipt/ Banker's Cheque/ e-payment Gateway of Authority.

It is also stipulated in Clause 1 that a scanned copy of the

same shall be uploaded on e-Procurement Portal while

applying for the tender. There is no dispute that the appellant

made payment of the Bid Security by means of e-payment

and the rejection was only on the ground of violation of

Clause (ii). Clause (ii) prescribes that the form in which the

Bid Security is furnished, should be delivered in person,

physically, to the official nominated, as indicated in the

tender document. The appellant’s contention is that there is

no question of production of an original, since the payment

has already gone into the coffers of the respondents and the

digital receipt has been uploaded along with the tender

document.

8. We are perfectly in agreement with the contention of

the appellant, especially looking at the various forms in

which the Bid Security can be furnished; a Bank Guarantee/

Account Payee Demand Draft/Fixed Deposit Receipt/

Banker's Cheque, unless physically furnished to the

respondent, there can be no lien exercised on the Bid

Security. It is, hence, the stipulation that at the time of

application, the scanned copy should be uploaded and later

the original should be handed over to the nominated official.

CA@ SLP (C) No.25855 of 2026 Page 4 of 7

Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the money was

deposited to the account of the respondents and there is

nothing further required to be produced insofar as the e-

payment made, especially when the digital payment receipt

had been uploaded along with the bid document.

9. Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd.1

was a case in which a tender was invited for toll collection.

When the financial bid was opened, tenderers whose

technical bid was found to be qualified; three of them, had

quoted in crores while one had quoted a paltry amount of

Rs.9,72,999/-. The contention raised was that this was a bona

fide mistake, and the financial bid indicated only the

collection of a single day and if it is worked out for the total

contract of 1095 days, it would be Rs.100.65 crores and then

their bid would be the highest. It was in this context that this

Court held that the words used in the tender documents

cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous.

The tenderer was required to give the total collection for the

contract period and an omission insofar as submitting a paltry

amount, even if inadvertent, cannot be explained by putting

forth the contention that the bid was mistakenly quoted at the

CA@ SLP (C) No.25855 of 2026 Page 5 of 7

per day rate. It is also pertinent that this Court in the aforesaid

decision, while cautioning the Constitutional Court’s to defer

to the understanding and appreciation of the tender

documents, also carved out an exception insofar as mala fide

and perverse understanding or appreciation of the

documents, especially in the application of the terms of the

tender document.

10. We are convinced that here, there is a clear

perversity; insofar as an e-payment was made, as required

by the tender document, the digital receipt of which was

scanned and uploaded, rejected only since the original was

not produced; which is an impossibility. Rigid adherence to

the letter of a document cannot be countenanced, especially

when there is a clear impossibility in compliance of the same.

As we noticed, Bid Security, when furnished in all other

forms, cannot be enforced, unless the original comes into the

hands of the respondents. However, insofar as the e-payment

is concerned, the money has already been transferred to the

account of the respondents, and they have full control over it.

11. We, hence, set aside the impugned order and direct

the contract to be awarded to the appellant herein.

CA@ SLP (C) No.25855 of 2026 Page 6 of 7

12. We have been informed by the learned Counsel for

the appellant that after rejection, the amounts deposited in

the e-portal was refunded to the appellant. In that

circumstance, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would facilitate

either a measure of e-payment within a period of two weeks

from today, and if there is any technical difficulty, then the

appellant shall be required to submit the amounts in any

other form within a further period of two weeks. On the

submission of the Bid Security, the appellant’s financial bid

shall be opened to be considered along with the other bids

and the tender finalized, in accordance with the other tender

conditions stipulated.

13. The appeal stands allowed with the above directions.

14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand rejected.

.......…….……………………. J. (J. B. PARDIWALA)

....……….……………………. J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 12, 2026.

CA@ SLP (C) No.25855 of 2026 Page 7 of 7