Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

Order Date: 14 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: G.S. Matiyani And Sons
  • Respondents: State of Uttarakhand, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer (Nos. 2‑4), M/s Patni Engineering (No.5), M/s Laxmi Datt Binwal (No.6)
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (M/B) No. 569 of 2026 challenging the rejection of the petitioner’s bid for a public infrastructure contract.
  • Tender Details: Notice Inviting Tender dated 30‑04‑2026 for construction of a 75‑meter span Steel Truss Bridge, Kathgodam‑to‑Ranibagh section of NH 87 (109) under Chief Minister announcement No. 550/2019, Bhimtal Constituency, District Nainital.
  • Bid Rejection Reason: The Bid Scrutiny Committee found the bid non‑responsive because the Experience Certificate did not provide a financial‑year‑wise breakdown of quantities, violating Clause 2.2A(d) which requires execution of at least 50 % of the peak annual rate of construction of principal items in any one of the five financial years.
  • Specific Requirement (Clause 2.2A(d)): Minimum quantities of at least 50 % of peak annual rate for items such as Fabrication and Erection structural steel (369.86 MT → 184.93 MT), RCC (1633.66 cum → 816.83 cum), Plain Cement concrete (209.41 cum → 104.71 cum), Reinforcement Steel work (127.65 MT → 63.83 MT).
  • Petitioner’s Representation: Submitted on 23‑06‑2026 with running bills and other documents to prove annual execution of required quantities. The representation was rejected by Respondent No. 2 on 24‑06‑2026, reiterating the lack of year‑wise detail in the Experience Certificate and noting that the additional documents were not part of the original bid submission.
  • Legal Arguments: Petitioner's counsel argued that under Clause 21.1 of the Standard Bidding Document, the Bid Scrutiny Committee could seek written clarification, and failure to do so made the non‑responsive declaration unsustainable.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Court examined Clause 22.1, concluding that the Committee’s discretion is limited to seeking historical documents (audited accounts, tax clearance, PAN, etc.) and does not extend to rectifying a missing year‑wise experience certificate. The petitioner was aware of the requirement to submit such a certificate and failed to do so with the bid.
  • Contract Status: The contract for the bridge work had already been awarded to Respondent No. 6 (M/s Laxmi Datt Binwal), and the work is of great public importance and urgency.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition is dismissed.
  • All pending applications are disposed of.
  • No interference with the award to M/s Laxmi Datt Binwal.

Topics: Legal Dispute, Public Procurement, Infrastructure Contract