Synopsis

The petitioner, a bidder in a tender floated by NHAI for engagement of a user fee collection agency, sought quashing of the Letter of Acceptance and the NIT, alleging that the tender documents contained an ambiguity regarding the number of operational toll plazas (11 vs. 8), which misled the petitioner while submitting its bid. The petitioner had been declared the highest bidder (H-1) and was called upon to furnish performance security. The petitioner requested that its bid be treated as null and void due to bona fide mistake, but NHAI did not respond. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as premature, holding that whether the petitioner was misled involves disputed questions of fact that require evidence, which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The court relegated the petitioner to alternative remedies (civil suit) and reserved liberty to approach the court if any adverse civil consequence (blacklisting) is imposed. The court distinguished the precedents cited by the petitioner.

Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Honourable Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan

Date of Judgment: 21st April 2026

Citation: W.P.(C) 5341/2026 (2026:DHC:3374-DB)

Core Law: Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction); public procurement – tender process, ambiguity in bid documents, bona fide mistake in bid; doctrine of alternative remedy

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 (writ jurisdiction)

• Public procurement/tender law – principles of judicial review of tender processes; scope of interference limited to illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity

• Alternative remedy – civil suit for declaration/injunction

Key legal principles applied

Writ jurisdiction not available for disputed questions of fact: Whether the petitioner was “misled” by the tender documents or whether the alleged ambiguity was genuine requires appreciation of evidence (e.g., reading of documents, intention of parties, industry practice). Such disputed factual questions cannot be decided in a writ petition under Article 226.

Premature petition – anticipatory relief not granted: The petitioner’s apprehension regarding forfeiture of bid security, cancellation of contract, or blacklisting was speculative. No such adverse order had been passed. A writ petition cannot be entertained based on anticipated or apprehended action.

Alternative remedy – civil suit is appropriate: Since the dispute involves contractual interpretation and allegations of misreprese

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.