Supreme Court of India. File.
| Photo Credit: S. Subramanium
The Supreme Court has ordered status quo in a dispute over 96 road construction packages worth ₹638 crore under the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) in Manipur, after a contractor challenged the issuance of Letters of Acceptance for 84 packages to a rival bidder, alleging irregularities in the bidding process and fabrication of documents.
A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan was hearing a special leave petition filed by construction firm Nirbhay Construction against a September 17 order of a Division Bench of the Manipur High Court, which had declined to interfere with an earlier order of a single judge refusing interim relief to the firm. The Bench asked the single judge, before whom the main writ petition remains pending, to decide it “as expeditiously as possible”, preferably within two months from the first hearing on merits.
“We request the learned Single Judge to hear the writ petition on merits and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the date of the first hearing of the writ petition on merits by the learned Single Judge. Till the disposal of the writ petition on merits by the learned Single Judge, the respondents shall maintain status quo,” the Bench said.
The dispute concerns two notices inviting tenders issued by the Manipur State Rural Roads Development Agency for construction and maintenance of roads under the PMGSY. One tender comprised 55 work packages and the other 41, taking the total to 96. The High Court had recorded the total project cost at ₹638 crore.
Nirbhay Construction, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and Neha Rathi, has alleged that rival bidder Bhartia Infra Projects Limited (BIPL) furnished false and fabricated documents relating to its technical qualifications and should have been disqualified under the conditions governing the tender. According to the petition, BIPL was subsequently issued Letters of Acceptance for 84 of the 96 packages — 48 under one tender and 36 under the other.
Among the alleged discrepancies flagged by the petitioner were affidavits showing the same individual holding two positions simultaneously, different signatures attributed to the same person, and what it described as implausible claims about the experience of personnel.
The petition specifically referred to a supervisor whose affidavit claimed eight years of experience in civil construction, while the Class X certificate accompanying the bid related to the 2021 examination. It also raised questions over documents concerning equipment and an invoice and cash receipt for about ₹9.57 crore.
Nirbhay Construction had lodged a complaint on September 3 after the technical evaluation of the bids. Clause 22.6 of the Instructions to Bidders allowed bidders five working days after publication of the technical evaluation results to submit complaints and required such complaints to be “considered for resolution” before the financial bids were opened. The financial bids were subsequently opened, and Letters of Acceptance were issued to successful bidders.
A single judge of the Manipur High Court had earlier refused interim relief, observing that the technical bid had been evaluated by technical experts and that the court did not sit in appeal over their opinion.
A Division Bench subsequently declined to interfere with that order. It noted that the petitioner’s September 3 complaint had been considered on September 10 before the financial bids were opened and found that the tender conditions governing consideration of complaints had been complied with.
The Division Bench also took into account the public importance of the road projects and a September 30 cut-off for the funds, after which they could lapse. It consequently concluded that it would not be in the public interest to interfere with the tender process at that stage.
Published – September 28, 2026 09:11 pm IST
