Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedHardev Construction Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
2026 INSC 1110
Civil Appeal of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 25855 of 2026)
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 12 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Final Outcome
Appeal allowed; the High Court's order set aside and the contract directed to be awarded to the appellant; the refunded bid security to be re-furnished within two weeks (a further two weeks if e-payment fails), after which its financial bid is to be opened and the tender finalised (paras 11-13).
Key holdings
- A bid security paid by e-payment has no ‘original’ to produce; the money is already with the authority (paras 8, 10).
- Physical delivery matters for instruments such as bank guarantees, on which a lien must be exercised (paras 8, 10).
- Deference to the tendering authority does not cover perverse readings of tender terms (paras 9-10).
- Rigid adherence to a tender clause cannot be insisted on where compliance is impossible (para 10).
- The refunded bid security is to be re-furnished and the financial bid opened (para 12).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The appellant's bid in a railway EPC tender of 06.01.2026 for guide bunds and river-protection works on the Bikramshila-Katareah new line was rejected under Clause 2.20.6(ii) of the Request for Proposal for not submitting the original of its bid security, and a Division Bench of the Patna High Court affirmed (para 2). The appellant had paid the bid security through the authority's e-payment gateway and uploaded the scanned digital receipt with its bid (paras 4, 7). The Ministry of Railways said the clause required the original; the successful tenderer relied on Prakash Asphaltings for deference to the tendering authority (para 5).
Court's Findings
Clause 2.20.6 allowed bid security by bank guarantee, demand draft, fixed deposit receipt, banker's cheque or e-payment, with a scanned copy uploaded and the original delivered to a nominated official (para 7). The Court agreed with the appellant: physical delivery matters for instruments on which a lien must be exercised, but an e-payment is already in the authority's account, and nothing more could be produced once the digital receipt was uploaded (paras 8, 10). Prakash Asphaltings, a toll tender in which a bidder had quoted a single day's collection, held that tender terms cannot be treated as redundant, but it also excepted mala fide or perverse readings of tender documents (para 9). Rejecting the bid for not producing an original that could not exist was clearly perverse; rigid adherence to the letter of a document cannot be countenanced where compliance is impossible (para 10).
Legal Principle
Where a tender permits bid security by e-payment and the digital receipt is uploaded, rejecting the bid for not producing an ‘original’ is perverse; courts defer to the tendering authority's reading of tender terms, but not where it demands a compliance that is impossible (paras 9-10).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v. Mandeepa Enterprises & Ors. (2026) 4 SCC 310
Cited by the successful tenderer: courts defer to the awarder's reading of tender documents and tender terms cannot be treated as redundant; an exception exists for mala fide or perverse readings, which applied here.
