Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (September 23) has observed that a ₹23-crore road construction contract was not of such magnitude as to justify a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on the ground of alleged wastage of public resources, particularly when the dispute essentially concerned the comparative eligibility of competing bidders.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu made the observation while hearing an appeal against a Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment that had quashed the award of a ₹23-crore Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (“PMGSY”) road project in favour of the Appellant-O.P. Mehta and directed re-tendering.

The Court questioned whether such a tender dispute could appropriately be brought through a PIL, noting that the challenge predominantly involved an inter-se comparison between two bidders.

“We have our reservations since the grounds raised in the PIL before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla pre-dominantly dealt with, inter-se comparative assessment between the two bidders whose bids had been received…”, the Court said.

Importantly, the Court noted that the value of the work, approximately ₹23 crore, was not by itself sufficient to invoke public interest on the ground of wastage of public resources.

“Moreso even the cost of work (Rs. 23 crores) was not of such magnitude, which may allow the petitioner in PIL to raise the plea of wastage of public resources.”, the Court observed.

The Court also noted that the PIL petitioner was the “alter ego of the unsuccessful bidder”, who had complained against the successful bidder and subsequently withdrawn the complaint.

Taking note of the appellant's assurance to complete the remaining work within three months at the original rates and without compromising quality, the Court granted the appellant three months to complete the project.

If the work is not completed within that period, the authorities have been directed to re-tender the work at the prevailing market rate.

The matter will be listed in the first week of December 2026 for a compliance report.

Cause Title: O.P. MEHTA VERSUS MOHINDER KALTA & ORS. (with connected appeal)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 977

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Mr. Puneet Rajta, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Danish Azad, Adv. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Kunal Thakur, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Ms. Manisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Kunal Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ravi Tanta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Prashar, Adv. Mr. Maddhav Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, AOR Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Mr. Puneet Rajta, Adv. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. Anand Prakash, Adv. Mr. T.D. Kashav, Adv. Ms. Varsha Arya, Adv. Mr. Nishant Bhardwaj, AOR Mr. Sarthak Ghonkrokta, AOR

Tags: