1 2026:HHC:29334 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.11715 of 2026 Decided on: 15.07.2026 SGF Infra Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ..Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr.Virender Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral) Notice. Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents/State. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions for the respondents to reprocess the petitioner’s bids strictly in accordance with Option 2 of Clause 4.4(c) of the Standard Bidding Document. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:29334 3. A perusal of the petition would go on to show that the petitioner has filed a representation dated 06.06.2026 (Annexure P/12) against selective opening of financial bids and denial of equal opportunities in twelve PMGSY Stage-IV tenders and that the petitioner had been declared L-1 in three packages and L-2 in one package, as mentioned at Sr.Nos.1 to 4 in the said representation, whereas for the others, its tender has not been opened. As the Department had stopped considering the participation in the remaining tenders and did not proceed with opening and evaluation of the financial bids therein, he has approached this Court. 4. Thus, it is case that the selective non-opening of its bids has deprived the Department of the opportunity to ascertain the true lowest available rates and ensure the most economical utilization of public funds and the procedure adopted in the present case has also frustrated the objective of competitive bidding by preventing discovery of the most competitive rates in several tenders. 5. The said issue has already been considered by us in CWP No.8987 of 2026 titled as Cube Construction Engineering Vs State of H.P. & others, 3 2026:HHC:29334 decided on 01.07.2026 (Annexure P-6) and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the representation filed by the present petitioner is liable to be decided keeping in view the principles laid down in the said judgment, which read as under:- 16. The aforesaid submission of the respondents needs to be examined in light of the way and manner in which the bids submitted by the petitioner have to be opened as detailed in Clause 4.4(c) of the Standard Bidding Document. The same reads as follows: “4.4(c)- To qualify for a package of contracts made up of this and other contracts for which bids are invited in the Notice Inviting Tender, the bidder must demonstrate having experience and resources sufficient to meet the aggregate of the qualifying criteria for the individual contracts. As per Operation Manual Important: - If any bidder is bidding more than one package in the Notice Inviting Tender the bidder must inform to the Tender Inviting Authority at the time or before the opening of technical bid about one of the following two options failing which the Tender Inviting Authority will act for Option 2. Option 1: Bidders may be asked to indicate in each technical bid the order of opening of their bids, so that the financial offers corresponding to the qualifying technical bids are opened in that order of his Assessed Available Bid Capacity is exhausted. Remaining financial offers of the bidder will be kept unopened. Option 2: Financial bids of all qualifying bidders may be opened, and bids arranged in order with that package where the difference between potential L-1 and potential L-2 is the greatest followed by the one in which it is next greatest and so on. L-1 will be awarded packages till his bid 4 2026:HHC:29334 capacity is exhausted. The process will be repeated for the remaining packages based on difference between earlier potential L-2 (now potential L-1) and earlier potential L-3 (now potential L-2) values etc.” 17. From the aforesaid it is evident that in pursuance to the Notice Inviting Tender if a bidder is bidding for more than one package than the bidder must exercise an option and inform the Tender Inviting Authority at the time or before the opening of technical bid about one of the two options (order of opening the bids) stated in Clause 4.4(c) of the Standard Bidding Document. In the absence of an option having been exercised the Tender Inviting Authority will act in accordance with Option No.2. In the case at hand the petitioner-firm at the appropriate stage i.e at the time or before the opening of technical bid had not exercised an option, therefore, the Tender Inviting Authority had to “punctiliously and rigidly” enforce the terms of the tender and act in consonance with option no 2. 18. The wholesome principle articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, namely, “… where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.”, also applies to bid documents, contractual disputes, particularly in commercial contracts or bids leading up to commercial contracts, where there is stiff competition. 19. Other than the aforesaid the principle laid down in Ramana Dayaram Shetty, (1979) 3 SCC 489 qua the right of the party issuing the tender (the employer) to “punctiliously and rigidly” enforce the terms of the tender is well accepted. [Qua applicability of both principles to tenders see Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL- SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622]. 20. In the case at hand, Clause 4.4(c) stated supra, which deals with the way and manner in which bids submitted by the petitioner-firm have to be dealt with, has been observed more in its breach rather than in its observance.” 5 2026:HHC:29334 6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to do the needful within a period of ten days. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice July 15, 2026 (Bipin Chander Negi) (mamta) Judge