The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favour of Hardev Construction Private Limited after its bid for a railway infrastructure project was rejected over the non-submission of an original bid security document. The Court held that insisting on a physical original was unjustified when the company had already deposited the bid security through an electronic payment gateway and uploaded the digital receipt along with its bid. Setting aside the Patna High Court’s order upholding the rejection, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran clarified that rigid compliance with a document requirement cannot be insisted upon when fulfilling it is impossible in the circumstances.
Background
Hardev Construction Private Limited had submitted a bid for a railway infrastructure project involving the construction of guide bunds, launching aprons and associated river protection works for the Bikramshila-Katareah New Line Rail Link Project.
The bid was rejected because the company had not physically submitted the original bid security document, as required under Clause 2.20.6(ii) of the Request for Proposal. The company argued that it had already transferred the required amount electronically and uploaded the payment receipt on the e-procurement portal.
The Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Railways, maintained that the tender conditions specifically required the original document. The successful tenderer also opposed the challenge, relying on the principle that authorities are generally best placed to interpret their own tender conditions.
The Bench examined the tender conditions, which permitted bid security through several modes, including bank guarantees, demand drafts, fixed deposit receipts, bankers’ cheques and electronic payment gateways.
The Court noted that physical submission served a purpose for instruments such as bank guarantees and demand drafts, which could not be enforced in the same manner without the original document. However, the situation was different when the money had already reached the authority’s account through electronic payment.
The judgment stated:
"Rigid adherence to the letter of a document cannot be countenanced, especially when there is a clear impossibility in compliance of the same."
The Court distinguished the case from Prakash Asphaltings and Toll Highways (India) Ltd. v. Mandeepa Enterprises and Others, explaining that the earlier decision concerned a materially different situation involving an incorrectly quoted financial bid. In the present case, the electronic payment had been made as required, and the receipt had been uploaded.
The Bench found the rejection perverse because insisting on an original physical receipt in these circumstances imposed a requirement that could not reasonably be fulfilled.
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s order and allowed the appeal. It directed the railway authorities to facilitate electronic payment of the bid security within two weeks or, if technical difficulties arose, permit payment through another form within a further two weeks.
After the bid security was submitted, the appellant’s financial bid was to be opened and considered alongside the other bids, with the tender finalised in accordance with the remaining tender conditions.
Case Details
- Case Title: Hardev Construction Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 25855 of 2026
- Judges: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Decision Date: October 12, 2026
