RR Constructions And Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. vs Gayatri Ventures and Ors.

2026 INSC 514 Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal No. of 2026 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.37099 of 2025]

RR CONSTRUCTIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT. LTD. ...APPELLANT Versus

GAYATRI VENTURES AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant is aggrieved with the impugned judgment of the

High Court, which disqualified the appellant for reason of the Earnest

Money Deposit (EMD) having been provided by way of a Fixed

Deposit (FD), when it was mandatory for out of State bidders to

submit EMD in the form of Demand Draft (DD). The High Court also

followed a judgment of that Court, which on identical conditions

found the submission of a DD mandatory for out of State bidders. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by babita pandey Date: 2026.05.20 13:09:25 IST Reason: Page 1 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.37099 of 2025

3. Sri Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the appellant would point out that the furnishing of EMD by a DD was

optional and the appellant had furnished a FD in the name of the

Tendering Authority itself. The finding that furnishing of a DD was

mandatory is not borne out from the specific terms of the tender

document and even the Committee which scrutinizes the tenders had

found the appellant to be qualified. There was a subsequent

disqualification made by the Tendering Authority which, however,

was not responded to within 48 hours’ time granted, since the

appellant was already disqualified by the High Court. It is prayed

that if this Court finds in favour of the appellant, the appellant may be

granted such time as this Court may determine, so as to contest the

disqualification subsequently made.

4. Sri Gagan Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 6th

respondent, at the outset contends that the appellant is guilty of

suppression, since the second disqualification was never disclosed

to this Court. It is also submitted that now the financial bid has been

opened and the 6th respondent’s bid having been accepted, this

appeal itself has become infructuous.

5. Sri Dama Sesadhri Naidu, learned Senior Counsel appearing

for the State while supporting the 6th respondent on the subsequent

Page 2 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.37099 of 2025 disqualification, admits that the State as per the accepted practice

had been accepting FDRs even in the case of out of State bidders. The

appellant though was disqualified for having submitted a FD, on the

representation filed by the appellant, it was found that the submission

of a FDR cannot lead to a disqualification, even with respect to out of

State bidders.

6. The Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Water Resources

Department for a work titled “Construction of Head Work of Lamti

Feeder Minor Tank Scheme”, the estimated project value of which was

Rs.13,72,98,000/-. Admittedly the financial bid of the appellant was of

Rs.120 Crores and that of the 6th respondent, Rs.149 Crores; the latter

having been accepted only due to the disqualification of the

appellant.

7. The bids were to be submitted in accordance with the tender

document, Annexure P2, in 3 envelopes termed Envelope A, B and C,

the first two being the technical qualification and the last containing

the financial bids. Insofar as Envelope A is concerned, it has to

contain inter alia the EMD in one of the approved forms as laid down

in Clause 2.13. Clause 2.13 has been extracted in the impugned

judgment, out of which we only notice sub-clause (a)(iv): Approved

Interest Bearing Security and sub-clause (a)(xiii): Bank Draft of State

Page 3 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.37099 of 2025 Bank of India or scheduled Banks in case of tenderers of other States.

Clause 2.13(b) relaxes the condition applicable to out of State

bidders, in furnishing the EMD, which may be in the form of bank

draft as specified in Clause 2.13(a)(xiii). Clause 2.15 with nominal

heading “Earnest Money for Tenders form other State” mandates that

on submission of DD, the same shall be renewed at least one month

prior to the expiry date from time to time failing which the same

would be encashed and the money kept by Engineer-in-Charge,

since the EMD is valid for a period of not less than 18 months as per

Clause 2.16.

8. We cannot but notice that though Clause 2.13 (a)(xiii) specifies

bank draft of State Bank of India or scheduled Banks in case of

tenderers of other States it is in the nature of an option as reiterated

in Clause 2.13 (b), which employs the words “may submit”. The word

“may” is also employed in Clause 2.15 and hence it is only in the

nature of an option and not a mandatory condition. The appellant

admittedly had provided a FD of the Punjab National Bank drawn on

the Banjara Hills Branch, Hyderabad. The FD was made in favour of

the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division, Chhuikhadan

(CG).

Page 4 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.37099 of 2025

9. The submission is that the provision of FD was by virtue of

Clause 2.13(a)(iv), which speaks of Approved Interest Bearing

Security. The word approved used is not to indicate any specific

approval by the State Government, as is submitted by the learned

Senior Counsel for the State, but loosely indicates Interest Bearing

Security, which character a FD definitely has.

10. We are hence of the opinion that the impugned order is not

sustainable going by the specific terms of the tender document and

hence we set aside the order of the High Court and declare the

qualification of the appellant on the opening of Envelope A as has

been declared by the Tendering Authority.

11. The next contention is insofar as the subsequent

disqualification, which is not a subject of challenge before us. The

second disqualification was occasioned on opening Envelope B,

which requires a pre-bid qualification certificate issued from the

office of the Engineer-in-Chief, WRD, Shivnath Bhawan, Nawa Raipur

(CG). The State contends that the appellant had not responded to the

notice within 48 hours specified in the notice, while the appellant

urges that in view of the disqualification ordered by the High Court a

response to the second disqualification would be defeated at the

outset. As far as the allegation of suppression, it is argued that the

Page 5 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.37099 of 2025 second disqualification was after the filing of the Special Leave

Petition. The 6th respondent, however, submits that the subsequent

disqualification was immediately after the SLP and the appellant did

not bring it to the notice of this Court, even when the status quo order

was passed, which was later to the disqualification.

12. The appellant’s disqualification on Envelope A was reversed by

the Tendering Authority on the representation filed by the appellant

and the 6th respondent filed a Writ Petition on 12.10.2025, which was

allowed on 11.12.2025. The present SLP was filed on 17.12.2025 after

which on 26.12.2025, the subsequent disqualification was made.

13. We cannot but observe that even if a challenge was made

against the subsequent disqualification, it would have been declined

by reason of the disqualification ordered by the High Court. The

appellant cannot be faulted for not having responded to the same and

it is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

that though not within time, a representation was filed against the said

disqualification too. The disqualification on opening Envelope A with

respect to the EMD, as ordered by the High Court having been

reversed by us, we are of the opinion that the appellant could

approach the Tendering Authority within 48 hours of this judgment

being uploaded, with a representation against such disqualification

Page 6 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.37099 of 2025 or urge contentions based on the representation submitted later to

the 48 hours granted by the Authorities.

14. We make it clear that we have not made any observation on the

qualification/disqualification on the opening of Envelope B. The

appeal stands allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment of the

High Court and affirming the qualification of the appellant on the

opening of Envelope A.

15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

.……………………………... J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

..………….…………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 20, 2026.

Page 7 of 7 CA @ SLP (C) No.37099 of 2025