Can a tender be reopened behind the back of the bidder who won it? The Supreme Court has set aside an Orissa High Court order reopening a river-embankment tender after finding that the successful bidder had been left out of the writ proceedings and the challenger remained technically disqualified even after re-evaluation. The Court directed issuance of the work order within four weeks of submission of a certified copy of its order.
New Delhi: The contractor who won the tender for protection of the Devi River’s right embankment in Odisha is to receive the work order, the Supreme Court has directed, holding that judicial interference was unjustified when the successful bidder was not impleaded and the unsuccessful challenger had again failed the technical requirements [Sanjay Kumar Samantaray v. Shantilata Khuntia & Others].
The appeal was allowed on November 5, 2026 by Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale. The signed order was uploaded on November 7.
Where the Court ended up
The State’s affidavit recorded that the fresh evaluation ordered by the High Court had not changed the technical result: Khuntia still did not qualify. That assertion was not countered, and she did not appear before the Supreme Court despite service of notice.
A remand would ordinarily have been considered. Here, the Bench found it would serve no useful purpose, given the unchanged technical position and the importance of the embankment-protection work.
The Court set aside the High Court order and directed that Samantaray receive the work order at the earliest, and no later than four weeks after a certified copy of the Supreme Court order is submitted to the competent authority. The appeal was allowed without costs.
The tender and the portal slip
The tender, valued at approximately ₹26.37 crore, concerned construction of eight spurs to protect the scoured bank near Erancha village. Of sixteen technical bids, thirteen qualified. Shantilata Khuntia’s bid was rejected for failure to furnish mandatory work-in-hand details required to assess bid capacity.
According to the order, an incorrect evaluation document was initially uploaded, giving a different reason for disqualification. The authorities corrected it through the portal’s technical revoke option. Automated messages followed, but the corrected evaluation document reaffirmed Khuntia’s rejection.
All thirteen qualified bidders quoted 14.99% below the estimated cost, so an automated lottery, as the tender conditions provided, picked the successful bidder. Samantaray’s assertion that he won that lottery remained uncontroverted.
A writ decided without the winner
Khuntia went to the High Court contending that the authorities could not proceed after the portal recorded revocation. Only the State authorities were impleaded. Samantaray later sought intervention, asserting a direct interest as the successful bidder.
The High Court allowed the writ petition without effectively adjudicating that intervention application. It quashed the process from the financial-bid stage and ordered fresh technical evaluation.
In paragraph 19, the Supreme Court held that the decision could not stand because it had been passed behind the successful bidder’s back. It also noted that the errors had been corrected and explained, and there was no allegation of mala fides in the evaluation process.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Samantaray v. Shantilata Khuntia & Others
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14186/2026, arising from SLP(C) No. 10745/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Order Date: November 5, 2026
Outcome: Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; work order directed for successful bidder.