Four-Year Bottleneck: How a Short Gujarat Stretch Stalled the Delhi–Mumbai Expressway
Four-Year Bottleneck: The Delhi–Mumbai Expressway is one of India’s most ambitious highway infrastructure projects, designed to transform long-distance travel and logistics between the national capital and the country’s financial hub. Spanning over 1,300 kilometers and involving an investment exceeding one lakh crore rupees, the project was expected to showcase speed, efficiency, and modern execution. However, a surprisingly small segment in Gujarat has emerged as a major obstacle, delaying the overall progress and raising serious questions about contract management and accountability.
Background of the Mega Expressway Project
The Delhi–Mumbai Expressway passes through six states, namely Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra. To manage such a vast undertaking, the project was divided into 53 construction packages, each awarded separately to different contractors. Most of these packages have progressed steadily, and several sections are already operational, delivering faster travel and improved connectivity.
Despite this overall progress, three packages in Gujarat have become a critical weak link. These packages together measure only 87 kilometers, a small fraction of the total length, yet they have caused delays that now extend close to four years.
Details of the Gujarat Stretch and Contractor Issues
The problematic sections fall on the Vadodara–Virar corridor in Gujarat and are identified as Package 8, Package 9, and Package 10. These stretches were originally awarded in 2021 to a Pune-based infrastructure company. While other contractors advanced rapidly on adjacent segments, work on these three packages remained sluggish from the very beginning.
By early 2023, progress on these stretches was minimal, prompting the highway authority to scrap two of the contracts due to unsatisfactory performance. A fresh tendering process was initiated, but in an unexpected turn, the same contractor emerged as the lowest bidder and was awarded the contracts again in late 2023.
Slow Progress and Government Concerns
Nearly four years after the initial award, less than one-fifth of the total 87-kilometer stretch has been completed. This has triggered alarm within the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, as such delays undermine the purpose of a high-speed expressway designed for seamless long-distance travel.
Officials from the National Highways Authority of India have indicated that repeated delays, contractual disputes, and ongoing litigation have significantly hampered execution. The authority is now considering issuing formal notices to the contractor, which could eventually lead to termination of the contracts if corrective measures are not implemented within a specified timeframe.
Conflicting Claims on the Causes of Delay
The contractor has attributed the delay primarily to the non-availability of land, claiming that construction could not proceed without timely handover of required parcels. According to the company, this factor was beyond its control and directly impacted project timelines.
On the other hand, highway authority officials have disputed this explanation, asserting that land-related issues were not severe enough to justify such prolonged delays. They maintain that non-performance and internal issues within the contracting firm played a larger role in slowing down progress.
Tender Rules and Accountability Challenges
A senior official from the transport ministry reportedly expressed concern over the re-awarding of the contracts to the same company after earlier termination. However, highway authority officials clarified that existing tender rules require the contract to be awarded to the lowest bidder, provided basic eligibility conditions are met. Under current regulations, authorities cannot arbitrarily bar a company from bidding unless formal debarment or blacklisting procedures are completed.
The contractor, for its part, has described the earlier termination as unlawful and argued that rebidding proved there was no contractual default. This situation highlights a broader issue within public infrastructure projects, where rigid procurement rules sometimes limit administrative discretion, even in cases of repeated delays.
Cure Periods and Possible Future Action
When contractors fail to meet milestones, the highway authority has the option to issue what is known as a cure period notice. This provides a defined window for the contractor to resolve deficiencies before stronger actions such as termination, debarment, or blacklisting are considered. Officials suggest that such measures are now under active consideration for these Gujarat packages.
Impact on Connectivity and Project Vision
Once fully completed, the Delhi–Mumbai Expressway is expected to reduce the distance between Delhi and Jawaharlal Nehru Port by nearly 180 kilometers and cut travel time by up to half. This will significantly boost freight movement, economic activity, and regional development. So far, over seventy thousand crore rupees have already been spent, and operational sections in Delhi, Rajasthan, and Gujarat are delivering clear benefits.
However, until the delayed Gujarat stretches are completed, the expressway cannot function as a continuous high-speed corridor, limiting its full potential.
Conclusion
The delay caused by a short 87-kilometer stretch underscores how even small gaps can derail large infrastructure ambitions. The situation serves as a case study in the importance of performance monitoring, flexible procurement frameworks, and timely intervention. As authorities weigh stricter action, the resolution of this bottleneck will be crucial not only for the expressway’s completion but also for restoring confidence in large-scale infrastructure execution.