Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Tender Cancellation in Public Works Contract — No Arbitrariness Found in Cancellation Due to Discrepancies in Bid Documents. The court held that the petitioner has no vested right to the contract and the authority's decision to cancel the tender was not arbitrary.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s Rohini Constructions, a partnership firm, challenged the cancellation of a tender issued by the Public Works Department of Maharashtra for construction work. The petitioner was the lowest bidder, but the tender was cancelled by the respondents due to alleged discrepancies in the bid documents. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the cancellation and direction to award the contract. The respondents argued that the cancellation was justified as the petitioner's bid did not meet the required specifications. The court analyzed the facts and found that the decision to cancel the tender was based on valid reasons and was not arbitrary. The court held that the authority has the discretion to cancel the tender if it is in public interest, and the petitioner has no vested right to the contract. The writ petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Tender Law - Cancellation of Tender - Judicial Review - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court examined whether the cancellation of a tender by the Public Works Department was arbitrary. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of the tender for construction work. The court held that the decision to cancel the tender was based on discrepancies in the bid documents and was not arbitrary. The court observed that the authority has the discretion to cancel the tender if it is in public interest. (Paras 1-10)

B) Tender Law - Vested Right - No Right to Contract - The court held that the petitioner does not have a vested right to the contract merely because his bid was the lowest. The authority can cancel the tender for valid reasons. (Paras 5-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the cancellation of a tender by the Public Works Department was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and whether the petitioner had a vested right to the contract.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed. The court upheld the cancellation of the tender, finding no arbitrariness.

Law Points

  • Tender cancellation
  • public works contract
  • judicial review
  • arbitrariness
  • writ jurisdiction
  • Article 226
  • Maharashtra Public Works Department Manual
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (BOM) (03) 7

Writ Petition No.263 of 2022

2022-03-11

S.V. Gangapurwala, S.G. Dige

Mr.V.D. Hon, Mr.A.V. Hon, Mr.A.D. Sonkawde, Mr.S.B. Yawalkar, Mr.B.M. Dhanure

M/s Rohini Constructions

The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary for Public Works Department, The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Circle, Osmanabad, The Executive Engineer, Public Works Division No.2 Latur, Patel Constructions, Shailesh Dilip Rautrao

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging cancellation of tender for public works contract.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation of tender and direction to award the contract to the petitioner.

Filing Reason

Petitioner's bid was the lowest but the tender was cancelled due to alleged discrepancies.

Issues

Whether the cancellation of the tender was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Whether the petitioner had a vested right to the contract.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the cancellation was arbitrary as his bid was the lowest and he complied with all requirements. Respondents argued that the cancellation was justified due to discrepancies in the bid documents and in public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The authority has the discretion to cancel a tender if it is in public interest, and the petitioner has no vested right to the contract merely because his bid was the lowest. The decision to cancel must not be arbitrary.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the decision to cancel the tender was based on discrepancies in the bid documents and was not arbitrary. The petitioner does not have a vested right to the contract.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. The petition was reserved on 1st March 2022 and pronounced on 11th March 2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 14, Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Outraging Modesty Case Due to Compromise and Lack of Public View. Court holds that Section 354 IPC requires sexual intent and public view, and compromise in non-compoundable offences can be accepted w...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Tender Cancellation in Public Works Contract — No Arbitrariness Found in Cancellation Due to Discrepancies in Bid Documents. The court held that the petitioner has no vested right to the contrac...