Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by Level 9 BIZ Pvt. Ltd., who was not a party to the writ petition disposed of by the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The background involves a tender issued by HIMUDA in 2018 for construction of a commercial complex. After technical and financial bids were opened, a Letter of Intent was issued to M/s Vasu Constructions (Respondent No.2). Unsuccessful bidders, including Dalip S. Rathore and the appellant, filed writ petitions alleging irregularities. The High Court, by order dated 25.11.2020, appointed an independent committee to investigate. The committee found that both bidders were not technically qualified and that officers had acted improperly. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the earlier petitions on 08.01.2021, recording that the tender required cancellation. HIMUDA cancelled the tender on 05.02.2021. Respondent No.2 then filed a fresh writ petition (CWP 1481/2021) challenging the cancellation. On 18.10.2022, the High Court disposed of that petition by merely accepting statements of counsel for HIMUDA and Respondent No.2, allowing HIMUDA to withdraw the cancellation and permitting Respondent No.2 to execute the project on the same terms as the initial tender. The appellant, who was not a party to that writ petition, challenged this order. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was unsustainable. It noted that the earlier order dated 08.01.2021 had accepted the committee's findings of irregularities, and the cancellation was in compliance with that order. The High Court could not, in a subsequent petition, simply accept statements of counsel to revive the tainted tender without considering the earlier findings and without hearing the appellant, who was an affected party. The Court emphasized that such a course would amount to an abuse of the process of court and would undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and restored the cancellation order dated 05.02.2021, with liberty to HIMUDA to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review of Tender Process - Finality of Orders - The High Court, after appointing an independent committee that found gross irregularities in the tender process and after the tender was cancelled pursuant to its order, could not subsequently dispose of a writ petition by merely accepting statements of counsel to revive the same tender on the same terms, ignoring the earlier findings and without hearing the appellant who was an affected party. (Paras 4-10) B) Tender Law - Cancellation of Tender - Revival - Once a tender is cancelled due to irregularities confirmed by a court-appointed committee, the authority cannot unilaterally withdraw the cancellation and revive the tender without following due process and without considering the earlier judicial findings. (Paras 5-9) C) Civil Procedure - Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - An order passed in a writ petition without notice to a person who was a party to earlier related proceedings and whose rights are affected is violative of principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. (Paras 2, 10) D) Supreme Court - Appellate Jurisdiction - Interference with High Court Orders - The Supreme Court will interfere when the High Court has acted in a manner that undermines the integrity of judicial proceedings and ignores its own earlier findings of irregularities. (Paras 4, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could dispose of a writ petition by merely accepting statements of counsel, thereby permitting revival of a tender that had been cancelled due to irregularities found by an independent committee appointed by the same court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the High Court, and restored the cancellation order dated 05.02.2021. The Court granted liberty to HIMUDA to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Judicial review of administrative action
- Tender cancellation
- Natural justice
- Abuse of process of court
- Finality of judicial orders
