Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jude E. Pereira, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to open the financial bid and finalize the award of contract for running the canteen at Ravindra Bhavan, Margao, Goa. The petitioner had been running the canteen under a license which expired on 31st March 2012, after which he continued as a monthly licensee. A tender notice was issued, but the tender process was cancelled by the respondents. The petitioner claimed that the cancellation was arbitrary and that he had a right to have the financial bid opened. The respondents argued that the cancellation was in public interest and that the petitioner had no vested right. The court held that no right accrues to a bidder until the contract is awarded, and the cancellation of a tender for valid reasons is not arbitrary. The court also noted that the petitioner's license had expired and he was only a monthly licensee, with no right to continue. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - No vested right to contract - The petitioner, a canteen contractor, sought mandamus to open financial bids and award contract after tender cancellation. The court held that no right accrues until contract is awarded, and cancellation of tender for public interest is not arbitrary. (Paras 3-6) B) Contract Law - Tender Process - Cancellation of Tender - No right to claim continuation - The petitioner's license had expired and he was a monthly licensee. The court held that the petitioner cannot claim any right to continue running the canteen after expiry of the term. (Paras 3-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner had a vested right to have the financial bid opened and contract awarded after the tender process was cancelled, and whether the High Court should interfere under writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender cancellation
- No vested right to contract
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
- Public interest in fair tendering process
