Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shaik Abdul Khaliq, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking quashment of a tender notice insofar as it pertained to Taluk Entry Nos. 33 (Kanakapura) and 34 (Magadi) and a consequential direction to issue a work order in his favour. The respondents were the State of Karnataka, represented by the Commissioner of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, and the Deputy Director of the same department for Ramanagar District. The petitioner had participated in an e-tender bearing No. FSA/PROL/WHOLESALE/TENDER/01/2022-24 for the supply of food grains. The petitioner's bid was the highest for the two taluk entries. However, the Tender Task Force Samiti, by order dated 28.1.2022 (Annexure-B), cancelled the entire tender process. Consequently, a fresh e-tender notice was issued (Annexure-C). The petitioner challenged the cancellation and sought a direction to issue a work order in his favour. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the tender was cancelled before acceptance and that no vested right accrued to the petitioner. The court analyzed the facts and held that the petitioner's bid had not been accepted; the tender was cancelled prior to acceptance. The court observed that a bidder acquires no vested right until the tender is accepted. The cancellation of the tender before acceptance was a valid administrative decision, and the court could not interfere unless it was arbitrary or mala fide. The court found no arbitrariness in the cancellation. The court also held that principles of natural justice are not attracted at the pre-contractual stage. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tender Law - Cancellation of Tender - Vested Right - No vested right accrues to a bidder until the tender is accepted - The petitioner's bid was the highest but the tender was cancelled before any acceptance - Held that the petitioner cannot claim a right to the work order as the tender process was validly cancelled prior to acceptance (Paras 5-7). B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Pre-contractual Stage - A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the authorities to issue a work order when the tender has been cancelled before acceptance - The court cannot interfere with the decision to cancel a tender unless it is arbitrary or mala fide - Held that the cancellation was not arbitrary and the writ petition is dismissed (Paras 8-10). C) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Pre-contractual Stage - Principles of natural justice are not attracted at the stage of tender cancellation before acceptance - The petitioner was not entitled to a hearing before the cancellation - Held that the cancellation was valid and does not violate natural justice (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue a work order in his favour when the tender process was cancelled before acceptance.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tender cancellation before acceptance does not create any vested right
- Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued to compel issuance of work order when tender is cancelled prior to acceptance
- Principles of natural justice not applicable to pre-contractual stage
