Patna High Court
M/s Mahi ConstructionsversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The cancellation of the tender was within the authority’s statutory power and not arbitrary; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
M/s Mahi Constructions filed a writ petition seeking to quash the cancellation of Tender No. 09/2025‑26 for construction work in Patna, arguing that the cancellation without reasons was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The tender had been cancelled after the petitioner’s bid appeared in the price comparison sheet, and a fresh re‑tender was issued. The respondents contended that no vested right arises from being placed in the comparison sheet and that Clause 20 of the Notice Inviting Tender expressly permits cancellation without assigning reasons. The Court examined precedents on administrative discretion, noting that courts review only the legality of the decision‑making process and not the merits, and that a tendering authority may cancel a tender if the statutory clause allows it. Relying on the explicit power in Clause 20 and the absence of any proof of mala‑fides, bias or arbitrariness, the Court held that the cancellation was lawful. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the tender without assigning reasons is arbitrary or illegal, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
- Whether a bidder acquires any vested or indefeasible right to be awarded a contract merely by being placed in the price bid comparison sheet.
- Whether the court can intervene in the administrative decision to cancel the tender under the terms of Clause 20 of the NIT.
Subjects
- tender cancellation
- arbitrariness
- administrative law
- Wednesbury principle
- contractual freedom
- Article 14
- Article 19(1)(g)
- public procurement
- judicial review
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2323 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Mahi Constructions through its Prop Raushan Kumar Male, aged about-
37 years, S/o Ashok Kumar R/o at Beldari Tola, Patna City, Sampatchak,
Patna, P.S.- By-Pass, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Urban Development and
Housing Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, New Sachiwalaya, Patna
2. Joint Secretary, Urban Development and Housing Department, Govt. Of
Bihar Vikash Bhawan, Patna, New Sachiwalaya Bhawan at Nehru Path
Patna
3. Collector cum District Magistrate, Patna of Collectoriate Compound, Patna
4. Chief Engineer Urban Development and Housing Deptt. Govt. of Bihar
Patna Vikash Bhawan New Sachiwalaya, Path, Patna
5. Executive Engineer, Urban Development and Housing Department, at
Vikash Bhawan, New Sachiwalaya Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Nehru Path Patna.
6. Chairman, Nagar Parishad Sampatchak, District- Patna
7. Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad Sampat Chak, District-Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Md. Harun Quareshi, AC to SC-1
For Resp No.6 & 7 : Mr. Krishna Kant Tiwari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed for
quashing the order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2323 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
2/7
Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Shampat Chak, whereby
the final merit list relating to Tender No. 09/2025- 26,
Group- 3(Ward No. 8) and Group- 4(Ward No.11) has been
cancelled and a fresh re- tender has been issued on
19.01.2026 for the same work.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the tender
dated 24.11.2025 invited bids, inter alia, for construction of
R.C.C. drain and P.C.C. road from the house of Jitendra Jee
to Badshahi Payeen in Ward No. 8 (estimated cost Rs.
1,30,39,200/-) and from the south of the house of
Baleshwar Prasad up to the house of Malti Devi in Ward
No. 11 (estimated cost Rs. 92,87,000/-), with a completion
period of three months. The petitioner submitted bids for
both works and, was placed in the price bid comparison
sheet. However, before issuance of any letter of acceptance
or work order, the Executive Officer cancelled the tender
without assigning any reason and thereafter issued a fresh
re-tender notice fixing 03.02.2026 as the last date for
submission of bids.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
once the petitioner was placed in the price bid comparison
sheet, the respondents could not have cancelled the process
Patna High Court CWJC No.2323 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
3/7
without assigning reasons. It is submitted that the impugned
action is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India and amounts to colourable
exercise of power.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents submits that no vested right accrues to a
bidder merely because he has been placed in the price bid
comparison sheet and that the authority is empowered to
cancel the tender process prior to final award of contract. It
is further submitted that Clause 20 of the NIT expressly
reserves such power with the competent authority to cancel
the tender without assigning any reason, which reads as
follows:
“20. अधधोहस्तताक्षरर / सक्षम पताधधकतार कधो बबिनता कधोई कतारण बिततायय
बनबविदता कय सभर / बकन्हह कतायर र कधो यता बकसर कतायर कय बकन्हर अरश/अरशश कधो रद
करनय कता अधधकतार ससुरबक्षत रहयगता। इसकय धलिए बकसर भर पकतार कता कधोई दताविता मतान्य
नहह हधोगता।”
6. Relying upon the aforesaid clause, learned
counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has
no enforceable legal right to seek award of the contract and,
therefore, no interference is warranted in exercise of writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.2323 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
4/7
jurisdiction.
7. The sole question that arises for consideration
before this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, the cancellation of the tender and
issuance of the re-tender suffers from arbitrariness or
illegality so as to warrant interference of this Court.
8. It is not in dispute that no letter of acceptance
or work order was issued in favour of the petitioner. It is
well settled that a bidder does not acquire any vested or
indefeasible right to be awarded the contract merely
because he is declared technically qualified. In State of
Jharkhand & Ors. vs. CWE- SOMA Consortium reported
in (2016) 14 SCC 172, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed as follows:
“20... Decision of the State issuing tender notice to
cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders could not
have been interfered with by the High Court unless
found to be mala fide or arbitrary...While exercising
judicial review in the matter of government
contracts, the primary concern of the court is to see
whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making
process or whether it is vitiated by mala fides,
unreasonableness or arbitrariness.
21. Observing that while exercising power of judicial
review, the Court does not sit as appellate court over
the decision of the Government but merely reviews
the manner in which the decision was made, in Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [Tata Cellular v. Union of
India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] ,…
22. The Government must have freedom of contract.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2323 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
5/7
In Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe &
Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. , SCC in para 12 this Court
held as under: (SCC p. 147)
“12. After an exhaustive consideration of a
large number of decisions and standard
books on administrative law, the Court
enunciated the principle that the modern
trend points to judicial restraint in
administrative action. The court does not sit
as a court of appeal but merely reviews the
manner in which the decision was made.
The court does not have the expertise to
correct the administrative decision. If a
review of the administrative decision is
permitted it will be substituting its own
decision, without the necessary expertise,
which itself may be fallible. The
Government must have freedom of contract.
In other words, fair play in the joints is a
necessary concomitant for an administrative
body functioning in an administrative
sphere or quasi-administrative sphere.
However, the decision must not only be
tested by the application of Wednesbury
principles of reasonableness but also must
be free from arbitrariness not affected by
bias or actuated by mala fides. It was also
pointed out that quashing decisions may
impose heavy administrative burden on the
administration and lead to increased and
unbudgeted expenditure. (See para 113 of
the Report, SCC para 94.)”..”
9. Further, in Silppi Constructions Contractors v.
Union of India, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 25 has observed as
follows:
“25...We must remember that we are dealing with
purely administrative decisions. These are in the
realm of contract. While rejecting the tender the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2323 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
6/7
person or authority inviting the tenders is not
required to give reasons even if it be a State within
the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. These
decisions are neither judicial nor quasi-judicial. If
reasons are to be given at every stage, then the
commercial activities of the State would come to a
grinding halt. The State must be given sufficient
leeway in this regard..”
10. In the present case, Clause 20 of the NIT
expressly empowers the concerned authority to cancel the
tender process, in whole or in part, without assigning any
reason and further stipulates that no claim shall be
maintainable on that account. The petitioner, having
participated in the tender process with full knowledge of the
said condition, is bound by the same.
11. The scope of judicial review in contractual
and tender matters being limited, this Court does not sit as
an appellate authority to examine the merits of the
administrative decision. The Court is concerned only with
the legality of the decision-making process. In the absence
of any cogent material to demonstrate mala fides, bias,
arbitrariness or violation of statutory provisions, mere
allegation of colourable exercise of power is insufficient to
invoke writ jurisdiction.
12. In view of the settled legal position and the
terms of the NIT, this Court finds no infirmity in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2323 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
7/7
decision of the authority to cancel the tender process and
issue a fresh re-tender.
13. Accordingly, the writ application stands
dismissed.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U
Checking your session…