SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1355

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, CJI, UJJAL BHUYAN, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
State of Himachal Pradesh and Another – Appellants
Versus
M/s OASYS Cybernatics Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 14199 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 6531 of 2025]
Decided On : 24-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arman Roop Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Shimpy Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Aman Khan Afghani, Adv. Ms. Yeshasvi Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar, Adv. M/s Ram Sankar & Co, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Subhash Chandran K.R, AOR Mr. C.D. Negi, Adv. Ms. Krishna LR, Adv. Mr. Anirudh KP, Adv. M/s KRS Associates, Adv.

The cancellation of a Letter of Intent, though procedurally defective, was justified due to non-compliance with its conditions, emphasizing the need for public interest in government contracting.

Headnote:(A) Tender Law - Cancellation of Letter of Intent (LoI) - Administrative discretion - High Court set aside the cancellation of LoI issued to contractor by State; Court held cancelation was arbitrary and void of reasons. (Paras 20, 21, 56)

(B) Administrative Law - Principles of natural justice - Cancellation of LoI without reasons contravenes established norms; non-fulfillment of pre-requisites cited by State re-evaluated. (Paras 39, 43, 56)

(C) Public Interest - Emphasis on public welfare and procurement ethics in government contracting. (Para 57)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant-State issued an LoI for ePoS devices after multiple tendering attempts; subsequently, the LoI was cancelled citing non-compliance and alleged blacklisting complaints against the Respondent. The High Court ruled against the State, stating the cancellation was arbitrary and unreasoned.

Findings of Court:
The LoI did not constitute a concluded agreement, and its cancellation was legally justified despite procedural lapses regarding reason-giving.

Issues: (i) Did the LoI create binding rights for the Respondent? (ii) Was the cancellation by the Appellant arbitrary or violative of natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: The LoI was contingent, not a binding contract. The cancellation was procedurally defective but justified in public interest, prioritizing efficiency and compliance.

Result: Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment set aside.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, CJI.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeal, emanating from a dispute concerning government tenders, brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between considerations of public interest and the constitutional prohibition on arbitrariness in State action.

3. To briefly explicate, the State of Himachal Pradesh (Appellant-State) is in appeal against a Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla (High Court) dated 30.05.2024 (Impugned Judgment), whereby the cancellation of a Letter of Intent (LoI) issued to M/s OASYS Cybernetics Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent-company) in connection with a tender for the supply, installation, and maintenance of electronic Point-of-Sale (ePOS) devices for use in the Appellant-State’s Fair Price Shops, has been set aside with consequential restoration of contractual obligations.

A. FACTS

4. Prior to proceeding with charting out the competing submissions and the questions of law that arise for determination, it is necessary to first demarcate the relevant facts in some detail, as they form the quintessential setting against which the present controversy must be considered.

5. The dispute essentially emanates from the endeavour of the Appellant-State to modernise the functioning of its Public Distribution System (PDS). To that end, in 2017, the Appellant-State’s Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs (the Department)-which is the second Appellant before us-had engaged the Respondent-company for the supply and maintenance of ePoS devices at Fair Price Shops across the State. The said arrangement, being a rental model, continued in operation for several years and formed the technological base for the State’s PDS till its expiry.

5.1. In the financial year 2021-22, the State Government resolved to upgrade this ostensibly obsolete system by introducing enhanced ePoS devices equipped with biometric and IRIS-scanning facilities, making them inter alia capable of integration with electronic weighing scales. The reform was intended to allow an Aadhaar-enabled Public Distribution System (AePDS) to ensure transparency and better service to the beneficiaries. Pursuant thereto, the Department on 23.04.2021 invited an Expression of Interest from eligible manufacturers and system integrators to supply and maintain such upgraded devices. Several agencies participated in that process, one of which was the Respondent- company itself.

5.2. The Department thereafter initiated a series of tendering exercises throughout 2021 and 2022. Although the first tender was floated on 20.12.2021 and bids were opened on 21.01.2022, none of the bidders, including the Respondent-company, were deemed technically qualified. As a result, the process was cancelled.

5.3. A second tender was published on 28.01.2022, wherein five companies participated, but a technical evaluation again revealed deficiencies in documentation and non-conformity with the requisite specifications. This tender, too, was cancelled on 22.02.2022.

5.4. The process for the third tender commenced on 23.02.2022. Once again, the same set of five companies, including the Respondent-company and one M/s Linkwell Telesystems Pvt. Ltd. (brand name Visiontek) (Linkwell Telesystems), participated in the process. Upon evaluation, only the Respondent-company was found to have satisfied the technical criteria. The Department nonetheless elected to scrap the process yet again in order to afford equal opportunity to all bidders and to avoid a single-vendor situation. The tender accordingly stood cancelled on 24.03.2022.

5.5. The Department consequently notified a fourth tender on 25.03.2022. Four conglomerates, including the Respondent-company and Linkwell Telesystems, again participated; and on evaluation, the Respondent-company was yet again the sole technical qualifier. However, on this occasion, in view of the pressing need to maintain continuity in ration distribution and given the repeated failure of earlier rounds, the Depar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top