Public authorities must ensure transparency and fairness in tender processes, adhering to legitimate expectations and justifiable reasons for actions affecting bidders.

-

ORDER :

K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“…declaring the action of respondents in cancelling the tender dated 11.03.2025 issued by respondents unilaterally despite the petitioner stood as L1 bidder and subsequent issuance of second tender dated 15.03.2025 insisting 10 years prior experience thereby excluding the petitioner from tender process as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice, transparency and natural justice, amounts to a colourable exercise of powers and also against the doctrine of level playing field in which denial of equal opportunity and reflects a non-transparent and discriminatory exercise of power as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminative and violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner herein guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and also direct the respondents herein to consider the case of petitioner as L1 bidder as he stood L1 with very low competitive price thereby saving the public exchequers money and to pass such other ….”

-

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner institute was established in 2019 for imparting coaching for Civil Services examinations. It is committed to provide top quality education with a modern spacious campus, library and advanced learning resources. It supported over 100 ST students in the last five years by offering 50% discount and free coaching. It provides scholarships, mock tests and free study material through its app and digital platforms, and is committed to social empowerment, providing coaching to underprivileged students, helping them to succeed without financial burden. Respondent No.3 issued a Tender Notice dated 11.03.2025 inviting experienced organizations to establish and manage UPSC coaching centres across 11 tribal constituencies, which is aimed at uplifting tribal students and providing free residential coaching facilities. The petitioner participated in the tender process and became L1 bidder quoting Rs.60.00 lakhs. The unofficial respondent quoted Rs.79.00 lakhs.

It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance of the opening of tenders, without awarding the contract to the petitioner, surprisingly, the tender was unilaterally cancelled without there being any notice or intimation to the petitioner and others. There is absolutely no reason as to why the tender was cancelled without there being any justifiable reason, which is illegal and the same is against the principles of natural justice. Surprisingly, on 15.03.2025, respondent No.3 issued a fresh short tender notice inviting tenders for conducting coaching for Civil Services Examinations at Y.T.C.Vepagunta, Visakhapatnam to graduate tribal unemployed youth, and to the surprise of the petitioner, a condition has been stipulated in the fresh tender that there should be 10 years’ experience to participate in the tender process. Whereas in the earlier tender, the condition that is stipulated to participate in the tender is only 5 years’ experience. It is not known as to why the condition of 5 years’ experience imposed in the earlier tender, has been replaced with the new condition of 10 years’ experience. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 19.03.2025 with regard to unilateral cancellation of earlier tender. There is absolutely no answer forthcoming from the respondents. The respondents have not issued any news paper advertisement but instead, circulated the Tender Notice privately, just to see to it that there should not be any fair competition.

--

It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have deliberately altered the tender conditions to restrict the participation of the petitioner by putting 10 years’ experience as a pre-condition, in the fresh tender issued for the self-same purpose, as they are well aware of the details of the petitioner while evaluating the earlier tender.

Hence, the Writ Petition.

3.