The cancellation of a tender process before technical evaluation does not confer vested rights to bidders, and adherence to procurement laws is mandatory in future processes.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

1. Both the writ petitions being analogous and pertaining to the same subject have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The petitioners in these two cases have challenged the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling a tender process. Such tender process was for supply of fertilizers. The petitioners, amongst various grounds have submitted that such action is arbitrary and unreasonable and also in violation of the statutes holding the field.

2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for adjudication, the facts pleaded by the parties may be narrated in brief.

3. The Directorate of Agriculture had issued a tender notice dated 19.09.2022, inviting bids from eligible bidders for supply of various natures of fertilizers for the year 2022-2023. The petitioners being interested with the aforesaid tender process had participated in the said process. It has been specifically pleaded that the bid documents were released on 20.09.2022, which was followed by a pre-bid meeting held on 26.09.2022 and the last date of submission of bids was 14.10.2022. The authorities had thereafter issued a corrigendum dated 29.09.2022, whereby the last date was extended upto 20.10.2022. The same was followed by further corrigenda whereby there were further extensions of the last date which was ultimately fixed on 04.11.2022. The bids were to be opened on 05.11.2022.

4. It has been pleaded that a number of bidders had participated in the said tender process and a substantial amount was collected by the Directorate from the bidders in terms of the price of the bid document and other processing fees. The tenders were opened on 05.11.2022 as stated above but no evaluation of the technical bids were made. As per the petitioners, they qualify in all the respects and their bids were valid for a period of 365 days. While it is the case of the petitioners that they were expecting the process to be brought to a logical conclusion, vide the impugned notice dated 28.07.2023, the tender process was cancelled. Such cancellation was as per the decision of the Departmental Bid Committee Meeting held on 28.07.2023. Further, the provisions of Section-III of Clause-26 of the bid document were also taken into consideration. It is the legality and validity of the aforesaid action by which the tender process has been cancelled which is the subject matter of these writ petitions.

5. I have heard Shri P. Khataniar, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas the Agriculture Department is represented by Shri B. Choudhury, its Standing Counsel, who has also placed before this Court the records of the case in original which have been examined.

6. Sri Khataniar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the cancellation of the tender process by taking recourse of Section-III of Clause-26 of the bid document is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is submitted that once a valid tender process was initiated at the expense of the public exchequer, the same could not have been cancelled in the manner as has been done. He submits that such action has been resorted to with mala fide intention so as to give undue benefit to certain blue eyed parties. It is submitted that no valid reasons are cited for issuing the cancellation order. The impugned order only mentions about the decision of the meeting held on 28.07.2023 and Clause-26 of Section-III and it is accordingly submitted that the same is cryptic.

7. By referring to Clause-26, the learned counsel has submitted that though the authorities have reserved the right to accept or reject any or all bids, such Clause is general in nature and cannot be resorted to arbitrarily.

8. By referring to the Assam Public Procurement Act, 2017 and the Assam Public Procurement Rules, 2020, (hereinafter the Act and Rules respectively) the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that under Section 26, the procedure has been prescribed for cancellation of a