The procuring entity has the discretion to cancel tenders and re-invite bids without prior communication of reasons; judicial review is limited to assessing arbitrariness or statutory violations in procurement decisions.

Order :

NUPUR BHATI, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 with the following prayer:

“I. Issue an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside any and all orders passed by the Respondents (including vide letter dated 09.09.2025) vide which the Petitioner's bid has been rejected and/or the subject Tender no. 10/2025-26 dated 19.06.2025 has been annulled;

II. Issue an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside any and all consequential actions (including but not limited to the letter dated 13.09.2025 issued by Respondent No. 3 i.e. Annexure-2) taken by the Respondents in furtherance of the rejection of the Petitioner's bid and/or annulment of the subject Tender no. 19.06.2025 (Annexure-3) 10/2025-26 dated (Annexure-3).

III. Issue an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside the fresh Notice Inviting Bid bearing ref. 23/2025-26 dated 10.09.2025 issued by the Respondents re-inviting the tender (Annexure - 1);

IV. Issue an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to consider the bid submitted by the Petitioner for the subject Tender no.10/2025-26 dated 19.06.2025 afresh;”

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a Class “AA” contractor registered with the Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan. The Petitioner participated in the tender dated 19.06.2025 (Annex.3) for widening and strengthening of the Merta–Khedapa via Gotan–Asop– Paldiranavatan Road from Km 37/0 to 63/0 and 67/0 to 76/0 (SH- 86A) (Job No. CRIF/1059/RJ/2023-24) (“Tender”) along with two other bidders. At the technical stage, the Petitioner alone was found responsive, and consequently emerged as the lowest bidder. The remaining two bidders were rejected at the technical evaluation stage. However, on 11.09.2025 (Annex.2), Respondent No. 3 issued a letter informing the Petitioner that its Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) was being returned as the Tender had been cancelled pursuant to a decision of the Empowered Board and a letter dated 09.09.2025 issued by Respondent No. 2. No reasons for cancellation were communicated, nor copies of the relevant orders were supplied. Even before issuing this letter, the Respondents had already floated a fresh tender bearing reference No. 23/2025-26 on 10.09.2025 (Annex.1) for the identical scope of work. The last date for submission of bids under the fresh tender was 25.09.2025, which was opened on 26.09.2025.

3. The respondents have repeatedly floated successive tenders for the very same work, without allowing any single tender process to attain finality. Beginning with Tender No. 1 issued on 20.08.2023, which was cancelled on 06.10.2023 despite the petitioner being the sole responsive bidder and having been called for negotiations, the respondents thereafter issued Tender Nos. 2, 3 and 4, each of which was either cancelled or rendered infructuous -whether due to the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct or on account of procedural irregularities attributable solely to the respondents. Subsequently, even after the petitioner participated in Tender No. 5 (NIT No. 10/2025-26 dated 19.06.2025) and was again found to be the only responsive bidder at both the technical and financial stages, with the Bid Evaluation Committee formally recommending acceptanc