The cancellation of an awarded public tender is invalid if the withdrawing authority does not provide explicit reasons, thus undermining principles of transparency and fairness in public procurement.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

Aggrieved by the cancellation of the tender that was awarded in his favour, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash annexure P-1 i.e. impugned letter dated 05.09.2023 issued by respondent No.4.

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authority to allow the petitioner to complete the tender work issued to the petitioner vide award letter dated 20.06.2023.

iii) Call for the records pertaining to the case at hand.

iv) Direct the respondent authorities to pay the cost of the petition.

2 The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondents had invited bids through e-procurement on 24.04.2023 for the construction of link road from Dhatehar Mahrana Duhak km 0/0 to 6/310 (SH: formation cutting, passing places, retaining walls, cross drainage works, GSB, WBM G-II, WBM G-III) tarring work, interlocking paver block, cement concrete pavement, road side drain and parapets, P/F road furniture including five years routine maintenance of above mentioned road which falls under NABARD RIDF- XXVIII. The estimated cost of work as per tender notice was fixed at Rs.327.51 lacs towards construction of road and Rs.36.16 lacs towards maintenance for five years.

3. After completion of codal formalities, the tender was eventually awarded to the petitioner being L-1 vide award letter dated 20.06.2023. Shortly, within a period of 2 ½ months, the respondents withdrew the tender vide letter dated 05.09.2023 “due to administrative reasons” and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the reliefs as quoted above.

4. The respondents have filed reply, wherein the factual aspect of the matter has been admitted and the only ground for justifying the cancellation of the tender was that the process of technical evaluation of work in question had been assailed by one Rajinder Singh Rana by filing CWP No.4125 of 2023 before this Court, wherein the petitioner was also party as one of the respondents and such petition was disposed of on 12.09.2023 because the tender in question had been withdrawn and nothing more thereafter has been added to this ground.

5. It has further been averred that even though the work was awarded to the petitioner vide letter dated 20.06.2023 but the petitioner did not sign the agreement, as stipulated, within 07 days and did not proceed to start work within 15 days. This also led to the withdrawal of the tender.

6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

7. Before adverting to the respective case of the parties, it needs to be noticed that the person in favour of whom the contract has now been awarded was fully-aware of the pendency of this petition and at one stage had instructed Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate of this court to put in appearance on his behalf and file an appropriate application for his impleadment, but no such application was filed till date. This fact has duly been verified by Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate in the open court during the course of hearing.

8. It also needs to be noticed that at the time when the instant petition was filed, the work in question had not been awarded in anyone’s favour and therefore, this court did not find it fit enough and any occasion for grant of interim relief, as would be evident from the order dated 27.10.2023.

9. In order to satisfy ourselves regarding the work in progress, we had called upon Mr. Munish Sehgal, Executive Engineer, H.P. P.W.D, Jawalaji Division, District Kangra, H.P who informed the court that overall 20% of work has been executed.

10. Be that as it may, as per the respondents, the tender in question was withdrawn due to pendency of CWP N