The employer has the prerogative to cancel a tender if justified, and no rights of the appellant were violated as the financial bids were never opened.

ORDER :

1. Aggrieved of the order dated 22.07.2024, whereby learned Single Judge has rejected the application for grant of interim relief filed by the appellant along with writ petition titled, ‘M/s Gandotra Construction Corporation vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir’ bearing WP(C) No. 1637/2024, the appellant has approached this Court through the medium of this intra court appeal for quashing the order dated 22.07.2024.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

3. It is contended by the appellant that the learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the application for grant of interim relief filed by the appellant along with the writ petition as the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the fact that the respondents by their action have acted to the disadvantage of the appellant while cancelling earlier tender and issuing a fresh tender, more particularly when there was no justifiable reason for doing the same.

4. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that respondent No. 4 floated e-NIT No. E.E/PMGSY/R/2 of 2024-25 dated 14.06.2024 and the appellant participated in the said tender along with six others. The technical bids were opened on 02.07.2024 and only one bidder was found to be ‘ responsive ’ and other six bidders including the appellant were declared as ‘ non-responsive ’ . The appellant submitted his representation/objections to the result of the technical bid uploaded by the respondents and the Committee after considering the representation/objections, recommended the bid of the appellant as ‘responsive’. The respondents instead of opening the financial bids, cancelled the e-NIT No. E.E/PMGSY/R/2 of 2024-25 dated 14.06.2024 on the ground of poor response of bidders and in the same evening, floated a fresh e-NIT.

5. The contention of the appellant is that respondents were under obligation to open the financial bids but apprehending that the appellant might emerge as lowest bidder, in order to deny the allotment work to the appellant, the respondents in an arbitrary manner cancelled the aforesaid e-NIT and floated a fresh e-NIT.

6. In a query posed by us, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has participated in the fresh tender that was issued by the respondents after cancellation of e-NIT No. E.E/PMGSY/R/2 of 2024-25 dated 14.06.2024.

7. From the record it is evident that the respondents cancelled e-NIT No. E.E/PMGSY/R/2 of 2024-25 dated 14.06.2024 before opening the financial bids submitted by the appellant and other bidders and in view of non opening of the financial bids, the appellant cannot claim infringement of any of his rights. The respondents have cancelled the tender due to poor response and it is the prerogative of the employer whether to continue with the tender process or not provided there is a justifiable reason/cause for not proceeding ahead with the tender process. The cause projected by the respondents in cancelling the tender No. E.E/PMGSY/R/2 of 2024-25 dated 14.06.2024 cannot be termed as fanciful/arbitrary. We are of the considered view that none of the rights of the appellant has been violated particularly when process in the earlier tender was still at initial stage and as the appellant has already participated in the fresh tender issued by the respondents.

8. We have examined the order passed by learned Single Judge and we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the same.

9. The appeal is found to be without merit, as such, the same is dismissed.