The cancellation of a tender by an authority after the bidding process is complete is arbitrary unless supported by clear, substantiated justifications, reaffirming the need for transparency and fairness in public procurement processes.

JUDGMENT :

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

Flagging arbitrariness in issue of Tender Cancellation Notice dated 05.01.2026 (Annexure-10), whereby the tender floated vide RfP No.193/OMC/P&T/2025, dated 03.11.2025 and e-Tender No.OMC/25-26/ET/3 by M/s. Odisha Mining Corporation Limited for Selection of Mine Operator for Kodingamali Bauxite Mine in the district of Koraput and Rayagada in the State of Odisha through Reverse Auction Bidding Process has been cancelled after the petitioner emerged as successful bidder upon opening the technical as well as the price bids, and undertaking reverse auction bidding process, the instant writ petition has been filed beseeching to invoke power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant following relief(s):

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition, issue Rule NISI in the nature of a writ of Certiorari calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the present petitioner shall not be allowed by setting at naught the Tender Cancellation Notice dated 05.01.2026 as under Annexure-10;

And further as to why, the opposite parties shall not be directed to issue work order to the Petitioner in pursuance to tender process with respect to tender No.RfPNo. 193/OMC/P&T/2025 dated. 03.11.2025 & e-Tender No. OMC/25-26/ET/3 floated for Selection of Mine Operator in respect of Kodingamali Bauxite Mine in the district of Koraput and Rayagada, Odisha;

And if the opposite parties fails to show cause or show insufficient cause the RULE be made absolute and consequently the policy of the opposite parties in cancelling the tender process thereby nor issuing the work order be quashed as being arbitrary and against public interest;

And be further pleased to pass any such other and order as would be deemed fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case;

And for this act of kindness of this Hon'ble Court, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

Facts:

2. Shorn off unnecessary narration of facts as adumbrated in the writ petition, the following facts are culled out to appreciate the merit of contentions of respective parties.

2.1. The opposite parties-Odisha Mining Corporation Limited (for brevity, "OMC") awarded a contract (NIT No.149, dated 18.05.2017) to the petitioner’s erstwhile partnership firm. The work was formalized by issue of LoA No. 14029 dated 25.09.2017 and execution of Agreement No.12 dated 27.12.2017. After the petitioner’s company, M/s. Mythri Infrastructure and Mining India Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in 2019, it seamlessly took over and executed the Kodingamali Bauxite Mine work. The petitioner continuously performed the work entrusted by the OMC for eight years (2017-2025) and completed work valued at nearly Rs.486 Crores (excluding escalation and GST).

2.2. M/s. OMC Ltd. floated open tender vide RfP (Request for Proposal) No.193/OMC/P&T/2025 dated 03.11.2025; e- tender No.OMC/25-26/ET/03, dated 03.11.2025. The peak rated target was fixed at 35 Lakhs MT per year for a period of five years and extendable for another three years. Last date of submission of bid was fixed on 25.11.2025 at 5:00 P.M. The bid document was made available to the intending bidder at Rs.1,18,000/-. A Portal was opened for the said purpose which was allowed to download the tender documents by the intending bidder, from 04.11.2025.

2.3. On 15.11.2025 OMC issued a corrigendum to RfP dated 03.11.2025, modifying scheduled date and time and fixed on 27.11.2025, 5 P.M. On 27.11.2025 the RfP dated 03.11.2025 suffered another corrigendum whereby the bid date, time, etc. were reschedule