Lowest bidder has no vested right to contract; authority may cancel tender for valid reasons like cartel without malice; tender conditions not judicially reviewable unless arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Petitioner submitted bid pursuant to e-tender notice issued by Nagar Nigam, Haridwar for supply of manpower. According to him, rates quoted by him were the lowest, yet contract was not awarded to him and the tender process was cancelled and another tender notice was issued by Nagar Nigam on 15.12.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the cancellation of e-tender for Manpower supply (by Outsourcing) at Nagar Nigam Haridwar vide impugned order dated 15-12-2025 issued by respondent no. 4 (contained Annexure no. 5 to this writ petition) and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to quash and set aside the re-tender of the said tender vide re-tender notice dated 15-12-2025 (Annexure no. 6 to this Writ Petition).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 and 4 to forthwith execute the contract bond in respect of the earlier Tender [viz. e-tender dated 18.09.2025 for Manpower supply (by Outsourcing) at Nagar Nigam Haridwar], in which petitioner is the L-1.”

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioner met all conditions of eligibility and the rates quoted by him for supply of manpower were found to be the lowest, therefore, petitioner was entitled for award of contract, however, the tender process initiated vide e-tender notice issued on 18.9.2025, was arbitrarily cancelled by the Municipal Commissioner, which has resulted in denial of his vested right to the petitioner.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the order dated 15.12.2025, whereby the earlier tender process was cancelled is liable to be set aside and the re-tender notice dated 15.12.2025, issued by Municipal Corporation also deserves to be set aside.

4. From the submission made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, it is apparent that petitioner is trying to capitalise on the fact that rates quoted by him in his bid were found to be the lowest. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. A notice inviting tender is merely an invitation to offer. A bidder, who submits bid in response to a notice inviting tender, issued by State or an instrumentality of State, has a right to be considered fairly and objectively in accordance with the norms laid down by the authority, which invited tenders. A lowest bidder does not have vested right to award of contract. The authority, which invites bids, is entitled to determine as to whether the tender inquiry should be proceeded to its logical conclusion by award of contract or whether there are circumstances, which would justify cancelling the tender process and inviting fresh tenders. A tender inquiry, which is floated by State or an instrumentality of the State, is an invitation to offer and the bid submitted pursuant thereto is an offer. The offer will not result into a binding contract, till the time it is accepted.

5. The bid submitted by petitioner in response to the e-tender notice dated 18.9.2025 was an offer, which would have resulted in a binding contract, only after acceptance by the competent authority. The offer made by petitioner was never accepted. A bidder, who participates in the tender process, has no other right except a right to equality and fair treatment in the evaluation of competitive bids. The authority inviting bids is not bound to accept the lowest bid, in case