US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Sanjeev Sachdeva, C.J., Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Rajbahdur Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
Sanjeev Sachdeva, C.J.
Petitioner impugns order dated 02.04.2025 whereby the respondent No.2/Jabalpur Development Authority has decided to annul the tender and invite a fresh tender.
2. Respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority had invited public bids for auction of plot situated at Scheme number 5/14, Vijay Nagar Plot No. J- 12 measuring 1500 sq feet. Petitioner had participated in the tender process along with several other bidders. The highest bidder in the said tender process withdrew his bid. Consequently, Petitioner, who was H-2 became the H-1. The respondent/authority instead of proceeding further with the tender process decided to cancel the tender and has once again invited bids. Petitioner admittedly did not participate in the second tender process.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the highest bidder was disqualified and had withdrawn his bid, petitioner whose bid was the second highest should have been declared the highest bidder and the plot allotted to the petitioner.
The authority in a tender process retains the right to cancel and invite new bids, with no vested rights for the highest bidder until official acceptance occurs.
(1) Allotment of Industrial Plot – Ordinarily, when large areas of industrial land are auctioned, overall price would be separately assessed as compared to smaller plots – Merely because selling pric....
No vested right is established from bid submission; rejection of bid is valid when corporation ensures public interest and current market rates prevail.
The highest bidder has no vested right if the auction concluded in his favor.
The highest bidder in a public auction has no vested right to the auction outcome, and authorities retain discretion to reject bids.
The tendering authority can cancel a tender for a single bidder if it serves public interest by ensuring greater competition.
The highest bidder in an auction does not have a vested right, and the authority has the discretion to cancel bids in the interest of public revenue.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article