JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

H.S.Thangkhiew, ACJ.

By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner a public limited company is assailing the letter dated 03.04.2024 issued by the respondent No.3 whereby, a Letter of Award dated 29.11.2023 issued in favor of the petitioner had been cancelled. The cancellation had been impugned as being wholly arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was the highest bidder for selecting the exclusive operating partner for the Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) Passive Fibre Infrastructure of MePTCL pursuant to a tender dated 25.09.2023 and a Letter of Award (LOA) dated 29.11.2023, was issued in favour of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that once the LOA had been issued in his favour, the same constituted a formation of a contract and the parties therefore, are understood to have entered into a binding contract as per the terms contained therein. The cancellation of the LOA is thus being assailed on the ground that it is arbitrary, irrational and illegal.

3. Mr. R. Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Hassan, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that clause 5.1. of the LOA itself, has amounted to a formation of contract by the parties, inasmuch as, the clause has specifically provided that notwithstanding anything stated in the bidding documents, the LOA would constitute the formation of the contract. The learned senior counsel submits that it is well settled law, that a tender is an invitation to offer, the bid is an offer and a Letter of Intent is an acceptance, and these factors being satisfied it was not open to the respondent No.3 to cancel the said LOA. He further submits that as per clause 5.2 of the LOA, the parties were required to enter into a formal contract agreement within 15 days of issuance of the LOA, and an Infrastructure Asset Management Agreement (IAMA) as per the proforma given in the schedule to the tender was required to be executed between the parties.

4. At that stage, he submits though some issues with regard to the amendment to the draft of the IAMA, which was to do with the maintenance of all optical fibre assets of the Corporation had arisen the same, was agreed to by the petitioner by way of a letter dated 11.12.2023, along with a request to close the agreement and to proceed with the execution of the IAMA.

5. Learned senior counsel submits that even though the petitioner had completed all formalities under the bidding documents and the LOA, the respondent No.3 failed to execute the IAMA for a long time and inspite of further oral request, there was no response from the respondent No.3. It is submitted that though meetings were held with the Chairman of the respondent No.3 on revenue/billing sharing process, however, the signing of the IAMA was not done, and instead the impugned communication was received whereby, the unilateral decision of the respondent No.3, for cancellation of the LOA was intimated to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel has reiterated the submission that clause 5.1 of the LOA creates a binding contract on the acceptance of the petitioner’s bid by the respondent No.3. The cancellation it has been urged, is in violation of the tender terms as given in clause 3.25.1 which make it incumbent upon the respondent No.3, to award a contract to the successful bidder and also clause 3.28 which designates the LOA as a contract document, making its unilateral cancellation impermissible.

6. It has also been contended that the action of the respondent No.3 is a clear breach of its contractual obligations and the failure to execute the IAMA without justification, and by disregarding the binding terms and conditions, has resulted in the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by a public authority such as the respondent No.3. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v