A bidder has no enforceable rights until a tender is formally accepted, and authorities are entitled to issue fresh tenders after cancellation of previous notifications.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner challenges the action of the 2nd respondent under proceedings dated 22.05.2025, by which, tender notification dated 19.07.2024 was cancelled and petitioner was directed to take refund of EMD. She requests that respondents be directed to grant license in her favour for Stall No. 29 in MGBS, Hyderabad.

1.1. Petitioner states that she submitted her tender offering a monthly licence fee of Rs. 2,61,000/-. The Corporation accepted her tender as the highest bidder. However, the license was not issued because the previous licensee filed Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 challenging the tender notification and seeking extension of his licence period. Due to this, the Corporation kept her case pending. She states that although the Corporation had decided to grant her licence, the interim order obtained in Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 caused the Corporation to ask her to wait for the disposal of that Writ Petition. The Corporation retained her earnest money deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for one year, stating that licence would be issued after Writ Petition was dismissed. Trusting this assurance, she waited for the outcome of the said Writ Petition.

1.2. Petitioner states that despite keeping her wait for an year, the 2^nd respondent suddenly issued the impugned letter informing that Corporation had cancelled the tender notification dated 19.07.2024 because the third party’s Writ Petition was still pending and asked her to take refund of EMD. She contends that this cancellation, after acceptance of her tender and after keeping her EMD for an year, is arbitrary and unjust. She states that Corporation, having retained her EMD and promised to issue the licence, is estopped from cancelling the tender without any valid reason. Sudden cancellation after a year, without awaiting the disposal of the pending Writ Petition, is unjustified.

1.3. Petitioner further states that she later came to know that Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 was withdrawn on 26.06.2025. After its dismissal, she approached the 2nd respondent, furnished the copy of the order and requested issuance of licence as there was no legal hurdle, however, the 2^nd respondent refused the same without justification. She then submitted the request letter dated 28.06.2025 to the Managing Director of the Corporation, but received no response. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. Petitioner has taken out I.A.No. 2 of 2025 to implead the Regional Manager, R.R. Region, MGBS, Hyderabad as Respondent No.3, I.A.No. 3 of 2025 to permit petitioner to amend the prayer, in addition to the present prayer ie. to declare the fresh notification dated 18.08.2025 issued by the Regional Manager insofar as it relates to Stall No. 29 in MGBS, Hyderabad as illegal and I.A.No. 4 of 2025 to suspend the operation of tender notification dated 18.08.2025.

3. Respondent Corporation filed counter-affidavits to all these Applications, on similar lines. It is stated, petitioner has no locus whatsoever to challenge the subsequent tender notification dated 18.08.2025 as she has no vested right created in her favour, in respect of Stall No. 29; by virtue of being the first or the second highest bidder. Even assuming that petitioner can challenge the fresh tender notification , the same would stem from an entirely new cause, thereby precluding petitioner from agitating it in the present Writ Petition.

3.1. It is stated, since the tender notification dated 19.07.2024 was cancelled, petitioner has no right to challenge the subsequent tender process in which she has not participated. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that unless the tender process is found to be arbitrary or filled with irregularities, the same cannot be challenged. It is stated, in the notification dated 18.08.2025, there are no mala fides on the part of Corporation, hence, the same cannot be interfered by this Court. It is also stated that it is settled legal principle that solely by virtue of being