Cancelled tender processes rendered non-est due to systemic illegality cannot be counted as valid attempts when determining competition thresholds for subsequent bidding. Administrative authorities have primary discretion in interpreting tender conditions, and courts will not interfere absent clear evidence of arbitrariness, irrationality, or mala fides.

JUDGMENT :

Garima Prashad, J.

1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav with Sri Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Anil Kumar Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure No. 9) passed by Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit (respondent no. 3) and Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit (respondent no. 4).

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to open the e-tender in pursuance of notification of e-tender dated 12.12.2025 for the works shown at serial nos. 17, 19, 20, 73, 79 and 144.”

3. The facts, as borne out from the record, are that pursuant to the Government Order dated 24.07.2020 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, Uttar Pradesh, an e-auction notice was published on 30.10.2025 by respondent no. 4 for execution of various works under the Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit. Though 95 works were advertised for online bidding, 112 works were tendered manually.

4. Complaints were received regarding irregularities in the said tender process. A specially constituted inquiry committee examined the matter and found that the entire tender process stood vitiated on account of serious irregularities in the online bidding mechanism. The committee recommended cancellation of the entire tender process and fresh invitation of bids. Acting upon the said report, the entire tender process was declared illegal and cancelled by order dated 09.12.2025.

5. Thereafter, a fresh e-tender notice dated 12.12.2025 was issued inviting bids for all 207 works, including those earlier advertised. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and submitted bids for approximately 10 works after depositing the requisite tender fee and security. It is undisputed that the petitioner was declared successful in 4 works out of the bids submitted by it and was accordingly allotted those works.

6. After completion of the online bidding process held on 28.12.2025, it was found that out of 207 works, bids in respect of 182 works satisfied the requirement of competition and were opened. However, in respect of 25 works, less than three bids were received. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 10.02.2026, the said 25 works were cancelled and a fresh e-tender was invited.

7. The grievance of the petitioner is confined to these 25 works. It is contended that since two rounds of tendering had already taken place, the respondents could not have issued a fresh (third) tender and were obliged to open the bids even if less than three bids were received, in view of Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender dated 30.10.2025 constituted the first tender and the subsequent tender dated 12.12.2025 constituted the second tender. Therefore, in terms of Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020, even a single technically qualified bid in the second tender ought to have been considered and opened.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tender dated 30.10.2025 having been cancelled in entirety on account of illegality and