Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20537

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J
Integral Trading And Logistics – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Trustees Of Visakhapatnam Port Authority – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos. 5630, 5639 and 5646 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vema Ramanjaneyulu
For the Respondents: Raviteja Padiri

In the absence of a concluded contract, a tenderer has no vested right to be awarded a contract; an administrative authority, as a trustee of public funds, reserves the right to annul a tender process if deemed unrealistic or commercially unviable for protecting public interest.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Tender process - Contractual matters - Judicial review - Interference is limited when there is no concluded contract - Authority as trustee of public funds is empowered to cancel tender if bids are found to be unrealistic or abnormally low - Petitioner, as the lowest bidder, holds no vested right to mandate contract award until formal acceptance - Non-interference justified in absence of established mala fides. (Paras 6, 12, 13, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, participated in three tender notifications issued by the Port Authority for operation and maintenance of terminal facilities. Despite being declared the lowest (L1) bidder, the authority annulled the bidding process under Clause 44 of the Notice Inviting Tenders (NIT), citing that the quoted rates were unrealistic and abnormally low. The petitioner challenged the annulment, arguing violation of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and non-adherence to CVC guidelines regarding clarification on low bids.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that in the absence of a concluded contract, the petitioner does not acquire an enforceable right to the tender. The authority, being the protector of public financial resources, has the inherent right to annul the process if the quotes are found commercially unviable. The Court found no evidence of mala fide intent or arbitrary action in the decision to reject the abnormally low bids.

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of a tender process after being declared the lowest bidder is arbitrary and violative of constitutional rights? (ii) Whether the Court should intervene in administrative/contractual decisions where no concluded contract exists?

Ratio Decidendi: A tendering authority is not obligated to accept any bid merely because it is the lowest. If a bid is found to be abnormally low or unrealistic, the authority can exercise its power to annul the tender. Judicial review under Article 226 is limited in contractual matters and should only be exercised if there is manifest arbitrariness, illegality, or mala fides, which were not established in the present case.

Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in annulling vide the Order No. IM and EE/EQ-3 O and M/2025- 26-1081 dated 19.02.2026 and the consequential action of the respondents in issuing a fresh tender notification issued in Tender NO.60/2025-26/IM and EE/MOF/EQ-3 O and M dated 20.02.2026 including receipt of bids or award of contract as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to award the contract bearing tender No.54/2025- 26/IMEE/MOF/EQ-30 and M Dated 22.12.2025 in favour of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.VEMA RAMANJANEYULU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.RAVITEJA PADIRI

The Court made the following:

COMMON ORDER:

The respondents issued notification inviting tenders for three procurements. The petitioner has participated in all the three tenders and his tenders were rejected. Challenging the same, these Writ Petitions are filed. As the issue is common in all three Writ Petitions, hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

The Writ Petition No.5630 of 2026 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in annulling vide the Order No.IM&EE/EQ-3 O&M/2025-26-1081 dated 19.02.2026 and the consequential action of the respondents in issuing a fresh tender notification issued in Tender No.60/2025-26/IM & EE/MOF/EQ-3 O&M dated 20.02.2026 including receipt of bids or award of contract as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to award the contract bearing tender No.54/2025-26/IMEE/MOF/ EQ-3O&M Dated 22.12.2025 in favour of the petitioner and pass such other or further orders…..

The Writ Petition No.5639 of 2026 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in annulling vide the Order No.IM&EE/WQ-1 & WQ-1RE O&M/2025-26-1080 dated 19.02.2026 and the consequential action of the respondents in issuing a fresh tender notification issued in Tender No.58/2025-26/IM & EE/MOF/WQ-1 & WQ-1RE O&M dated 20.02.2026 including receipt of bids or award of contract as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to award the contract bearing tender No.55/2025-26/IMEE/MOF/ WQ-1 & WQ-1RE O&M Dated 22.12.2025 in favour of the petitioner and pass such other or further orders…..

The Writ Petition No.5646 of 2026 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in annulling vide the Order No.IM&EE/EQ-4 O&M /2025-26-1082 dated 19.02.2026 and the consequential action of the respondents in issuing a fresh tender notification issued in Tender No.59/2025-26/IM & EE/MOF/EQ-4 O&M dated 20.02.2026 including receipt of bids or award of contract as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to award the contract bearing tender No.52/2025-26/IMEE/MOF/ EQ-4 O&M Dated 22.12.2025 in favour of the petitioner and pass such other or further orders…..

The facts of the case in a nutshell for disposal of the Writ Petition are that the 4th respondent issued notification inviting tender vide tender No.54/25-26/IME/MOF/EQ-3O&M dated 2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20537

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHTarlada Rajasekhar Rao, JIntegral Trading And Logistics – AppellantVersusBoard Of Trustees Of Visakhapatnam Port Authority – RespondentWRIT PETITION Nos. 5630, 5639 and 5646 of 2026

In the absence of a concluded contract, a tenderer has no vested right to be awarded a contract; an administrative authority, as a trustee of public funds, reserves the right to annul a tender process if deemed unrealistic or commercially unviable for protecting public interest.

Cases Referred (8)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J
Integral Trading And Logistics – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Trustees Of Visakhapatnam Port Authority – Respondent
WRIT PETITION Nos. 5630, 5639 and 5646 of 2026