IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Original Side

Present :- Hon’ble Justice Amrita Sinha

WPO 730 of 2025

Shetgiri & Associates

Vs.

Bank of India & Anr.

For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Adv.

Mr. Ajay Chaubey, Adv.

Mr. Vinayak Chaubey, Adv.

Ms. Ritika Pipalwa, Adv. Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Utkarash Mishra, Adv. Ms. Ahona Majumder, Adv.

For the respondent :- Mr. Debashis Saha, Adv.

Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal, Adv.

Ms. Sucheta Pal, Adv.

Heard on :- 28.10.2025 Judgment on :- 28.10.2025

Amrita Sinha, J.:-

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the tender process in

which it participated and emerged as the L-1 bidder. The cancellation was communicated to the petitioner by a communicating letter dated 22nd July, 2025. The letter of cancellation mentions that due to some technical reasons in the tender, the bank has decided to go for re- tendering for the same. Necessary information will be published in the

newspaper, Bank’s website and MSTC-E-tendering portal.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the cancellation is mala fide, arbitrary and bad in law. According to the petitioner, the authority inspected the site in question and was satisfied with the performance of the petitioner. After declaring the petitioner as L-1 bidder, the authority ought not to have cancelled the tender process.

3. It has been submitted that no reason has been prescribed for cancellation of the tender process which stood concluded declaring the petitioner as the L1 bidder.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. Chief Executive Officer and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 paragraphs 123, 125 and 127. Relying on the ratio laid down in the above decision it has been submitted that the public authority ought to maintain the sanctity of tenders in public private procurement processes. Public tenders are designed to provide a level playing field for all potential bidders. The integrity of this process ensures that public projects and services are delivered efficiently and effectively, benefiting the society at large. The sanctity of contracts is a fundamental principle.

5. The special reliance has been placed on the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioning that when public authorities enter into contracts, they create legitimate expectations that the State will honour its obligations. Arbitrary and unreasonable terminations undermine these expectations and erode the trust of private players from the public procurement processes and tenders.

6. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack on 8th September, 2017 in W.P.(C) No. 5272 of 2017 in the matter of M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd. Vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited and others wherein the Court was of the opinion that in view of the Central Vigilance Commission guidelines, the tender accepting authority is not free to take any decision in an arbitrary manner and is bound to record clear and logical reasons for any action of rejection/recall of tenders.

7. Prayer has been made restraining the authority from floating fresh tender and to direct the authority to award the contract in favour of the petitioner.

8. Learned advocate representing the bank submits, upon instruction that, the tender process was cancelled because of technical reasons. The fact of cancellation has been made known to all the participants. The participants have been intimated that they would be at liberty to participate in the next tender that will be floated.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Others Vs. Suresh Mathew and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 933 paragraphs 20 and 21.

10. Learned counsel refers to the clause in the form for application in the e-

tendering process wherein it has been men