Cancellation of a tender must adhere to principles of transparency and valid justification under Article 14 of the Constitution.

1. The Petitioner assails notice inviting tender (hereinafter referred to as 'NIT' ) dated 13.1.2016 and the consequent directions to proceed under the earlier tender notice dated 19.8.2015 with regard to the parking stand for four - wheelers at the Raipur Railway Station for a duration of three years.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that from the information obtained by it under the Right to Information Act, dated 2.12.2015 it transpires that he was the highest amongst the three bidders. Prior to the same on 30.10.2015, his tender documents were found to be wanting with regard to solvency certificate and turn over certificate. It was submitted within 21 days as directed. Rejection of the tender on the ground that the documents were required to be submitted along with original offer was therefore not justified. The next submission was that once an NIT is published, it is required to be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law unless there are valid and cogent reasons for cancellation and publication of a fresh tender. The Respondents being a ' State - within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution of India do not have an absolute right to behave like a private tenderer and the basic minimum requirement of compliance with Art.14 of the Constitution will apply. On a challenge made by the Petitioner, the Respondents are required to disclose the reasons for cancellation of the earlier tender. Merely because they may be of the opinion that the reserve price of the current tender can be increased and may fetch better offer of bids, cannot be a valid justification for cancellation of the tender and inviting of fresh bids. Even if no vested rights have accrued to the Petitioner by virtue of being declared L1, it cannot be denied the contract except for valid and justified reasons. The Respondents also wrongly held on to the deposit made by the Petitioner under the earlier NIT which prevented him from participating in the fresh NIT.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent - Railways opposing the application submits that no indefeasible right accrues to a person even if it is L1. No communication has been made to the Petitioner with regard to its status as L1 much less requiring it to deposit the EMD after opening of the tender documents. There are no allegations of mala fide. A bona fide decision has been taken to cancel the earlier tender notice and go in for fresh publication so as to invite better offers as the Respondents genuinely believe that it is in a position to obtain higher offers and that it is therefore its bounden duty being the guardian of public finances to obtain the best offers that may be available. The minutes of the tender committee dated 2.12.2015 are speaking in nature that none of the parties were found eligible and which has not been challenged. It cannot be contended that the decision to go in for fresh tender was arbitrary.

4. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.

5. In tender matters the jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is limited and while exercising powers of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution, the Court will confine its examination primarily to the decision making process. If the decision making process is procedurally flawed, it will warrant interference under Art.226 of the Constitution and not otherwise. The normal principle undoubtedly is that once a tender notice is published it must be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. If the process is annulled midway and a challenge is laid out that it has not been done bona fide, was contrary to law or mala fide, judicial review will primarily be confined