Participation in a tender process or being declared the L-1 bidder does not create a vested or enforceable right to a contract; courts will not interfere with administrative policy decisions to change procurement methodologies unless they are shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or contrary to statutory mandate.

1. Heard Mr. Rohit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondents No.1 & 2 and Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following relief(s) :-

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Certiorarified mandamus or any other writ, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17/03/2026 passed by the Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Janjgir-Naila (Annexure P/1);

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to act upon the Tender Notice dated 17/11/2025 bearing Tender No. 179880 and to issue the work order in favour of the petitioner, being the duly declared L-1 bidder, forthwith;

10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is an experienced firm engaged in the business of providing skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled manpower services to various Government, Semi-Government and private institutions. In the ordinary course of its business, the petitioner participates in tender processes floated by different authorities and undertakes contractual assignments in accordance with law. The Office of the Municipal Council, Janjgir-Naila, District Janjgir-Champa issued a tender notice dated 17.11.2025 bearing Tender No. 179880 through the e-procurement system for engagement of 95 manpower personnel of different categories for execution of works within the Municipal Council.

4. In response to the said tender notice, the petitioner, being eligible and fulfilling all prescribed conditions, submitted its bid within the stipulated time. The petitioner deposited an Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs. 97,920/- and also paid the requisite tender fee of Rs. 3,000/- for valid participation. Along with the bid, the petitioner submitted all necessary documents including an affidavit declaring the genuineness of documents and affirming that it had not been blacklisted or disqualified by any authority.

5. Upon scrutiny of the bids, the petitioner was found to be technically qualified, and accordingly, the financial bids of eligible bidders were opened on 30.01.2026. In the said process, the petitioner emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidder amongst all participants. Despite completion of the tender process and declaration of the petitioner as L-1, no work order was issued in its favour by the respondent authorities. In the meantime, acting in anticipation of commencement of work, the petitioner made necessary arrangements and mobilized resources for execution of the contract. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.02.2026 before the respondent authorities requesting issuance of the work order; however, no action was taken on the said representation.

6. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing a writ petition, which was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to challenge any subsequent adverse action. Subsequently, the respondent authorities, vide order dated 17.03.2026, cancelled the tender process on the groun