JUDGMENT

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. :

1. Through the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner assails the order dated 08.04.2026 [hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Order‟], along with the show cause notice dated 02.04.2026 [hereinafter referred to as the „Impugned Show Cause Notice‟], whereby the Contract dated 26.05.2025 [hereinafter referred to as „Contract‟] executed between the Petitioner and the NHAI for collection of user fee at Pawangaon Fee Plaza has been terminated prior to expiry of the contractual period. The Petitioner has also challenged the fresh tender dated 02.04.2026 issued for engagement of a new user fee collecting agency for three months for the said Fee Plaza.

2. The Petitioner contends that the termination of the Contract is arbitrary, premeditated and contrary to the contractual stipulations, particularly Clause 35(6) of the Contract [hereinafter referred to as „Clause 35(6)‟], inasmuch as no circumstances warranting invocation of the said clause existed. It is further urged that the impugned action has been taken despite the contract remaining valid till 17.06.2026 and without any breach attributable to the Petitioner.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, the principal issues that arise for consideration before this Court are:

i. Whether the Respondent Authority was justified in terminating the Contract in exercise of its enabling powers under Clauses 35(2) [hereinafter referred to as „Clause 35(2)‟] and 35(6); and

ii. Whether any interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction with a contractual decision taken in the interest of public exchequer by a public authority in matters relating to the termination of a tender contract.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

5. The Petitioner had earlier operated as a User Fee Collection Agency at the Pawangaon Fee Plaza situated at Km. 57+935 on NH-353J in the State of Maharashtra for a period of two months during April and May 2025. The Respondent No.1, namely the National Highways Authority of India [hereinafter referred to as „NHAI‟], invited bids through e-tender for engagement of a User Fee Collection Agency at the said Pawangaon Fee Plaza, for a period of one year.

6. Pursuant to the competitive bidding process, in which multiple bidders participated, the Petitioner was declared the successful bidder with a daily remittance of Rs.2,62,430/- (Rs.2,58,737/- as per the stand of the Respondents) for a period of one year and a Letter of Award dated 13.05.2025 came to be issued in its favour. It is stated that the Petitioner‟s quoted remittance was substantially higher than the reserve price as well as the bid submitted by the second highest bidder.

7. Thereafter, the Contract was executed between the parties for collection of user fee at the said Fee Plaza for the period commencing from 17.06.2025 (08:00 hours) till 17.06.2026 (08:00 hours). The Petitioner furnished performance security and commenced toll collection operations in terms of the Contract.

8. The Contract, inter alia, contained Clause 35 governing termination of the contract. While Clause 35(2) enabled termination upon issuance of seven days‟ notice without assigning reasons, Clause 35(6) provided for termination in case of “windfall gain” at new fee plazas where the moving average of ETC and cash collections for the preceding fifteen days exceeded forty percent of the existing remittance being paid by the toll agency.

9. On 02.04.2026, the Respondents issued a show cause notice cum seven days‟ termination notice invoking Clauses 35(2) and 35(6) of the Contract, stating their intention to terminate the contract. The notice alleged the occurrence of windfall gain and simultaneously afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner. On the same date, the Respondents also issued a fresh tender for engagement of a new user fee-collecting agency for t