Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1157

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
UCN Construction Co Pvt Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Road Transport Highways, Transport Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi And Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 1609 of 2026
Decided On : 09-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Das, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D. P. Borah, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. AG, Assam, Mr. H. Gupta, CGC, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, Mr. R. M. Deka, Advocate, Mr. A. Roy, Advocate

An authority retains supervisory control after delegating tender powers. A decision to cancel a process is valid if reasonable and rational. The lowest bidder holds no vested right to a contract, and judicial review is restricted to assessing if the cancellation process was legally or procedurally flawed.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Law - Tender Process - Judicial Review - Scope of interference - An authority retains supervisory control over delegated functions - A decision to cancel a tender must be based on reasonable and rational grounds.

(B) Tender Process - Right of lowest bidder - Mere status of being the lowest bidder does not confer a vested right to be awarded the contract - Reservation of rights by authorities to reject bids allows for valid cancellation based on procedural non-compliance and lack of adherence to established guidelines. (Paras 34, 37, 45, 49)

Facts of the case:
A construction firm challenged the cancellation of a tender process after being identified as the lowest bidder. The authorities cancelled the process citing non-compliance with established evaluation guidelines and procedural irregularities during the financial bid opening where a mandatory representative was absent.

Findings of Court:
The authority acted within its powers by overriding the decision of the subordinate committee. The reasons for cancellation, specifically regarding the failure to adhere to the mandate for minor deficiency clarifications and improper committee composition, were determined to be neither arbitrary nor irrational. Judicial interference is limited to the legality of the decision-making process and does not extend to substituting the court's view for the authority's policy decisions.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the delegating authority possessed the power to nullify a tender process after delegation; whether the decision to cancel was based on reasonable, rational grounds; and whether the lowest bidder had an accrued right to execute the contract.

Ratio Decidendi: Delegation of power does not amount to abdication; the delegator retains inherent supervisory control. Courts exercising judicial review should not act as an appellate body but must assess whether the decision-making process was flawed. Since the reasons for cancellation were found rational and consistent with procedural requirements, the court declined to interfere.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. establishing the procedural background, tender conditions, and technical evaluation history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
2. summarizing parties' contentions regarding the tender cancellation and administrative review. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
3. delegation of power does not equate to abdication of authority. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
4. judicial review focuses on decision-making process legality, not appellate re-evaluation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
5. absence of a final work order confers no inherent right to successful bidding. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. D. Das, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. P. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. H. Gupta, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. I have also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General, Assam as well as the Standing counsel of the PWD appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6; Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. M. Deka, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7 and Mr. A. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8.

2. The present writ petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 03.03.2026 issued by the Executive Engineer for the Director General (RD) & Special Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, (Zone North East) i.e. the Respondent No.3 as well as the consequential cancellation notice dated 09.03.2026 issued by the Respondent No.6.

CONSPECTUS OF FACTS:

3. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (EAP Road) carries out various forms of works for construction of National Highways. Vide a Circular dated 23.02.2018 issued by the Respondent No.4, powers were delegated to the Chief Engineer - Regional Officer (CE-RO)/SE-RO/ELO at MoRT&H Regional Office. In terms with the said Circular, sanctioning of detailed estimates and the power to grant technical sanction, appraisal and approval to the estimate have been mentioned. How the evaluation of bids would be carried out is mentioned at Clause 8 of the said Circular dated 23.02.2018. In respect to works with sanctioned cost of civil works up to Rs. 5 crores, the State PWD have been delegated the power to evaluate the bids and finalize the tenders as per the Ministry's Guidelines.

4. In terms of Clause 8.2 of the said Circular, works with sanctioned cost of civil works more than Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 100 crores, it is mentioned that the opening and evaluation of the bids shall be carried out by the Evaluation Committee with the composition specified in the said Clause. Clause 8.2 of the said Circular being relevant is reproduced herein under:

“8.2. Works with sanctioned cost of civil works more than Rs. 5 crores to Rs. 100 crores: Opening and evaluation of bids shall be done by the Evaluation Committee with the composition as mentioned in the following table:

Sr. No.	Composition of the Committee	Role
1	Chief Engineer (NH) of the concerned State PWD/equivalent or any other officer of equivalent or higher rank, nominated by the Principal Secretary/Secretary of State PWD/equivalent	Chairman
2	Representative of State Finance Department not below the rank of Deputy Secretary	Member
3	Officer nominated by the CE-RO/SE-RO of MoRTH	Member
4	Superintending Engineer (concerned NH circle) of State PWD/equivalent	Member
5	Executive Engineer (concerned NH circle) of the State PWD/equivalent	Member Secretary”

5. From a perusal of the above Clause, it would show that amongst the various members who are to be present, it includes an Officer nominated by the CE-RO/SE-RO of MoRT&H.

6. Clause 9 of the said Circular dated 23.02.2018 refers to acceptance of the bid. Clause 9.2 being relevant for the purpose of the present proceedings is reproduced h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1157

Cases Referred (1)