A bidder who has committed substantial financial resources (EMD) in a public tender has a legitimate expectation and an enforceable right to seek judicial direction for the expeditious and transparent completion of the tender process in accordance with statutory procurement laws.

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING TENDERS DATED 09.12.2025 TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITHIN A TIME FRAME TO BE FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

"1. Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs or orders directing the Respondent to take the following Tenders dated 09.12.2025 to its logical conclusions in accordance with law and within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

2. Grant such other or further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The petitioner, a duly licensed contractor, is before this Court being aggrieved by the palpable inaction and administrative indifference exhibited by the respondent–authority in relation to seven tender notifications floated on 09.12.2025. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that, despite lapse of considerable time, the respondent has failed to take the tender process to its logical conclusion. The records would further disclose that the petitioner, having participated in all the seven tenders by submitting bids and remitting substantial Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) aggregating to nearly Rs.30,00,000/-, has also submitted a detailed representation calling upon the respondent to proceed with the tender finalization. However, the said representation has not evoked any response, thereby compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.

3. The petitioner has placed on record the particulars of all seven tender notifications in paragraph No.3 of the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an aspiring bidder who has actively participated in the tender process pursuant to the notifications. It is also specifically averred, and not controverted, that except Tender No.1, which is presently sub judice before this Court and is protected by an interim order, the remaining tender notifications at Sl. Nos. 2 to 7 are neither under challenge nor the subject matter of any pending proceedings. Therefore, insofar as the said tenders are concerned, there is absolutely no legal impediment or restraint order preventing the respondent–authority from proceeding further. Despite the absence of any such hindrance, the respondent has chosen to keep the tender process in a state of suspension, thereby causing grave prejudice to participating bidders, including the petitioner, who have invested substantial financial resources.

4. The order sheet maintained by this Court assumes significance. On earlier dates of hearing, namely 23.03.2026 and 27.03.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent–authority, which itself reflects a casual and lackadaisical approach in defending a matter involving public procurement. Though on 06.03.2026, learned counsel Sri Monesh Kumar K.B. entered appearance and sought time to obtain instructions, even thereafter, there is no satisfactory explanation forthcoming justifying the prolonged inaction. Today, learned counsel appearing for the respondent–authority has taken a stand which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not only untenable in law