A lowest bidder has no indefeasible right to be awarded a contract, and tenders can be lawfully cancelled by authority based on valid reasons.

1. The petitioners who are contractors participated in a tender floated by the 3rd respondent for various works. There is a serious dispute as to whether the invitation was for 29 works or for 22 works. According to the petitioners, as per Ext.P1 list published by the 3rd respondent invitations were called for 29 works. The last date fixed for the submission of bids was 10.11.2021. The petitioners have produced the receipts issued to them for the purchase of tender documents. The 1st petitioner remitted the fee for participation in 20 bids, the 2nd petitioner in 5 bids, the 3rd petitioner in 10 bids, and the last petitioner in 8 bids. According to the petitioners, at the meeting of the second respondent held on 24.11.2021, it was noticed that the bids submitted by the petitioners were free of defects and were decided to be accepted after conducting appropriate negotiations. The 3rd respondent was authorised to negotiate with the contractors. Ext.P6 is the minutes of the meeting that is stated to have been held on 24.11.2021. Subsequently, in the meeting of the second respondent held on 20.12.2021, the complaints submitted by several bidders that only 22 works detailed in Sl.Nos.1 to 22 in Ext.P1 were notified and that tenders were received for 7 works, i.e. works shown against Sl.Nos.23 to 29, even without notification, was considered and it was decided to cancel the approval for the said works. Ext.P8 is the minutes. It is stated that notices were issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners who are the lowest bidders with respect to the works for which the tenders were cancelled and that the petitioners submitted their objections. According to the petitioners, the notification contained 29 works, and that was the reason why tender papers were requested for and obtained as evidenced by the receipts issued. According to them, the reason stated for cancellation is erroneous and baseless, and they requested to recall the decision to cancel and to enable them to execute agreements for the works bearing Sl.Nos.23 to 29, shown in Ext.P1. On getting information that the respondents will be retendering the works shown against Sl.Nos.23 to 29 in Ext.P1, the petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the cancellation of tenders.

2. On 4.2.2022, this Court admitted the writ petition and ordered that further proceedings for retender will be subject to the result of the writ petition. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 producing Ext.P19 as an additional document and prayed for the stay and operation of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P19, pertaining to the works bearing Sl.Nos.15 to 21, which are the subject - matter of the writ petition. The counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer since the retender was only a consequence of the withdrawal from the earlier tender process. Taking note of the earlier order dated 4.2.2022, this Court by order dated 15.2.2022 rejected the prayer for a stay of the retender process.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a counter affidavit, contending that the writ petition is not maintainable and that there is no violation of any statutory right of the petitioners or infraction of any vested right in relation to a contract. It is contended that the tender was cancelled for valid reasons and no formal agreements had been entered into with the petitioners, and hence no indefeasible right has been vested in the petitioners. According to respondents 1 and 2, the tender process was for 22 items of work shown against Sl.Nos.1 to 22 in Ext.P1. It is stated that when the list of works was presented for approval on 24.11.2021, the 3rd respondent had added seven more items as items 23 to 29. It is stated that the Council, without noticing the manipulation and foul play, approved the entire work subject to negotiation, as per Ex