The cancellation of a tender by a public authority does not create a vested right, and decisions based on tender conditions are largely within the authority's discretion.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a forest contractor registered with the Government. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is against Ext.P6(a), by which, the tender in which the petitioner participated was cancelled and Ext.P7 re-tender notification was issued for the very same work.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

The 5^th respondent published Ext.P4 tender notification inviting tenders for two items of works referred to therein. The petitioner submitted Exts.P5 and P6 bids in response to the same. However, as per Ext.P6(a), which is the screenshot from the web portal, the tender process based on Ext.P4 was cancelled, without assigning any reasons. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P7 re-tender notification was published, inviting fresh tenders for the very same works. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances, challenging Exts.P6(a) and P7. According to the petitioner, action of the respondents in cancelling the tender process initiated based on Ext.P4, without any sufficient reasons, is not legally sustainable. The petitioner also alleges bias on the part of the respondents in doing the same.

3. A detailed counter affidavit has been submitted by the 5^th respondent, in response to the averments contained in the writ petition and also produced the documents relating to the tender conditions. In the counter affidavit, the 5^th respondent explained that, even though the petitioner was the lowest tenderer and he was eligible to be awarded with the work, it was found that the rate quoted by the petitioner is 60.37%, below the schedule rate, which was exorbitantly a low rate. Therefore, as the respondents felt that the quoted work cannot be completed by tenderer, with the said quoted rate maintaining the quality expected in the said work, and hence a decision was taken, not to proceed with the said tender process and accordingly, a decision was arrived at to re-tender the work. In the counter affidavit, the 5^th respondent also referred to certain instances where, the contractors could not complete the works and thus leading to litigations and legal complications owing to the lesser amount being quoted in the contracts. Thus, the 5^th respondent sought to justify the decision taken in Ext.P6(a).

4. I have heard Smt.Thulasi K. Raj, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sangeeth.C.U., learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, challenged the competence of the respondents to cancel the tender process without assigning any reasons. It was also pointed out that, as the rates quoted by the petitioner are revealed through counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the re- tender process is likely to cause prejudice to the petitioner as well. To substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the lack of competence of the respondents to cancel the tender for the reason explained in the counter affidavit, the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme court in Golden Food Products India v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [2026 SCC OnLine SC 24].

6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader opposed the aforesaid contention by placing reliance upon the terms and conditions in Ext.R5(b), particularly Clause 3.12 thereof, by which the 5^th respondent was empowered to accept or reject the tender without assigning any reason.

7. After carefully going through the records produced before me and examining the contentions raised by both sides, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the decision taken by the respondents. Of course, in the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Cou