A party cannot challenge the cancellation of a work order if the cancellation resulted directly from their failure to fulfill mandatory contractual obligations, such as the timely submission of a performance guarantee, irrespective of third-party delays experienced by the party.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the sole proprietor and an MSME engaged in the business of supplying commercial broiler poultry feed. The respondent published a tender notification as evidenced by Ext.P2 dated 03.01.2025, inviting tenders from reputed, eligible and qualified manufacturers, agencies or dealers of commercial broiler poultry feed to be supplied in 11 districts for a period of one year. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted the bids and was selected after scrutiny of its technical and financial bids. The work order was accordingly issued on 14-02-2025 as evidenced by Ext.P3.

2. As per the terms and conditions of the tender documents, the petitioner was bound to furnish a performance guarantee in the form of bank guarantee for an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees four crores), within a period of two months from date of entering into the agreement. Ext.P4 is the agreement dated 15.02.2025 and therefore, the petitioner ought to have furnished the performance guarantee by way of bank guarantee on or before 14.04.2025. However, the petitioner failed to furnish the said bank guarantee.

3. According to the petitioner, the delay in furnishing the bank guarantee occurred due to some technical reasons with the bank and Ext.P6 communication was issued by the bank, wherein the bank expressed its difficulty for the same due to some technical reasons and sought some time to produce the bank guarantee. Consequently, Ext.P7 communication was issued by the respondent to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to submit the bank guarantee within a period of three working days. Ext.P7 communication was issued on 16.05.2025. However, the petitioner could not submit the bank guarantee within the said extended period also. On account of the same, the work order issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled, and as per Ext.P12, a re-tender notification was issued on 21.08.2025. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner in such circumstances challenging Ext.P12.

4. A detailed counter affidavit was submitted on behalf of the respondent, wherein, the contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are denied and the reliefs sought by the petitioner are opposed.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

6. As far as the challenge raised by the petitioner against Ext.P12 re-tender notification is concerned, it is to be noted that, the same was issued due to the cancellation of the work order issued in favour of the petitioner. Thus, in effect the petitioner is challenging the order of cancellation of the work order issued to the petitioner. When examining the reason that prompted the respondent to cancel the work order issued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 tender notification, it is to be noted that, the same was on account of the failure of the petitioner in fulfilling the obligation to furnish the performance guarantee. The furnishing of the performance guarantee was forming part of the tender document and clause 4 of Ext.P4 agreement would indicate that, the petitioner had undertaken to provide the performance guarantee in the form of bank guarantee in favour of the respondent for an amount of Rs.4,00,00,000/- within two months of entering into the agreement. The agreement was entered into on 15.02.2025 and therefore, the petitioner was under an obligation to furnish the bank guarantee within two months thereof, i.e., on or before 14.04.2025. Apparently, the petitioner could not submit the same, within the time, and therefore, the petitioner sought some more time for furnishing the bank guarantee. The said request was also considered by the respondent as evidenced by E