A policy decision by a tendering authority to cancel a tender due to a lack of bidders is not arbitrary, unjust, or improper if it does not prejudice the bidders.

1]

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. Allow this Petition and

2. Impugned approval for retendering in respect of Shop No.40

vide note sheet dated 20/03/2023 may kindly be set aside and

3. The respondent authorities may kindly be directed to open and

declare the status of financial bids submitted in respect of shop

no.40 situated in Midway Zone of Shri Mahakal Mahalok and

not to cancel the auction process and not to initiate fresh

auction process.

4. Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court

deems fit in the interest of Justice may kindly be provided in

favour of the Petition.”

2]

The grievance of the petitioner is that his tender has not even

been opened, and fresh tender has been issued in respect of Shop

No.40 in Shri Mahakal Mahalok Midway Zone, Ujjain only because

there were less then three bidders for the aforesaid shop.

3]

Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court

that in Indore, when tenders were also issued by the Indore

Municipal Corporation/ Indore Smart City Ltd., the tender of only

one tenderer was also accepted. Counsel has submitted that it was

incumbent upon the respondents to open the financial bid and only

after their satisfaction that it was not as per their norms, it could have

been rejected, however, despite the fact that the petitioner’s bid was

more than the minimum reserved price, the respondents’ action to

cancel the bid outright is arbitrary, unjust and improper. In support of

his submission, Shri Rathi has relied upon the decision rendered by

3

the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and others vs.

Mehar Din reported as (2022) 5 SCC 648, in which it is held that the

allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety

would be enough grounds for courts to assume jurisdiction and

remedy such ills, and in the present case also, the order passed by the

respondents is not only irrational but proper procedure has also not

been followed as it was incumbent upon the respondents to open the

financial bid.

4]

A reply has also been filed by the respondents opposing the

relief sought by the petitioner and it is submitted that no interference

is made out as the respondents have not only cancelled the

petitioner’s bid but other three bids have also been cancelled for shop

No.46, 47 and 20, as there were less than three bidders for the said

shops. Counsel has submitted that a policy decision has been taken

by the respondents Ujjain Smart City Ltd. and the same cannot be

faulted with as no discriminatory treatment has been given to the

petitioner and the petitioner is always free to participate in the next

bid. It is also submitted that the EMD received from the petitioner

has also been refunded to him, and so far as the documents in respect

of Indore Smart City is concerned where only one bid has been

accepted, it is submitted that such policy may vary from city to city

and is not binding on the respondents Ujjain Smart City Ltd. In

support of his submissions, counsel for the respondents has relied

upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of E-

City Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of UP and another reported

4

as (2017) 3 SCC 271 and South Delhi Municipal Corporation vs.

Ravinder Kumar and another reported as (2015) 15 SCC 545.

5]

Heard. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal

of the record, this Court finds that it is not disputed that the

petitioner’s financial bid has not been opened only on the ground that

there were less than three bidders for the said shop no.40, and the

same treatment has also been accorded in respect of other three shops

No.46, 47 and 20. This court is also of the considered opinion that

although there was no technical difficulty for the respondents to open

the financial bid as well, before rejecting the petitioner’s claim,

however, they have decided even not to open the bid before

cancelling the same