IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA

th

ON THE 17 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 3472 of 2026 SHRI YAMUNA PUBLICITY JOINT VENTURE ADOCEAN GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS MEMBER 2/DIRECTOR MR.

Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rajat Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Rahul Sethi, Shri Shashank Shrivastav and Shri Ashutosh Gondli - Advocate for respondent No.3.

ORDER With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

02. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 12.01.2026 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4 for allotment of advertisement rights on the unipoles located at AB Road, Indore.

03. On 05.11.2025 respondent No.3, Atal Indore City Transport Services Limited (AICTSL) issued a notice inviting E-Tenders for allotment of advertisement rights on 42 unipoles located at AB Road, Indore for a period of three years. It was specified that the license fee quoted must be above Rs.100/- per square feet per month. The petitioner also submitted his tender form along with the requisite documents. On 29.12.2025 respondent No.3 conducted technical evaluation of bids and uploaded the evaluation report. A total of 18 bidders participated in the tender process out of which 15 including the petitioner and respondent No.4 were declared technically qualified. The financial bids were then opened in which respondent No.4 was declared as H-1 bidder and the petitioner was declared as H-2 bidder.

04. As per the petitioner, the figure quoted by respondent No.4 was Rs.4.56 Lakh Crores which was an impossible figure. The petitioner then submitted his objection before respondent No.3 but no response was received. On 30.12.2025 respondent No.4 addressed a letter to respondent No.3 stating that the amount quoted by it is erroneous and sought cancellation of the entire tender process. However, on 12.01.2026 respondent No.3 issued Letter of Acceptance (LOA) in favour of respondent No.4 accepting its commercially absurd bid. By communication dated 24.01.2026, respondent No.4 itself admitted that the amount quoted by it is mistaken and sought correction of the financial bid which is legally impermissible. The petitioner has every apprehension that respondent No.3 may arbitrarily cancel the entire tender process to benefit respondent No.4.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) issued in favour of respondent No.4 is illegal and contrary to law. As per Clause 5.4 of the Request For Proposal (RFP) guidelines, if successful bidder fails to acknowledge the Letter of Acceptance (LOA) or the conditions mentioned therein, the next bidder is mandatorily required to be considered. Since respondent No.4 itself expressed its unwillingness to deposit the tender amount quoted by it, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the bid. As per Clause 5.5 of the Request For Proposal (RFP), if the unsuccessful bidder is unable to execute the agreement within the stipulated time period, respondent No.3 is under an obligation to immediately withdraw the offer and replace it with appropriate subsequent bidder. Provision in this regard is also contained in Clause 5.6 of the Request For Proposal (RFP). The action of respondent No.3 in intending to scrap the entire tender process is illegal and prejudices the legal rights of the petitioner. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the decision of the Apex Court in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India 1994 SCC (6) 651, The Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India 2020 (16) SCC 489, W.P. No.11842/2025 (Pragmatic Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Pranvir Singh Kushwaha Vs. M.P. Housing and Infrastructure Development Board and Others) decided on 16.10.2025, W.P. No.18584/20