A tender inviting authority may validly nullify a tender process or reject the highest bid to prevent loss to the public exchequer and protect public interest, as the highest bidder possesses no vested right to the contract until it is formally concluded.

ORDER :

Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ.

Petitioners have filed the subject petitions impugning communication dated 05.12.2025 whereby the tender inviting authority had decided to nullify the tender process that was initiated with the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 18.09.2025.

2. The contentions of the petitioners primarily are that petitioners were the highest bidders for the respective blocks of sand mines which were tendered in different districts and despite petitioners being the highest bidders, the tender process has been canceled without assigning any reason.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contend that since the petitioners were the highest bidders, there is no justification to arbitrarily nullify the tender process.

4. In W.P. No.1880 of 2026 when the petition was listed on 20th January 2026, respondents were directed to file a brief reply disclosing the reasons behind cancellation of the entire tender process along with the necessary note sheets. Reply has been filed by the respondents in W.P. No. 1880 of 2026 and same reply has been adopted in W.P. No. 48901 of 2025. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that since the tender process for both the blocks was nullified by the same decision, common reply is relied upon.

5. For the purposes of expedition, reference may be had to the reply submitted in W.P. No. 1880 of 2026. Though the reply raises a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the petitions, we are considering primarily the reasons recorded in the reply for passing of the impugned order nullifying the tender process.

6. This relevant portion reads as under :

(PART B):- REASONS FOR PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER

i. That against the NIT floated 18.09.2022, the petitioner (M/s Dhanshri Merchandise Private Limited) has filed W.P. No. 49937/2025 who has participated for group Katni while petitioner (Sahakar Global Limited) has filed W.P. No.48901/2025 who has participated for the group Shahdol. That it is observed that earlier also the similar tender is being issued for tender quantity of 2000000 of group Katni,wherein the reserve price was 500000000, wherein the petitioner Dhanlakshmi Merchandise Private Limited has quoted the highest price and the rate quoted by him is 323.883 rupees per cubic meter and in the current tender proceedings the petitioner (Dhanlakshmi Merchandise Private Limited) has quoted a price of Rs. 540741111 @ 270.371 rupees per cubic meter. Thus, now, being an H1 bidder, he has quoted fewer prices than the previous bid. Similarly, for the group Shahdol earlier, the petitioner (Sahakar Global Limited) has quoted 391.151 rupees per cubic meter in the previous tender and in the current tender, the petitioner (Sahakar Global Limited) has coded 273.886 rupees per cubic meter. If being a HI price the petitioner (Shahkar Global in W.P. No. 48901/2025) has earlier quoted 688425999 in previous bid of the tender and in present tender he has quoted 482040000, thus eventually, from the previous tender, both the petitioners like Shahdol and Katni Group has quoted much less than the previous tender. Thus, the tendering authority, while evaluating the tender process after participation by all the bidders have observed that these successful bidders are also the successful bidders of the previous round, and they have quoted much higher price being a HI bidder in earlier tender.

ii. That after declaring the H1 bidder or the successful bidder in the previous tender, these petitioners have surrendered their group, which resulted into fresh auction /present NIT dated 18.09.2025 and now the same persons have quoted less amount thus being a H1 bidder of previous tender. Thus by surrendering the tender / contract now they become again the HI bidder with much less amount. In these circumstances, the loss to the public exchequer cannot be ruled out.

iii. That the board of the Mining Corporation on 19.11.2025 has evaluated these aspects of awarding the contract and when such an aspect i