Case Law
Subject : Legal News - Public Contracts
Allahabad High Court: Invalid Highest Bid Cannot Justify Cancelling Entire Tender Process; Highest Valid Bidder Entitled to Contract
Allahabad: In a significant ruling affecting public procurement processes, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has held that authorities cannot cancel an entire tender process merely because the highest bidder submitted an invalid bid. The Court underscored that the highest bid among all valid and compliant bids should be accepted, provided it is above the reserve price.
A Division Bench of
Hon'ble
Anjani Kumar Mishra
, J.
, and
Hon'ble
Jayant Banerji
, J.
, delivered the judgment in a writ petition challenging the cancellation of an e-auction for a short-term mining permit in
The case, filed by M/S Suddhtam Enterprises, arose from an e-tender-cum-e-auction initiated for mining rights over specific plots in Village Khapatiha Kala,
The petitioner raised an objection, contending that the documents submitted by M/s G.D.S. Infrastructure (Aadhaar, Pan, Character Certificate) were not self-attested, which was a mandatory requirement of the tender notice.
Crucially, a committee constituted by the District Magistrate to process the bids failed to notice this deficiency during the technical bid evaluation, proceeding instead to open the financial bids. It was only later, after the financial bids were opened and M/s G.D.S. Infrastructure was found to be the highest, that the deficiency was apparently brought to light.
Following this, the Chief Treasury Officer,
The petitioner challenged both the CTO's recommendation letter and the fresh tender advertisement before the High Court, arguing that their bid was valid, above the reserve price, and thus the highest among all compliant bidders. They contended that the ineligible bid should have been discarded, and the contract awarded to them. The petitioner also questioned the authority of the Chief Treasury Officer, who was not part of the constituted tender committee, to recommend cancellation.
The State respondents, through instructions provided to the Court, admitted that the deficiency in M/s G.D.S. Infrastructure's bid documents had not been noticed by the committee at the time of opening technical bids and that the financial bid was wrongly opened due to this oversight.
The High Court sharply criticised the functioning of the committee, observing that it "did not perform its functions properly and did not scrutinize the tender documents." The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission, stating, "since the bid of the petitioner was above the reserve price and did not suffer from any legal defect as it complied with all the conditions of the tender notice, the ineligible bid should have been discarded and the petitioner was liable to be declared the highest bidder and was liable to be awarded the contract."
The Bench further found that the Chief Treasury Officer, not being a member of the tender committee, was an "unconcerned person" and therefore had "no right to recommend cancellation of the e-tender notice as a whole."
Holding that the petitioner was being unfairly penalized for the dereliction of duty by the tender committee, the Court found a "patent illegality" in the respondents' actions.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the letter/order dated 21.10.2023 passed by the Chief Treasury Officer,
This judgment reinforces the principle that tender authorities must properly scrutinize bids for compliance with all conditions and cannot use the non-compliance of an unqualified highest bidder as a ground to discard the entire process, especially when valid and eligible bids exist.
Case Details: * Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 39170 of 2023 * Petitioner: M/S Suddhtam Enterprises * Respondent: State Of U.P. And 5 Others * Bench: Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra , J., Hon'ble Jayant Banerji , J. * Order Date: 26.02.2024
#TenderLaw #PublicContracts #AllahabadHC #AllahabadHighCourt
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.