State as a 'Repository of Public Faith': MP High Court Quashes Arbitrary Tender Cancellation

Gwalior, MP – In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of fairness and transparency in public procurement, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State, when inviting tenders, acts as a "repository of public faith" and must adhere to the highest standards of procedural integrity. The court quashed an order cancelling a completed tender process for a major construction project, condemning the ad-hoc decision-making as a potential breeding ground for "corruption, nepotism and crony-capitalism."

The division bench, comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Hirdesh, was adjudicating a writ petition filed by Pragmatic Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, which had emerged as the successful L-1 bidder for a residential-cum-commercial project in Gwalior valued at over INR 65 crores. The court found that the cancellation, executed by an official who lacked the requisite authority, was arbitrary, irrational, and procedurally improper, and ordered the matter to be reconsidered by the competent committee.

---

Background of the Dispute: A Flawed Process

The case, Pragmatic Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v MP Housing and Infrastructure , stemmed from a tender floated in 2024 by the respondent authority under the MP Grah Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 , and its associated regulations. The petitioner successfully navigated both the technical and financial bidding stages, emerging as the lowest bidder (L-1).

The complexity arose from a series of corrigenda issued by the authorities. Initially, the Deputy Commissioner issued a corrigendum adding four new eligibility conditions. However, a subsequent "Corrigendum 3" restored the original conditions. This reversal of eligibility criteria inadvertently made a previously disqualified bidder eligible again. Citing this development, the Additional Commissioner unilaterally decided to cancel the entire tender process and initiate a fresh one, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention.

The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Harish Dixit, argued that the cancellation was arbitrary, especially since it occurred after the bidding process was complete and they had been identified as the successful bidder. The respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Vivek Khedkar, contended that the action was necessary to ensure a fair playing field for all potential bidders.

Judicial Scrutiny of Administrative Action in Tenders

The High Court began its analysis by acknowledging the established legal principle that the terms of a tender fall within the realm of contract, and courts are generally hesitant to exercise judicial review over such administrative decisions. However, it clarified that this deference is not absolute. Judicial intervention is warranted in cases of arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, or procedural impropriety.

The bench underscored that the sanctity of the tender process is paramount to public trust. In a powerful observation, the court stated:

"Respondents have to harbor the thought that by inviting tender they become repository of public faith and their conduct should be such fair and transparent that every bidder should feel that process of bidding proceeded with utmost fairness and transparency. Process is not only to be fair but it has to appear to be fair."

This sets a high bar for public authorities, emphasizing that the perception of fairness is as crucial as fairness itself.

Acting Ultra Vires: A Jurisdictional Error

The crux of the court's decision hinged on the lack of authority of the Additional Commissioner to cancel the tender. The court meticulously examined the governing statutes, namely the MP Grah Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 , and the Conduct of Business and Delegation of Powers Regulations 2015 .

According to these regulations, the power to accept or reject tenders valued above INR 50 crores was explicitly vested in a "Business Committee" composed of senior officials. The committee's decision would then be placed before the Board for confirmation, as mandated by Section 23(3) of the Adhiniyam.

The court found that the Additional Commissioner had completely bypassed this statutory framework. The decision to cancel the tender was neither taken by the Business Committee nor was it ever presented to the Board for its information or approval. This procedural lapse rendered the cancellation order illegal and void ab initio . The court noted:

"The decision was wrongly taken by the Additional Commissioner, bypassing the Business Committee and the Board, rendering the process illegal."

The bench expressed its dismay at such a flagrant disregard for established procedure in a high-value public contract. It observed sternly, "In sensitive matter like tender worth Rs.65.73 crores officers are expected to be more vigilant and cautious because wider public interest and public exchequer is involved. Public Interest and Public Exchequer can not lie at the mercy of whims of some officers."

Arbitrariness and the Proliferation of Crony-Capitalism

Beyond the jurisdictional error, the court characterized the authority's "ad-hoc and intermittent approach" as both arbitrary and irrational. Once the original tender conditions were restored via Corrigendum 3, the court reasoned that the officials had a duty to see the process through to its logical conclusion. This meant finalizing the bid and submitting the proposal to the statutorily mandated Business Committee and the Board for a final decision.

Cancelling the process after a successful bidder had been identified, the court warned, severely undermines the credibility of the entire public procurement system. Such actions discourage genuine entrepreneurship and create an environment ripe for manipulation. In a sharp critique of such practices, the court stated:

"Many a times, it is observed that after completion of tender process, all process is aborted and denovo process is started. This shakes the credibility of process. At times, it prejudices the development of entrepreneurship and it proliferates corruption, nepotism and crony-capitalism. Best bidder should prevail for wider public interest."

This observation elevates the judgment from a mere procedural correction to a broader commentary on the systemic importance of transparent and stable tender processes for economic health and good governance.

The Final Verdict and Its Implications

Ultimately, the High Court set aside the impugned cancellation order. It did not, however, direct the award of the contract to the petitioner. Instead, respecting the division of powers, the court relegated the matter back to the appropriate authority—the Business Committee.

The bench directed the Committee to consider the petitioner's proposal as the L-1 bidder and subsequently place the matter before the Board for a final decision, in strict adherence to Section 23 of the Adhiniyam and the relevant regulations.

This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for administrative and commercial law practitioners. It reaffirms that while executive bodies have discretion in contractual matters, this discretion is not unfettered. It is constrained by the principles of natural justice, statutory limitations, and the constitutional mandate to act fairly and rationally. For entities participating in public tenders, the ruling provides a strong basis to challenge arbitrary cancellations, particularly when they are rooted in procedural irregularities or are executed by officials acting beyond their jurisdiction. It underscores that the state cannot treat the tender process as a capricious exercise but as a solemn duty held in public trust.