Bidder's Waiver Torpedoes Tender Cancellation: Patna HC Slaps Down Arbitrary Re-Tender Order

In a sharp rebuke to bureaucratic overreach, the Patna High Court has quashed a decision by Bihar's Rural Works Department to cancel a key rural road tender, ruling it "manifestly arbitrary." A Division Bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh sided with petitioner Kaushal Kishore, the lowest bidder (L-1), in Kaushal Kishore v. State of Bihar (CWJC No. 16089 of 2025), dated March 25, 2026. The court reinstated the process, emphasizing that a disqualified bidder's explicit waiver of rights left no room for authorities to upend the selection.

From E-Tender to Courtroom Drama

The saga unfolded under the Rural Road Strengthening and Management Program (RRSMP). On July 3, 2025, the Engineer-in-Chief invited e-tenders (NIT No. RRSMP/10/2025-26, Package RRSMP/25-26, Tender ID 143239) for road works in Arwal district. Bids closed August 8 after extension.

Kaushal Kishore cleared technical evaluation. Rival bidder Praveen Kumar was disqualified for skipping mandatory Annual Turnover (ATO) proofs—payment certificate and Form 26AS—per Clauses 4.4A(a) and 24.2 of the Composite Minimum Bid Document (CMBD). No objections surfaced then. Financial bids opened, crowning Kishore as L-1. Even the Executive Engineer recommended a work order.

But on September 15, 2025, the Tender Committee—chaired by the Additional Chief Secretary—cancelled everything, citing "inadequate opportunity" for Praveen Kumar, and ordered re-tendering. Enter the writ petition.

Petitioner's Ace: Letters That Sealed the Deal

Kishore's counsel, led by Senior Advocate Ramakant Sharma, hammered home the absurdity. Crucially, Praveen Kumar's letter (September 12, 2025) admitted the goof-up: "I mistakenly did not attach Payment Certificate and 26AS... no objection was raised by me nor will be in future." The Executive Engineer forwarded it September 13— before the cancellation.

This, they argued, invoked the doctrine of waiver , rendering the committee's rationale factually baseless and violative of Article 14's equality mandate. Reopening a concluded L-1 stage on "extraneous considerations" screamed arbitrariness.

State's Shield: Clauses and Confidentiality

Respondents, via counsel Sanjay Prasad, countered that Clause 4.4A(a) made documents non-negotiable. Post-financial bid opening, rates were "compromised," barring clarifications. NIT Clause 33 allowed cancellation anytime sans reason. Fairness demanded scrutiny, they insisted, aligning with transparency goals.

Waiver Wins: Doctrines Deployed with Precision

The Bench zeroed in: Was cancellation justified when the bidder himself nixed any grievance? Letters proved waiver—full knowledge, voluntary relinquishment. Citing Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre (2004) 8 SCC 229, the court affirmed: "A right can be waived by the party for whose benefit certain requirements... had been provided... even by conduct."

No live issue remained, yet authorities "resurrected" a dead ground, ignoring records. This flunked Article 14 scrutiny.

Drawing from Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, judicial review targets process flaws like arbitrariness, not expertise substitution. Echoing Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517, courts intervene only on mala fides or irrationality harming public interest. Here, the call was "so arbitrary that no reasonable authority could have arrived at it."

The other source summary aligns seamlessly: the decision collapsed on its "factually incorrect premise," non-consideration of waiver letters.

Court's Cutting Quotes

Key Observations from the judgment:

"The materials on record unequivocally demonstrate that prior to the impugned decision itself, the said bidder had waived his right... consciously accepted his disqualification and categorically stated that he neither intends to file any objection nor to pursue the matter further."

"In such circumstances, the very foundation of the impugned decision becomes unsustainable and collapses. The doctrine of waiver... postulates that where a person, with full knowledge of his rights, voluntarily abandons... he cannot subsequently be heard to complain."

"For the authorities to subsequently rely upon an alleged denial of opportunity... is not only contradictory but also manifestly arbitrary... reflects non-application of mind."

"The impugned decision... suffers from arbitrariness, non-consideration of relevant material, and reliance on a non-existent ground."

Victory for L-1: Tender Revived, Lessons for Tenders

The court set aside the September 15 order outright: "The order dated 15.09.2025 is set aside and the writ application is, accordingly, allowed." Kishore gets his work order; re-tendering halted.

Implications ripple: Tender bodies must heed waivers, apply mind to records. Arbitrary resets risk Article 14 wrath, prioritizing concluded processes absent ironclad reasons. For public procurement, it's a fairness firewall—L-1 rights fortified, bureaucracy checked.

This ruling fortifies bidder confidence while nudging states toward reasoned action, potentially curbing delays in rural infrastructure.