Tender Hangs Fire for Years, Then Goes Up in Smoke: Patna HC Backs State's Fresh Call

In a decisive reversal, the Patna High Court's Division Bench—led by Chief Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Harish Kumar—on April 9, 2026, allowed Letters Patent Appeal No. 320 of 2025 filed by the State of Bihar. The court quashed a single judge's order that had reinstated a decade-old tender for selling empty cartridges from Munger Gun Factory, ruling that the original contract lapsed naturally after six months without formal extension. This upholds the state's right to issue a fresh tender, prioritizing public interest and fiscal prudence as brass prices soared and stockpiles grew.

From 2008 Bid to 2017 Bust: The Cartridge Conundrum

The saga began in 2008 when M/s Kumar and Kumar, led by proprietor Raj Kumar Gupta, won Tender No. 7/2008-09 for empty cartridges at Munger Gun Factory at Rs. 241.11 per kg. Security of Rs. 1 lakh was deposited, and the firm was to lift materials within six months from approval on October 17, 2008—expiring April 17, 2009.

Delays piled up: The firm twice sought postponements for weighing (January 9 and March 20, 2009), citing health and labor issues; authorities obliged, rescheduling to April 6, 2009. But parliamentary elections, VVIP security, and other duties intervened. The firm claimed it made repeated representations for new dates, but none materialized. In 2017—eight years later—the Inspector General cancelled the tender via Memo No. 3408 dated March 16, 2017, citing lapsed time, increased quantity, and skyrocketing prices, opting for a fresh notice (No. 02/2017-18).

The firm filed CWJC No. 7771 of 2017, arguing authorities caused delays and cancellation was arbitrary. The single judge agreed on November 18, 2024, quashing the cancellation. The state appealed, highlighting the firm's delay in approaching court and prior blacklisting for forgery in another tender.

Bidder's Delay Dodge vs State's Fiscal Firewall

Petitioner's Pitch : M/s Kumar and Kumar insisted delays stemmed from police elections and duties, not their fault. They were ready post-initial requests, submitted representations, and accused malice in sudden cancellation. Senior counsel Ganpati Trivedi invoked Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer (AIR 2024 SC 3784), urging courts protect contract sanctity over mere price hikes labeled "public interest."

State's Counter : Advocate General P.K. Shahi stressed the six-month clause (Tender Clause 5), no extension provision, and firm's initial adjournments. Post-April 2009, the firm slept on rights till 2017 despite lapsed validity. Quantity ballooned, brass rates multiplied—fresh tender ensures "transparency, economy, competitiveness." They cited Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Vardan Linkers ((2008) 12 SCC 500) for justified cancellation sans contract.

The bench noted the firm's blacklisting in 2011 for forgery in another bid, questioning bona fides, though not central.

Supreme Echoes Guide the Gavel: Restraint in Tender Turf

The Division Bench wielded judicial restraint, hallmark of tender reviews. Drawing from Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (via Principal Chief Conservator of Forest v. Suresh Mathew , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 933), it affirmed courts check only arbitrariness, not commercial wisdom: "The Government is the guardian of the finances of the State."

Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley ((2024) 15 SCC 215) doomed the writ via delay/laches: Representations don't resurrect dead causes. No mala fides shown; lapse auto-terminates contract per Kisan Sahkari . Fresh tender benefits exchequer, aligning Tata Cellular v. Union of India —freedom of contract trumps unless Wednesbury irrational.

Rejecting single judge's view of unilateral cancellation, the bench clarified shared delays but petitioner's inaction post-lapse fatal. Public interest isn't "narrowly confined to financial aspects" ( Subodh Kumar ), yet here safeguards it.

Punchy Pronouncements from the Podium

  • "If a tender period lapses without a formal extension, the contract is considered to have naturally terminated; hence it cannot be said that the action of the appellants in cancelling the earlier tender... was arbitrary."
  • "Mere filing of repeated representations cannot cure delay or extend limitation."
  • "By floating the new tender, there would benefit to the State exchequer and the same is necessary for public interest."
  • "The order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from palpable unreasonableness and there is perversity in it."

Appeal Allowed: Fresh Tender Stands, But Security Returned

The LPA succeeded; single judge order quashed. State prevails to proceed with new tender—fiscal windfall amid rising brass values. Firm gets Rs. 1 lakh security refunded with 6.5% interest within four weeks.

This reinforces tender timelines as ironclad in public procurement, curbing indolent claims. Bidders must act swiftly; states gain leeway for better deals sans arbitrariness. As news reports note, "Tender Lapses Automatically If Not Extended" —a timely reminder for Bihar's procurement playbook.