J and S Joint Venture (JV) vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20099 of 2025
======================================================
J and S Joint Venture (JV) having its office at Mohalla- Shri Krishna Nagar,
Post Office and Police Station- Aurangabad and District- Aurangabad, Bihar,
PIN Code- 824101 represented through its partner Mr. Sunil Kumar (Male)
aged about- 53 years, Son of Shri Chandrakshekhar Sharma, resident of Shri
Krishna Nagar, Post Office and Police Station- Aurangabad and District-
Aurangabad, Bihar, PIN Code- 824101.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Engineer-in-Chief-Cum-Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Patna Region,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department,
Sasaram Circle, Government of Bihar, Sasaram, Bihar.
5. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Division, Aurangabad, Bihar.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Prafull Chandra Jha, Advocate
Mr.Avinash Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Keshav Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC 25
Mr. S. Mushtaque, Advocate.
Mr. Yasir Ashraf, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 14-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application has been filed seeking
the following reliefs:

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
2/18
“i. For setting aside the retender NIT
no.04/2025-26 (LoT/PRD) dated 02.12.2025
Published by Public Health Engineering
Division Aurangabad, Public Health
Engineering Department, Government of Bihar.
ii. For direction to the competent authorities to
allow the petitioner to start work in NIT No.
15/2024-25 (LoT PRD) because it was declared
the L-1 (Lowest bidder) in that tender vide
tender ID no. 89096, but all of a sudden on
02.12.2025, tender of petitioner got cancelled
through an e-mail without giving a proper letter
and without giving reason for cancellation of
that tender and the above mentioned re-tender
NIT no.04/2025-26 (LoT/PRD) got Published by
Public Health Engineering Division
Aurangabad, Public Health Engineering
Department, Government of Bihar.
iii. For any further relief/reliefs,
direction/directions, or order/orders which are
found admissible during the course of
arguments.”
3. The brief facts of the present case are that the
petitioner, J & S Joint Venture (JV), comprising M/s Maa
Jagdamba Construction and M/s S.K. Construction, participated
in a tender process initiated by the Public Health Engineering
Department, Aurangabad Division, Government of Bihar,
pursuant to NIT No. 15/2024-25 (LoT/PRD) dated 17.01.2025

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
3/18
for the design, construction, supply of materials, testing and
commissioning of piped water supply schemes under the “Har
Ghar Nal Jal” Nischay Yojana on a turnkey basis.
4. The petitioner submitted its bid within the
prescribed time. During the pendency of the tender process, the
Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division,
Aurangabad, by letter dated 09.08.2025, requested all
participating bidders to extend the validity of their bids in terms
of Clause 15.2 of the Standard Bidding Document. The
petitioner furnished its consent and extended the bid validity up
to 18.09.2025.
5. Thereafter, the Technical Evaluation Committee,
vide Memo No. 1399 dated 12.09.2025, declared the petitioner
technically qualified. Upon opening of the financial bids, the
petitioner emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidder.
6. Subsequently, by Letter No. 3052 dated 03.10.2025,
the Executive Engineer again sought the petitioner’s consent for
further extension of bid validity on the ground that the tender
process had not been concluded within the earlier extended
validity period. The petitioner submitted its unconditional
consent on the same day, undertaking to execute the work at the
quoted rates. The Executive Engineer thereafter forwarded the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
4/18
proposal for extension of bid validity to the higher authorities by
Letter No. 3073 dated 06.10.2025, which was further
recommended by the Chief Engineer through Letter No. 1717
dated 01.12.2025.
7. While the proposal for extension of bid validity was
pending, the petitioner received an e-mail dated 02.12.2025
intimating that Tender ID No. 89096 had been cancelled.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned cancellation of Tender ID No. 89096 is arbitrary,
illegal and unsustainable in law. It is submitted that after the
petitioner had been declared technically qualified and had
emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidder, the respondents could not
have cancelled the tender process without assigning any reason.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the Executive
Engineer lacked the authority to cancel the tender after the
financial bids had been opened and the petitioner had been
declared the successful bidder. It is submitted that the impugned
action is dehors the provisions governing the tender process and
is therefore without jurisdiction.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the cancellation of the tender is in

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
5/18
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Standard
Bidding Document (SBD) and the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT).
It is submitted that, in terms of Clause 15.1 of the SBD, the bid
was valid only for a period of 180 days from the last date
prescribed for submission of bids and, upon expiry of the said
period, no further action could lawfully be taken in respect of
the tender.
11. Learned counsel further places reliance upon
Clause 30.1 of the SBD to submit that the notification of award
and execution of the agreement are required to be completed
within the period of bid validity. Since the bid validity had
expired before the tender process could be concluded, the
respondents were left with no option but to cancel the tender.
12. It is further submitted that, owing to the
enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct during the Bihar
Legislative Assembly Elections, the tender process could not be
finalized within the period of bid validity. Consequently, after
the expiry of the bid validity period, the Executive Engineer
proceeded to cancel the tender in terms of the applicable
provisions of the tender document.
13. Placing reliance upon Clause 24 of NIT No.
15/2024-25, learned counsel for the respondents further submits

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
6/18
that the tendering authority reserved the right to extend, accept
or reject the tender without assigning any reason. It is, therefore,
contended that the decision to cancel the tender and issue a fresh
tender notification falls squarely within the contractual powers
reserved under the NIT and does not warrant interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction.
14. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand sought to be
taken by the respondents is wholly untenable. Drawing the
attention of this Court to Clauses 15.1 and 15.2 of the Standard
Bidding Document, it is submitted that while Clause 15.1
stipulates the initial period of bid validity, Clause 15.2
specifically provides the mechanism for extension of the bid
validity with the consent of the bidders.
15. It is submitted that the respondents themselves
invoked Clause 15.2 on more than one occasion by calling upon
the petitioner to extend the bid validity, and the petitioner duly
furnished its unconditional consent each time. Having
consciously exercised the power under Clause 15.2 and
extended the bid validity by obtaining the consent of the
bidders, the respondents cannot now justify the cancellation on
the ground that the bid validity had expired under Clause 15.1.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
7/18
16. The following issue arises for consideration in the
present case:
i. Whether, after having invoked the procedure under
Clause 15.2 of the Standard Bidding Document and obtained
the consent of the bidders for extension of the bid validity
period, the respondents can subsequently justify the
cancellation of the tender on the ground of expiry of bid validity
under Clause 15.1 of the Standard Bidding Document?
ii. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, the decision of the respondents to cancel Tender
ID No. 89096 and issue a fresh tender is legally sustainable?
Re. Issue No. (i)
17. Having considered the rival submissions and upon
perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds that
the controversy centres around the interplay between Clauses
15.1 and 15.2 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) and the
effect of the respondents’ own conduct in invoking the latter
provision.
18. Clause 15.1 & 15.2 of the SBD reads as follows:
“15.1: Bids shall remain valid for a period of
180 days after the deadline date for bid
submission specified in Clause 20. A bid value

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
8/18
for a shorter period shall be rejected by the
Employer as non- responsive. In case of
discrepancy in bid validity period between that
given in the undertaking pursuant to Clause
12.1(v) and the Form of Bid submitted by the
bidder, the Later shall be deemed to stand
corrected in accordance with the former and the
bidder has to provide for any additional security
that is required.
15.2: In exceptional circumstances, prior to
expiry of the original time limit, the Employer
may request that the bidders may extend the
period of validity for a specified additional
period. The request and the bidders’ responses
shall be made in writing or by cable. A bidder
agreeing to the request will not be required or
permitted to modify his bid.”
19. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid clauses shows
that while Clause 15.1 prescribes the initial period of bid
validity, Clause 15.2 provides the procedure to be followed
where extension of such validity becomes necessary. It enables
the employer to seek extension of the bid validity by obtaining
the consent of the participating bidders.
20. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the
respondents themselves invoked Clause 15.2 by calling upon the
bidders to extend the validity of their bids. It is equally
undisputed that the petitioner, along with the other participating

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
9/18
bidders, furnished its consent pursuant thereto. Subsequently,
the respondents again sought extension of the bid validity and
the petitioner once again furnished its unconditional consent.
Thus, the respondents themselves elected to proceed in terms of
Clause 15.2 of the SBD and set in motion the procedure
contemplated therein.
21. Significantly, the impugned communication
cancelling the tender does not disclose any reason whatsoever
for such cancellation. It is only during the course of hearing that
the respondents have sought to justify the impugned action by
placing reliance upon Clause 15.1 of the SBD and contending
that the bid validity had expired. It is this stand of the
respondents which has brought the issue of bid validity under
Clause 15.1 into focus.
22. Once the respondents themselves proceeded under
Clause 15.2 by seeking extension of the bid validity and
obtaining the consent of the bidders, a question naturally arises
as to whether they could thereafter justify the cancellation solely
on the ground that the bid validity had expired under Clause
15.1. The respondents cannot, on the one hand, invoke the
machinery contemplated under Clause 15.2 and call upon the
bidders to extend the validity of their bids and, on the other

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
10/18
hand, rely upon the very expiry of the original bid validity under
Clause 15.1 as the basis to sustain the cancellation. Such a
course of action is prima facie inconsistent with the scheme of
the SBD.
23. At the same time, this Court notices that no
material has been brought on record by either side to indicate
that the competent authority ultimately passed a formal order
extending the bid validity. However, the absence of such a
formal order does not dilute the admitted position that the
respondents themselves initiated the process envisaged under
Clause 15.2, sought the consent of the bidders and acted upon
such consent by processing the proposal for extension. Indeed,
the respondents have not denied these foundational facts.
Therefore, even if the process did not culminate in a formal
order of extension, it cannot be overlooked that the procedure
under Clause 15.2 had been consciously invoked by the
respondents themselves.
24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held
that a tendering authority is bound by the terms of the tender
document and is expected to act fairly, consistently and in
accordance with the procedure prescribed by it. In West Bengal
State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd., reported

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
11/18
in (2001) 2 SCC 451 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised
that the conditions of the tender are required to be adhered to
strictly. The relevant part of the said order reads as follows:
“24. The controversy in this case has arisen at
the threshold. It cannot be disputed that this is
an international competitive bidding which
postulates keen competition and high efficiency.
The bidders have or should have assistance of
technical experts. The degree of care required in
such a bidding is greater than in ordinary local
bids for small works. It is essential to maintain
the sanctity and integrity of process of tender/bid
and also award of a contract. The appellant,
Respondents 1 to 4 and Respondents 10 and 11
are all bound by the ITB which should be
complied with scrupulously. In a work of this
nature and magnitude where bidders who fulfil
prequalification alone are invited to bid,
adherence to the instructions cannot be given a
go-by by branding it as a pedantic approach,
otherwise it will encourage and provide scope
for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism
which are totally opposed to the rule of law and
our constitutional values. The very purpose of
issuing rules/instructions is to ensure their
enforcement lest the rule of law should be a
casualty. Relaxation or waiver of a rule or
condition, unless so provided under the ITB, by
the State or its agencies (the appellant) in favour
of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
12/18
the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule
of transparency and fairness and provide room
for manipulation to suit the whims of the State
agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for
awarding contracts as in the case of distributing
bounty or charity. In our view such approach
should always be avoided. Where power to relax
or waive a rule or a condition exists under the
rules, it has to be done strictly in compliance
with the rules. We have, therefore, no hesitation
in concluding that adherence to the ITB or rules
is the best principle to be followed, which is also
in the best public interest.”
25. Viewed in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the respondents cannot derive
support from Clause 15.1 in isolation after having admittedly
invoked the mechanism provided under Clause 15.2. The
defence founded solely on the expiry of bid validity, therefore,
cannot be accepted without first explaining the consequence of
the respondents’ own decision to invoke the procedure
prescribed for extension of the bid validity.
Re. Issue No. (ii)
26. Having answered Issue No. 1, this Court now
proceeds to examine the legality of the impugned cancellation
of Tender ID No. 89096 and the consequential issuance of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
13/18
fresh tender.
27. It is a settled proposition of law that a bidder,
merely because it has emerged as the lowest bidder, does not
acquire an indefeasible right to insist upon the award of the
contract. Equally, the authority inviting the tender is vested with
the power to cancel the tender process or invite fresh tenders, if
the circumstances so warrant. However, such power is not
immune from judicial scrutiny and is required to be exercised in
a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner.
28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 held that
although the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is
limited, the Court is empowered to interfere where the decision-
making process is found to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide or
in violation of the prescribed procedure. The relevant part of the
said order reads as follows:
“77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to
the question of legality. Its concern should be:
1. Whether a decision-making authority
exceeded its powers?
2. Committed an error of law,
3. committed a breach of the rules of natural
justice,

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
14/18
4. reached a decision which no reasonable
tribunal would have reached or,
5. abused its powers.
Therefore, it is not for the court to determine
whether a particular policy or particular
decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is
fair. It is only concerned with the manner in
which those decisions have been taken. The
extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case
to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an
administrative action is subject to control by
judicial review can be classified as under:
(i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker
must understand correctly the law that
regulates his decision-making power and must
give effect to it.
(ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury
unreasonableness.
(iii) Procedural impropriety.
The above are only the broad grounds but it does
not rule out addition of further grounds in course
of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of
State for the Home Department, ex Brind
[(1991) 1 AC 696] , Lord Diplock refers
specifically to one development, namely, the
possible recognition of the principle of
proportionality. In all these cases the test to be
adopted is that the court should, “consider
whether something has gone wrong of a nature
and degree which requires its intervention”.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
15/18
29. The respondents have placed reliance upon Clause
24 of the Notice Inviting Tender to contend that the tendering
authority reserved the right to accept, reject or cancel the tender
without assigning any reason. There can be no quarrel with the
proposition that such a power is available under the tender
conditions. Nevertheless, the existence of such a clause does not
place the exercise of that power beyond the scope of judicial
review. Even where the tender conditions reserve a discretion to
cancel the tender without assigning reasons, such discretion
cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with the other
conditions governing the tender process or in a manner that is
arbitrary.
30. As noticed while deciding Issue No. 1, the
respondents themselves invoked Clause 15.2 of the Standard
Bidding Document, sought the consent of the participating
bidders for extension of the bid validity and acted upon such
consent by processing the proposal for extension. Having
consciously proceeded under the mechanism envisaged under
Clause 15.2, the respondents have sought to sustain the
impugned cancellation by placing reliance upon Clause 15.1 on
the ground that the bid validity had expired. Such a stand is not
in consonance with the procedure adopted by the respondents

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
16/18
themselves during the tender process.
31. Though the record does not disclose that a formal
order extending the bid validity was ultimately issued by the
competent authority, it is equally true that the respondents have
not disputed that the process contemplated under Clause 15.2
had been initiated by them and that the requisite consents had
been obtained from the participating bidders. Once such a
course was consciously adopted, the respondents were required
to justify why the process initiated under Clause 15.2 was not
carried to its logical conclusion. In the absence of any
explanation in this regard, the subsequent reliance upon Clause
15.1 alone cannot be accepted as a legally sustainable basis for
the impugned action.
32. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of
the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that
while the respondents undoubtedly possessed the power under
Clause 24 of the NIT to cancel the tender, the justification now
sought to be advanced for exercise of such power is
incompatible with the course adopted by them under Clause
15.2 of the Standard Bidding Document. The decision-making
process, therefore, cannot be said to be consistent with the
governing tender conditions and, to that extent, warrants

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
17/18
interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
33. Accordingly, Issue No. 2 is answered in favour of
the petitioner.
34. Before parting, this Court also notices that by
order dated 07.04.2026, the operation of the fresh tender,
namely, Re-Tender NIT No. 04/2025-26 (LoT/PRD), had
already been stayed. Consequently, there is no question of any
substantive progress having been made pursuant to the said re-
tender.
35. In view of the foregoing discussion and the
findings recorded on the issues framed hereinabove, the
impugned communication dated 02.12.2025 cancelling Tender
ID No. 89096 is quashed. Consequently, the Re-Tender NIT No.
04/2025-26 (LoT/PRD) dated 02.12.2025 is also quashed.
36. The matter is remitted to the competent authority
to take a fresh decision in respect of Tender ID No. 89096
strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
Standard Bidding Document and the Notice Inviting Tender,
keeping in view the observations made hereinabove. It shall be
open to the competent authority to pass an appropriate reasoned
decision, if so advised, in accordance with law.

Patna High Court CWJC No.20099 of 2025 dt. 14-07-2026
18/18
37. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
allowed.
38. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.

(Sudhir Singh, ACJ)
Ranjan Kumar Jha, J: I agree
(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J.)
Sujit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 07.07.2026
Uploading Date 14.07.2026
Transmission Date NA