Sanjeev Kumar Sehjpal vs State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-24760-2026 1
115-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-24760-2026
Date of decision:-26.08.2026
Sanjeev Kumar Sehjpal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH GAUR
Present: Mr. Manish Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Ms. Vaishnavi Sikka, Advocate
for respondents No.4 to 6.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents to finalize tender ID Nos.
2025_DLG_134039_3 as well as 2025_DLG_134039_4 and issue
consequential work orders in favour of petitioner being the lowest bidder
(L1).
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.03 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-24760-2026 2
115-1
2. Mr. Manish Dadwal, counsel for the petitioner, submits that
petitioner had participated in both the above-noted tender processes and
emerged as the lowest bidder, but work order was not issued nor any step
was taken to conclude the tender process.
3. Noticing this argument of the counsel for the petitioner, this
Court directed respondents to furnish a response. Written statement has
been filed on behalf of Municipal Council, Nangal, District Roopnagar –
respondents No.4 to 6, which is taken on record and copy has been
supplied to the counsel for the petitioner.
4. Ms. Vaishnavi Sikka, counsel for the aforesaid respondents
submits that after the financial bids were opened, a complaint dated
03.11.2025, Annexure R4/1, was lodged by one Dixit Kumar on the
Chief Minister’s Portal via email alleging irregularities in the rates
quoted by one participating bidder, Ms. Chander Electricals and seeking
scrutiny of other tenders in which the said bidder had participated. Some
accusations have also been levelled against the officials, who were
alleged to have supported the contractor. Vigilance Bureau initiated an
inquiry into the tender processes including the tender in question. As per
counsel, pending inquiry, aforesaid respondents decided to keep the
tender process in abeyance with a view to ensure transparency and
accountability. It has been urged that the tenderer cancelled the annual
maintenance of tubwell machinery at Nangal and Naya Nangal. The
answering respondents ensured that the stalling of the award of the
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.03 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-24760-2026 3
115-1
tender did not result in the disruption of water supply to the inhabitants
of the concerned areas. Counsel submits that keeping in view the larger
public interest and to ensure an uninterrupted water supply, especially in
view of the onset of the summer season, vide resolution No.359 dated
16.02.2026, Annexure R4/3, a decision was taken to cancel the two
tender processes. Counsel has also made a reference to Clause 17 of
DNIT, Annexure P2, which provides that any work can be
cancelled/rejected by the Administrator/President and Executive Officer
of the Municipal Council without assigning any reason at any time. She
submits that intimation regarding cancellation of tender was duly
uploaded on the portal for the information of the general public.
5. We have heard counsel for the parties and given a
thoughtful consideration to the arguments addressed by them.
6. From the stand taken by the contesting respondents, it is
evident that both the tender processes were cancelled because of the
pendency of a complaint. Information regarding the cancellation was
also uploaded on the website on 07.04.2026 by way of a corrigendum
under the title ‘Cancellation of Tender’ with the description that the
tender is being cancelled due to administrative reason. Despite being
aware of this development, petitioner has approached this Court seeking
a direction for finalization of the tender and issuance of work order by
projecting as though the tender process had remained inconclusive.
7. No doubt, petitioner has averred that the status of the tender
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.03 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-24760-2026 4
115-1
was subsequently reflected as cancelled on the E-tendering portal.
However, his specific case is that the cancellation order or reasons
therefore were not supplied or disclosed. Despite this stand, petitioner
has approached this Court seeking a mandamus to finalize the tender
process, which stood cancelled and has sought a direction to the
respondents even during the course of arguments. Once a tender stood
cancelled, there was no subsisting tender process capable of being
finalized by issuance of a writ of mandamus. Petitioner was, therefore,
required to candidly disclose the cancellation decision and if aggrieved
specifically assail the same.
8. Merely because the petitioner had emerged as the lowest
bidder does not vest in him an indefeasible right to award of the contract.
The status of L1 bidder by itself cannot bind the State or its
instrumentalities to enter into a contract particularly when the tender
proceedings had been cancelled. Reliance is placed upon Indore Vikas
Praadhikaran (IDA) and another Versus Shri Humud Jain Samaj
Trust and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3511 , whereby Apex Court
has observed that a participant does not acquire any vested right for
execution of a contract in his favour even if he is the highest or the
lowest bidder.
9. Although, as the petitioner had not candidly disclosed all the
facts, this Court was inclined to dismiss the writ petition by imposing
cost upon him, yet taking a lenient view of the matter, petition is being
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.03 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.

CWP-24760-2026 5
115-1
rejected though with no order is to cost.
10. For the aforegoing reasons, writ petition is dismissed though
with no orders to cost.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
(RAJESH GAUR)
26.08.2026 JUDGE
Brij
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
BRIJ MOHAN BHALLA
2026.09.03 11:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.