The Rahul Co Operative Labor And Construction Society Limited Through Its President vs State Of Haryana And Others

Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court


CWP-8878-2026 - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(126) CWP-8878-2026
The Rahul Co-operative Labor and Construction Society Limited
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ... Respondents
Judgment Judgment Judgment Whether only
Reserved on Pronounced on Uploaded on the operative
part of the
judgment is
pronounced
Whether the full
judgment is
pronounced
10.08.2026 31.08.2026 02.09.2026 No Yes
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA
Present:- Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Vashisth, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana,
for respondent No.1.
Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
1) Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking, inter-alia, quashing of
decision dated 31.12.2025, Annexure P-9, whereby a tender floated by
Municipal Council, Thanesar has been cancelled by the Directorate of
Urban Local Bodies, Haryana.
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.02 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.


CWP-8878-2026 - 2-
2) Brief facts may be noticed. A tender was floated by Municipal
Council, Thanesar for day sweeping of streets/roads, drain cleaning, lifting of
garbage and bush uprooting etc. in some of the sectors in Thanesar. Seven
bidders participated in the tender process. Upon opening, technical and
financial bid, the Ratgal Co-operative Labor and Construction Society
Limited, emerged as the lowest bidder. Petitioner questioned its eligibility and
instituted a writ petition before this Court. Vide order dated 18.10.2024,
Annexure P-4, this Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the
respondents to pass an appropriate order on the representation submitted by
petitioner. The representation came to be rejected vide order dated 30.04.2025,
Annexure P-5. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing a fresh writ
petition and on 02.07.2026, a statement was made by the State counsel that
a Committee has been constituted to examine the allegations of forgery and
fabrication of documents. After getting a legal opinion in the matter, by virtue
of impugned decision, Annexure P-9, respondents decided to cancel the
tender and to re-issue a fresh tender in accordance with the new Request for
Proposal (RFP) dated 27.08.2025.
3) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the
cancellation is arbitrary, vindictive and intended to deprive the petitioner of
the benefit of the tender. Placing reliance upon Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour
V ersus Chief Executive   Officer and others, ( 2024 ) 15 SCC 461 and Kaushal
Kishore V ersus The State of Bihar and others ,   Law Finder Doc ID #
2877209, he has contended that cancellation of the tender by respondent-
authorities is amenable to judicial review and cannot be sustained, where it
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.02 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.


CWP-8878-2026 - 3-
is arbitrary or has been done without assigning any reason.
4) Although, notice of motion  has not been issued to the
respondents, but on an advance notice, counsel for respondents have opposed
the petition to submit that decision to cancel had been taken as the tender
process was entangled in litigation and before the process could be completed,
a new RFP had been circulated.
5) We have heard counsel for the parties and considered
their respective submission, besides examining the documents referred to by
them.
6) The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contracts
by the State or its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that power exercised by the
Government and its instrumentalities with regard to allotment of contracts is
subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party. Submission of
a bid in response to a notice inviting tender is no more than an offer, which the
State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. All participating bidders
are entitled to fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of
evaluation of tenders. It has been settled by the Apex Court in Maa Binda
Express Carrier and another V ersus North- e ast Frontier Railway and
others, ( 2014 ) 3 S C C 760 that an award of a contract is essentially a
commercial transaction, which must be determined on the basis of
considerations that are relevant to such commercial decision. A decision
cancelling a tender is also open to judicial review where it is shown to be
arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory or founded upon considerations having no
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.02 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.


CWP-8878-2026 - 4-
nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The jurisdiction of a writ Court in
such matters is of judicial review of the decision making process, not of an
appellate court examining the commercial wisdom of the tendering authority.
The State or its agencies are bound to give reasons in their orders. In Kalu
R am Ahuja and another V ersus Delhi Development   Authority and another,
( 2008 ) 10 S C C 696 as well as in Subodh Kumar Singh   Rath our 's case
( supra ), Hon’ble the Supreme Court has clarified that it is the bounden duty of
the tendering authority to give reasons for the cancellation of the tender.
Merely, mentioning that the cancellation has been done on account
of administrative reasons would not suffice.
7) The facts of the present case have to be examined in the light of the
above stated legal position. Despite tender having been floated in July, 2024,
no work order has been issued to any bidder. Tender process remained
embroiled in litigation. In the interregnum, competent authority introduced a
new RFP on 27.08.2025. Vide impugned communication, Director, Urban
Local Bodies, Haryana, noticed that the tender had been floated under the old
RFP and no work order had been issued due to litigation. For this reason, it
directed that the existing tender may be cancelled and the work re-tendered
in accordance with new RFP. It is, therefore, evident that the cancellation is
supported by justifiable reason. The decision is founded upon objective and
relevant considerations. The reason assigned by respondents meets the
mandate of Subodh Kumar Singh   Rath our 's case ( supra ) and Kaushal
Kishore's case ( supra ). This Court does not find any ground to interfere with
the impugned decision.
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.02 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.


CWP-8878-2026 - 5-
8) Finding no merit in the petition, it is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA)
JUDGE
31.08.2026
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
KAMAL SHARMA
2026.09.02 18:02
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment.
High Court, Sector-1, Chandigarh.