₹50,000 costs for challenging anti-cartel tender instructions; Orissa High Court says plea gave impression of intent to promote cartelisation

The petitioner challenged two internal Works Department communications dated 5 August and 19 August 2026.

The first instructed tender authorities to scrutinize evidence of cartel formation and, where appropriate, undertake cost analysis, reject bids or report the matter to the Competition Commission of India (CCI).

The second set out directions concerning competition safeguards, bid analysis, administrative action, record-keeping and review of ongoing tenders.

The petitioner argued that the communications intruded on the CCI’s statutory functions and could affect ongoing tenders; he relied, among other matters, on a subsequent tender cancellation issued to him.

The Court treated any challenge to the cancellation as a separate cause of action.

1. Whether the petitioner could challenge internal departmental instructions despite having no identified connection to the communications and where they created no enforceable right in his favour.

2. Whether the instructions usurped or contradicted the CCI’s powers under the Competition Act, 2002.

3. Whether the communications justified interference with the tender authorities’ independent power to reject or cancel a tender.

The Court considered the Competition Act, 2002, including Section 2(c) (definition of “cartel”), Section 19 (CCI inquiry into agreements or abuse of dominant position), Section 26 (CCI’s prima facie assessment and possible direction for investigation), and Section 27 (consequences following a finding of contravention).

The Act entrusts the CCI with its prescribed inquiry and investigation functions; departmental authorities may identify and report suspected cartel conduct without thereby exercising those CCI functions.

Internal executive instructions intended to guide departmental functioning ordinarily create no legally enforceable right for third parties, and courts should be cautious about interfering with them absent a legal basis.

A tender-inviting authority may proceed with or cancel a tender, subject to applicable legal limitations; a challenge to a particular rejection or cancellation is a separate cause of action.

The judgment cited no specific precedents.

The Court found that the communications were addressed to departmental tender authorities, not to the petitioner, and that he had no apparent nexus to them.

Their directions required scrutiny of suspected bid-rigging and contemplated administrative measures or referral to the CCI; they did not purport to conduct the CCI’s statutory inquiry or investigation.

The Court therefore rejected the claim that the instructions displaced the Competition Act’s scheme, viewing them instead as steps that could generate material for a CCI reference.

It also held that the petitioner’s reliance on the later tender cancellation did not establish a basis to invalidate the general instructions, since the cancellation was independently challengeable.

It ordered the petitioner to pay costs of ₹50,000 to the State Legal Services Authority within two weeks, to be earmarked for the benefit of juveniles.