Fresh Tender Process Renders Challenge to Cancellation of Previous Bidding Process Infructuous if Petitioner is Found Responsive.

The petitioner, MS Arun Construction, was the L-1 (lowest) bidder for flood protection works in Champawat Assembly Constituency under e-Tender Notice No. 04/SE/2025-26.

The respondent department cancelled the petitioner’s bid following a complaint, alleging the petitioner failed to meet eligibility criteria based on an experience certificate.

The department subsequently cancelled the entire bidding process, citing that the other bidders were financially unviable and that a fresh process was necessary to ensure transparency and prudence.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation order dated 28.04.2026, alleging a lack of opportunity for a hearing.

During the pendency of the petition, fresh tenders were invited, and the petitioner’s new bid was found technically responsive.

1. Whether the cancellation of the initial bidding process was legally sustainable given the alleged lack of opportunity for a hearing and subsequent finding of technical responsiveness in the fresh tender.

The Court focused on the principles of Fairness, Transparency, and Official Prudence in the award of government contracts.

It applied the principle of Judicial Restraint in administrative matters where the grievance of the petitioner (technical disqualification) had effectively been rendered moot by the department's subsequent acceptance of the petitioner’s technical bid in a fresh round of tendering.

The Court observed that while the petitioner originally complained of a violation of natural justice regarding his disqualification in the first round, the circumstances had changed.

The respondent department initiated a fresh tender process to ensure financial viability and transparency after the initial L-1 was disqualified and other bids were too high.

Crucially, the State counsel informed the Court that in the current (fresh) tender cycle, the petitioner’s bid had been found technically responsive.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that since the petitioner was now back in the competition and his technical eligibility was no longer in dispute, examining the validity of the previous cancellation order would serve no practical purpose.

It disposed of the writ petition by directing the Department to proceed with opening the financial bids of the fresh tender process on the scheduled date (03.06.2026) and to take a final decision in accordance with the law.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.