Improper Eviction of Existing Contractor Following Quashing of Tender Process is Arbitrary and Legally Unsustainable

The petitioner, a women’s self-help group, challenged a tender process (Bid No. GEM/2025/B/7032239) for catering services at District Hospital, Jashpur.

In a prior writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 1597 of 2026), the High Court on 09.04.2026 quashed the entire tender process and all consequential actions, including the selection of Respondent No. 6.

Despite this, the respondent authorities issued an impugned letter dated 16.04.2026 directing the petitioner to vacate the hospital premises while allowing Respondent No. 6 to continue services without a valid tender.

The petitioner filed the present writ under Article 226 seeking to quash the eviction notice and restrain Respondent No. 6 from continuing services.

1. Whether the respondent authorities' action of evicting the petitioner and permitting Respondent No. 6 to continue services was arbitrary and in violation of the Court's previous order dated 09.04.2026.

2. Whether the impugned communication dated 16.04.2026 should be quashed in light of the administrative admission of error.

The court applied the principles of Article 14 (Equality before Law) and Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Profession) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that State instrumentalities must act fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law.

It upheld the sanctity of Judicial Mandate, holding that administrative actions must strictly adhere to prior court orders, particularly those quashing tender processes and directing fresh procurement under Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) relaxation provisions.

The court analyzed the personal affidavit filed by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent (Respondent No. 5), who appeared in person.

The court noted the respondent's admission that the impugned eviction notice dated 16.04.2026 was "inadvertently issued" and was contrary to the High Court’s order in the previous litigation.

The court found that since the entire tender process (including the selection of Respondent No. 6) had been quashed, the petitioner—who was already functioning at the site—had a legitimate expectation of fair treatment until a fresh process was finalized.

The court accepted the respondent's undertaking to withdraw the notice and permit the petitioner to continue diet services as a "status quo" measure to ensure hospital operations continued while complying with the law.

The respondent was directed to issue orders permitting the petitioner to continue dietary services until a fresh tender is finalized.

The Court accepted the respondent's unconditional apology but cautioned the authorities to remain vigilant and avoid interference with the administration of justice in the future.