### RFP Clauses Not Explicitly Incorporated into the Final Executed Contract Are Unenforceable as Binding Obligations

The Petitioner was awarded a contract for sanitation services during the Shri Amarnath Ji Yatra 2025 (Pahalgam Axis) after being the successful bidder under E-NIT No. 295 of 2025.

Despite satisfactory completion of the 2025 work, the Respondents issued a fresh tender (E-NIT No. S-222) for the 2026 Yatra on 24.04.2026.

The Petitioner filed a representation seeking a one-year extension citing Clause 8.5 of the 2025 Request for Proposal (RFP), which suggested a potential "1+1" year extension.

The Respondents rejected this request on 24.04.2026.

The Petitioner approached the High Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an injunction against the fresh tendering process.

1. Whether Clause 8.5 of the Request for Proposal (RFP) constitutes a binding contractual obligation for the Respondents to grant an extension, despite its absence in the subsequent formal written agreement.

2. Whether interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, can be granted based on terms found in a tender document (RFP) that were not incorporated into the final executed contract.

The Court primarily applied Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding interim measures by the Court.

The Court relied on the principle that a Request for Proposal (RFP) is generally an invitation to offer and not a binding contract unless expressly incorporated into the final agreement.

The Court followed the precedents of National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. BSCPL Infrastructure Ltd. (2019) and PSA Mumbai Investments Pte. Ltd v. Board of Trustees of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (2018), which establish that terms in an RFP do not per-se constitute an enforceable contract.

The Court observed that the Petitioner’s claim rested entirely on Clause 8.5 of the RFP, yet the formal written agreement dated 27.05.2025 did not contain any such extension clause.

The Court highlighted that the RFP contained a "disclaimer" stating it was not an agreement or an offer.

The Court reasoned that the conscious exclusion of the extension clause from the final written contract indicated that the parties did not intend for it to be a binding term.

Since the written agreement—which governs the legal relationship—lacked an extension provision, no "arbitrable dispute" existed regarding the 2026 Yatra.

The Court noted that the definition of "Contract" in the RFP required a signed document, and since the RFP was not expressly made part of the final contract, its terms were unenforceable.

The Court held that Section 9 relief cannot be granted for conditions not present in the final written agreement.

The Court further clarified that the Respondents' decision to invite fresh bids was a valid administrative choice, as they were not contractually bound to retain the Petitioner.

The petition was dismissed with a direction to return the record.