Tender authorities may reject bidders lacking essential experience in the specific nature of the contracted works.

Agra Development Authority invited tenders for internal development works in Township 1 and Township 4.

The petitioner’s name appeared on the Authority’s website as technically qualified, but the Authority subsequently cancelled both tenders on 25 April 2026, stating that the cancellation was due to “unforeseen circumstances,” and issued fresh tenders.

The petitioner alleged that the cancellation was arbitrary and intended to favour other bidders, and challenged both the cancellation and a show-cause notice proposing forfeiture of its earnest money.

The Authority maintained that the petitioner had been wrongly shown as technically qualified despite lacking the required experience in township infrastructure works.

In the fresh tender process, the petitioner did not participate, and letters of intent were issued to respondents 5 and 6.

On examining the original records, the Court found that the petitioner had been assessed as lacking relevant experience, including experience in sewerage and drainage works.

1. Whether cancellation of the tenders for Township 1 and Township 4 was a colourable exercise of power warranting interference under Article 226.

2. Whether the show-cause notice dated 15 May 2026 was liable to be quashed.

3. Whether the petitioner’s technical bid had been illegally rejected and the petitioner was qualified.

Public authorities conducting procurement must act fairly, transparently, and non-arbitrarily, consistently with Article 14; their tender decisions remain subject to judicial review under Article 226.

A public decision must be supported by reasons, and reasons absent from the impugned order ordinarily cannot be supplied later through an affidavit (*Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner*, (1978) 1 SCC 405).

The Court also relied on *Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer*, (2024) 15 SCC 461, on the requirement for reasoned State action.

A challenge to a show-cause notice ordinarily succeeds only where mala fides, a predetermined decision, or patent lack of jurisdiction is shown (*J. Sri Nisha v. Special Director, Adjudicating Authority, Directorate of Enforcement*, 2026 INSC 309).

Essential tender eligibility conditions, including relevant work-experience requirements, must be applied and cannot be diluted (*Micky Traders v. L.R.Y. Labour Contractors*, 2026 INSC 1025).

The Court observed that the cancellation order itself gave no explanation beyond “unforeseen circumstances,” and that the tender documents did not identify such circumstances as a basis for cancellation; it therefore found the order deficient in stated reasons and not justified by the tender conditions.

On reviewing the original records, however, the Court found that the petitioner had been recorded as ineligible because its experience did not match the required township-development work and the value requirement, and that its submitted certificate concerned road widening and strengthening rather than sewerage and drainage infrastructure.

The Court treated the petitioner’s erroneous inclusion as technically qualified as having tainted the tender process and found substantial justification for cancellation, concluding that the decision was not discriminatory or mala fide.

As to the show-cause notice, no final order had been made, and the petitioner had not established mala fides, predetermination, or lack of jurisdiction.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the Authority remained free to proceed with the show-cause notice in accordance with law.