Tender conditions cannot be unilaterally altered by non-competent authorities to curtail contractual periods after bid acceptance.

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, was declared the successful bidder in a tender process for organizing the "Shree Siddheshwar Banganga Mela, 2026".

The bid of ₹51,11,501/- was accepted for a 45-day duration as per tender conditions.

After the petitioner deposited the amount and made arrangements, Respondent No. 3 (SDM, Shivpuri) issued a communication on June 4, 2026, restricting the Mela to 22 days (from June 4 to June 25, 2026).

The petitioner challenged this curtailment as illegal and without jurisdiction, seeking an extension to the full 45-day period.

1. Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer (Respondent No. 3) had the legal authority to curtail the duration of the Mela established under the tender conditions given the provisions of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961.

2. Whether the respondent authorities are bound by the essential terms of the tender (45-day duration) once the petitioner has deposited consideration and altered their position.

Section 124(bb) of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, which vests the power to regulate and grant permission for fairs and exhibitions with the Municipal Council rather than the Sub-Divisional Officer.

The principle of contractual integrity in administrative law, holding that once a bid is accepted based on specific terms (duration and consideration) and the bidder has acted upon it, the state authorities cannot unilaterally alter essential terms to the bidder's prejudice.

The Court observed that the petitioner was declared the successful bidder and had deposited substantial funds based on the explicit tender condition of a 45-day duration.

It noted that Respondent No. 3's communication prima facie resulted in an unauthorized curtailment of the contractual period.

The Court reasoned that since the Municipal Council accepted consideration for a 45-day period, it bears the responsibility of ensuring the availability of land and necessary arrangements for the entire duration.

The Court emphasized that if the original land is unavailable, the burden lies on the Municipal Council to coordinate with State authorities to secure suitable alternative sites to satisfy the contractual obligations.

The Court disposed of the petition by directing the Municipal Council and concerned authorities to permit the petitioner to operate the Mela for the full 45-day period as per the tender conditions, including taking steps to secure requisite land or provide a suitable alternative site.