### Tendering Authority Cannot Cancel Bid Based on Expiry After Expressly Invoking Extension Procedures Brief Facts: The petitioner was the lowest (L-1) bidder in a tender for water supply schemes. During the process, the respondents repeatedly invoked Clause 15.2 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD) to seek and obtain the petitioner’s consent for bid validity extensions. However, while a further extension proposal was pending, the respondents cancelled the tender via email without assigning reasons, later justifying it in court by citing the expiry of the original bid validity under Clause 15.1. Key Legal Issue: Can a tendering authority justify the cancellation of a tender based on the expiry of the original bid validity (Clause 15.1) after it has already invoked the specific mechanism for extension (Clause 15.2) and obtained bidder consent? Court's Reasoning: 1. Inconsistency of Conduct: The Court held that the respondents cannot concurrently invoke the machinery for extension under Clause 15.2 and then rely on the original expiry under Clause 15.1 to cancel the bid. Such an approach is contradictory and violates the scheme of the SBD. 2. Adherence to Terms: Citing *West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.*, the Court emphasized that tendering authorities are scrupulously bound by the terms of the tender document to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrariness. 3. Abuse of Discretion: Although Clause 24 of the NIT allowed cancellation without assigning reasons, this discretion must be exercised fairly. By ignoring the extension process they initiated, the respondents acted irrationally and in violation of procedural propriety. 4. Judicial Review: Under the principles of *Tata Cellular v. Union of India*, the Court found the decision-making process flawed as it was inconsistent with the governing tender conditions. Conclusion: The Patna High Court quashed the cancellation of the original tender and the subsequent re-tender. The matter was remitted to the competent authority to take a fresh, reasoned decision regarding the original tender strictly in accordance with the SBD terms.

The Petitioner, a Joint Venture, participated in a tender process (NIT No. 15/2024-25) for piped water supply schemes under the "Har Ghar Nal Jal" project

The Petitioner was declared technically qualified and emerged as the lowest (L-1) bidder

Due to delays caused by the Model Code of Conduct, the Executive Engineer twice requested and obtained the Petitioner's consent to extend bid validity under Clause 15.2 of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD)

Despite these extensions being recommended by the Chief Engineer, the Petitioner received an e-mail on 02.12.2025 stating the tender was cancelled without assigned reasons, followed by a fresh re-tender notification (NIT No. 04/2025-26)

1. Whether, after having invoked the procedure under Clause 15.2 of the SBD and obtaining consent for extension, the respondents can justify cancellation based on the expiry of the original bid validity under Clause 15.1

2. Whether the decision to cancel Tender ID No. 89096 and issue a fresh tender is legally sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case

The Court primarily interpreted Clauses 15.1 (initial 180-day bid validity) and 15.2 (mechanism for extension via bidder consent) of the Standard Bidding Document

The State and its agencies are bound to adhere strictly to the instructions in the tender document to maintain transparency and the rule of law, citing West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd.

The standard of judicial review in contractual matters permits interference if the decision-making process is arbitrary, irrational, or suffers from procedural impropriety, as established in Tata Cellular v. Union of India

The Court found that while Clause 15.1 sets a default expiry, Clause 15.2 provides a specific remedial mechanism which the Respondents actively invoked

The Court reasoned that the Respondents cannot "blow hot and cold" by using Clause 15.2 to keep the bid alive and then later cite the expiry under Clause 15.1 to justify a cancellation

Although the Respondents claimed power under Clause 24 of the NIT to reject bids without reasons, the Court determined that such discretion must be exercised consistently with other tender conditions

The failure of the Respondents to explain why the extension process (which they initiated) was not concluded rendered the subsequent cancellation arbitrary and procedurally inconsistent with the SBD

The Court quashed the cancellation communication dated 02.12.2025 and the consequential Re-Tender (NIT No. 04/2025-26)

The matter was remitted to the competent authority to take a fresh, reasoned decision on Tender ID No. 89096 in strict accordance with the SBD terms and the Court's observations

The writ petition was allowed