Amit Kumar-Alok Kumar, Patna (JV) v. Bihar Urban Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2026

BUIDCo initially issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 12 October 2023. The petitioner, Amit Kumar-Alok Kumar, Patna (JV), participated and emerged as the sole bidder. The tender was subsequently cancelled.

BUIDCo issued a fresh NIT on 13 December 2023. The petitioner again emerged as the sole bidder.

The petitioner was found technically qualified, and its financial bid was opened and recommended. The Tender Committee decided that the matter should be placed before the Board of Directors.

Before the Board could take a decision, BUIDCo cancelled the tender on 24 May 2024, citing unavoidable circumstances.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation before the Patna High Court in an earlier proceeding, CWJC No. 10276 of 2024. The Court directed the matter to be considered by the Board of Directors through a reasoned order.

Subsequently, the Board considered the matter and, by its decision communicated through Letter No. 924 dated 26 March 2025, declined to accept the petitioner's bid and directed that a fresh tender be issued.

One important reason was that the State Government's administrative approval contemplated five years of operation and maintenance of the drainage system, with an allocation of approximately ₹434.18 lakh, but this requirement had not been incorporated into the tender documents.

The petitioner challenged the Board's decision, arguing that the rejection was arbitrary and that, having emerged as the sole technically qualified bidder, it should have been awarded the contract.

The Court held that merely being the sole technically qualified or successful bidder does not create an enforceable right to obtain the government contract.

The Court noted that: No Letter of Acceptance had been issued to the petitioner, No work order had been issued and No concluded contract or agreement had been executed.

Therefore, the petitioner had no vested contractual right which could be enforced through a writ petition.

The Court further held that BUIDCo's Board of Directors was entitled to reconsider the tender after noticing that the approved project contemplated five years of operation and maintenance, whereas this essential component had been omitted from the tender documents.

The omission was considered a material defect in the tender process. The Board was therefore justified in cancelling the tender and directing issuance of a fresh tender containing the necessary requirement.

The Court emphasized that even a sole or lowest bidder does not automatically become entitled to the contract. A legal right to the contract ordinarily arises only after the competent authority accepts the bid and communicates that acceptance.

This reinforces the principle that a tender process is not equivalent to a concluded contract.

The Court reiterated that in government tender matters, judicial review primarily examines the decision-making process, rather than substituting the Court's own commercial or technical assessment for that of the competent authority.

The Court relied on Raunaq International, Michigan Rubber, Afcons Infrastructure and Silppi Constructions to emphasize judicial restraint in contractual matters.

The petitioner argued that operation and maintenance were unnecessary because the project did not involve a Drainage Pumping Station.

The Court treated this as essentially a technical question falling within the expertise of the employer and its technical authorities. The Court held that it should not replace the technical assessment of the competent authority merely because another interpretation might be possible.

The administrative approval contemplated five years of operation and maintenance and earmarked funds for that purpose, but the requirement was absent from the tender documents.

The Board regarded this omission as a substantial defect affecting the scope of the project. The High Court found that this was a relevant and rational basis for cancelling the tender and issuing a fresh one.

Although government authorities enjoy considerable discretion in contractual matters, their actions must remain fair, reasonable and non-arbitrary under Article 14.

At the same time, Article 226 does not permit the High Court to act as an appellate authority over every administrative or commercial decision.

The Court therefore applied a restrained standard: interference would be justified where the decision-making process was affected by mala fides, arbitrariness, irrationality, discrimination, bias or perversity. The Court found no such defect established in this case.

Being the sole or lowest bidder is not, by itself, equivalent to having a right to the contract.

It also confirms that a public authority can cancel and re-tender a procurement process when it discovers that the tender documents do not adequately incorporate the project's approved requirements, provided the decision is taken for legitimate reasons and is not arbitrary or mala fide.