Patna High Court – Orders
M/S North Bihar Construction … vs The State Of Bihar on 28 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10306 of 2026
======================================================
M/S North Bihar Construction Corporation (Government Contractor and
Suppliers) Barahima, Gopalganj represented by the Proprietor- Sri Anuj
Tiwary, aged about 58 years, Male, S/O- Bijay Bahadur Tiwary, R/O-
Mohalla- Adhiwakta Nagar, Ward No.-14, PS Gopalganj, District Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary-cum-Secretary,
Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Engineer-in-Chief, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Circle-Bettiah,
West Champaran.
6. The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Division- Bettiah,
District-West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Adesh Raj, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (09)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 28-07-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2. This writ application has been filed by the
petitioner with the following reliefs;
“(i) For issuance of any appropriate writ(s) in
the nature of certiorari to set aside the order of
cancellation against the notice inviting Tender
No.- RWD/MMGSY (AWSESH-GEN)
HQ/ET/2025-26/11 whereby the tender for two
projects under the works Division- Bettiah was
invited fixing the last date 13.09.2025.
(ii) For issuance of any appropriate writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondent
no.- 2 and 3 for issuance of the work order to the
petitioner in the light of the representation dated
11.05.2026 received by the respondent no.- 2
being the appellate authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
2/11
(iii) For issuance of a writ of mandamus
directing the respondents to finalize the tender
process, execute the agreement and issue the
work order in favour of the petitioner if no legal
impediment exists.
(iv) During pendency of this writ petition,
restrain the respondents from issuing any fresh
tender relating to the same work.
(v) For grant of any other relief(s) to which the
petitioner may be entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
3. The brief facts of this case, in nutshell, is that the
petitioner being a registered contractor and supplier have
participated in a Tender inviting Notice No. RWD/MMGSY
(AWSESH-GEN) HQ/ET/2025-26/11 floated by the Rural
Works Department, Government of Bihar, for execution of the
routine maintenance work under the Mukhya Mantri Gram
Sampark Yojana (AWSESH-SC) after duly complied with all the
terms and conditions prescribed in the tender documents. After
scrutiny, the tender committee successfully disposed the
technical bid and financial bid on 03.01.2026 and 12.01.2026,
respectively in furtherance of the tender. After completion of the
tender process, the respondent No. 3, all of sudden, issued a
communication canceling the aforesaid tender without assigning
any valid reason. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a
representation dated 11.05.2026 before the respondent
authorities requesting to examine the matter and issue the work
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
3/11
order after execution of the contract, however, no action was
taken on the said representation. The petitioner has, therefore,
filed the present writ petition challenging the order canceling
the tender process.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned action of the respondent is ex facie arbitrary, illegal
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India,
inasmuch as the tender process having been duly concluded has
been canceled without any justifiable, rational or legally
sustainable reason. He further contends that the impugned
cancellation has been effected without affording any opportunity
of hearing to the petitioner violating the principles of natural
justice, therefore, the petitioner has been condemned unheard
which renders the impugned action of the respondent vitiated on
this ground alone.
5. In support of the aforesaid contention, a reliance
has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
passed in the case of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief
Executive Officer & Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682,
wherein it has been held that once a tender process has
culminated, its cancellation must be supported by cogent, valid
and non-arbitrary reasons based on public interest, and not on
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
4/11
mere administrative whims. It is, however, submitted that in the
present case, no such public interest has been demonstrated by
the respondents while canceling the tender process.
6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon a judgment
passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of City and
Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. v.
Shishir Realty Private Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1141, in
which, its has categorically been held that the sanctity of the
tender process is itself a matter of public interest and a
concluded tender cannot be nullified on extraneous, speculative
or arbitrary grounds. It has been emphasized that a mere change
in administrative preference or procedure does not justify
cancellation of a validly concluded tender.
7. On the aforesaid ground as well as the legal
position, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned action of the respondent canceling the validly
concluded tender process deserve to be quashed and the
respondents may be directed to continue with the tender in
question and issue work order in favour of the petitioner.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondents vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
5/11
behalf of the petitioner and also supports the impugned action. It
is submitted that the present writ petition is devoid of merits and
is liable to be dismissed at the threshold, as no vested right
accrues in favour of a bidder merely on being participated in a
tender process. He further submits that neither the petitioner has
been selected nor he has been entered into any contract with the
respondent leading to issuance of work order. He further
contends that the tendering authority retains absolute discretion
to cancel the tender process at any stage prior to issuance of the
work order, particularly when such cancellation is necessitated
in larger public interest or in order to ensure transparency and
compliance with evolving government policies. It is contended
that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, seek issuance of a
work order solely on the basis of being eligible and duly
participated in the tender process.
9. Relying upon Clause 33 of the NIT, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that Engineer-in-
chief has a right to cancel the tender at any time prior to the
award of the contract without assigning any reason thereof. The
extract of NIT, which is at Clause 33, is being reproduced herein
for ready reference;
“The Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Additional
Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary/Engineer in
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
6/11
Chief reserves the right to accept or reject any bid
and to cancel bidding process and reject all bids, at
any time prior to the award of the contract without
assigning any reason thereof.”
10. Learned counsel for the respondents further
contends that the department has sent a proposal for amendment
in MMGSY (AWSESH-SC), which was approved by the
Council of Ministers on 29.04.2026. He further contends that
after obtaining the approval from the Cabinet, the respondent
department has taken a decision to get the construction and
implementation of scheme under “Mukhiya Mantri Gram
Sampark Yojna” done through Scheme-wise Tender on the basis
of tender records (SBD/CMBD) and the same was got it
published through press note, which is evident from Annexure-
R4/B to the counter affidavit. Therefore, the Engineer-in-Chief,
Rural Works Department, Bihar Patna vide his office order
bearing No. 03 dated 30.04.2026 canceled all the pending as
well as concluded process of tenders under the MMGSY
(AWSESH-SC) in light of the amendment communicated
through the aforesaid Press Note.
11. On the aforesaid background, learned counsel for
the respondents contends that the action of the respondents is
neither arbitrary nor mala fide, rather it is guided by
administrative guidelines approved by the Cabinet. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
7/11
submitted that even if the tender had progressed to an advanced
stage, the same does not preclude the authority from canceling
it, particularly when continuation of the tender process would be
contrary to the prevailing policy directives. It is further
submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as
the relief sought therein pertains to contractual matters falling
within the exclusive domain of the tendering authority. Learned
counsel further contends that no violation of principles of
natural justice has occurred inasmuch as the cancellation of a
tender process is an administrative decision affecting all the
participants uniformly, and does not require prior hearing to the
individual bidders.
12. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the documents annexed with the present
petition as well as the other materials available on record.
13. Having considered the rival submissions of the
parties, this Court is of the view that the controversy raised in
the present writ petition fundamentally arises out of a tender
process, which has already been cancelled by the competent
authority on account of subsequent policy directions and the
petitioner in the present case sought a mandamus for
continuation of the concluded tender process and issuance of
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
8/11
work order merely on the basis of being participated having all
eligibility and in anticipation of being selected, whereas the
respondents justify the cancellation of tender process on the
ground of compliance of the administrative directions amending
the scheme under Mukhiya Mantri Gram Sampark Yogna.
14. In such view of the matter as well as the fact of
the case at hands, it is pertinent to note here that it is well settled
that participation in a tender process or even being declared as
successful lowest bidder does not confer any vested right upon a
bidder to seek enforcement of the contract. The issuance of
work order and execution of formal agreement shall remain
within the exclusive domain of the employer and unless a
concluded contract comes into existence, no enforceable right
accrues in favour of the bidder. The law on this point has
already been decided and is no longer res integra as it has been
consistently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Master
Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd.
And another, (2005) 6 SCC 138; Jagdish Mandal v. State of
Orissa and others, (2007) 14 SCC 517; and Tata Cellular v.
Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, wherein it has been held
that judicial review in tender matters is limited to examine the
decision making process and not the merits of the decision
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
9/11
itself.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others, (2007) 14 SCC
517 has categorically held in paragraph 22, which is being
reproduced hereinbelow;
22. Judicial review of administrative action
is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality,
unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose
is to check whether choice or decision is made
“lawfully” and not to check whether choice or
decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial
review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or
award of contracts, certain special features should
be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial
transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding
contracts are essentially commercial functions.
Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a
distance. If the decision relating to award of
contract is bona fide and is in public interest,
courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial
review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or
error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is
made out. The power of judicial review will not be
permitted to be invoked to protect private interest
at the cost of public interest, or to decide
contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor
with a grievance can always seek damages in a
civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with
imaginary grievances, wounded pride and
business rivalry, to make mountains out of
molehills of some technical/procedural violation or
some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to
interfere by exercising power of judicial review,
should be resisted. Such interferences, either
interim or final, may hold up public works for
years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and
millions and may increase the project cost
manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in
tender or contractual matters in exercise of power
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
10/11
of judicial review, should pose to itself the
following questions:
(i) Whether the process adopted or decision
made by the authority is mala fide or intended to
favour someone;
OR
Whether the process adopted or decision
made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court
can say: “the decision is such that no responsible
authority acting reasonably and in accordance
with relevant law could have reached”;
(ii) Whether public interest is affected.
If the answers are in the negative, there should be
no interference under Article 226. Cases involving
blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences
on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State
largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of
licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a
different footing as they may require a higher
degree of fairness in action.”
16. In the present case, the cancellation of the tender
has been challenged primarily on the ground that the petitioner,
having been successfully participated in the technical and
financial bid, had acquired a legitimate expectation of award of
contract and, therefore, the subsequent executive instructions
dated 30.04.2026 could not have been allowed to be effective
even after conclusion of the tender process resulting to
cancelation of the tender in question. However, the respondents
have canceled all the pending or concluded tenders including
the tender related to the petitioner, which would be evident from
the letter contained in memo No. 1002 dated 30.04.2026 issued
by the Engineer-in-Chief Rural Works Department, Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.10306 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026
11/11
of Bihar, which is annexed as Annexure- R4/C to the counter
affidavit, in light of the subsequent policy decision taken by the
respondent authority and the same, in the considered view of
this Court, does not warrant interference of this Court.
17. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned action of the respondents
does not suffer from any illegality and arbitrariness or
procedural impropriety so as to warrant interference in exercise
of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as the petitioner has failed to establish any
enforceable legal right or any violation of constitutional or
statutory mandate that would justify issuance of a writ of
mandamus in its favour. The challenge raised is basically in the
domain of contractual and policy matters, wherein the scope of
judicial review is extremely limited and this Court does not act
as an appellate authority over administrative decisions of the
authorities.
18. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of
merits stands dismissed.
(Girijish Kumar, J)
nitu/-
U
