Rahul Shantaram Sonawane vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

(PER: ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking the following relief:

It is the case of the petitioner that he is an established and registered Class-I contractor. He has earned an unblemished professional reputation. He has successfully executed complex public utility infrastructure projects for various Government bodies. The respondents invited online bids via e-procurement portal bearing E-Tender No.2024-PWR-1036783-2 for the execution of infrastructure works on the road section MDR-39 within Jalgaon District, (hereinafter called as ‘the said tender process’) at an estimated cost of Rs.8,60,66,841/-.

It is further case of the petitioner that, four bidders participated in the said tender process. Upon formal technical evaluation, the petitioner's technical bid was accepted. Likewise on evaluation of the financial bids, the petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder (L-1). One amongst the other unsuccessful bidders, namely M/s. S.B. Deshmukh who was technically disqualified for having failed to meet the basic tender specifications, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.9646 of 2024 (hereinafter called as ‘the said writ petition’), challenging his disqualification. The petitioner herein had filed Civil Application No. 2537 of 2026 for intervention in the said proceedings.

When the said writ petition came up for hearing on 04.09.2026, the respondents filed an affidavit-in-reply contending that, they have decided to recall the said tender process by issuing fresh tender within 30 days. By recording the said statement, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, by observing that nothing survived therein. The petitioner therefore has approached this Court challenging the decision of the respondents to cancel the said tender process.

At the outset, it would not be out of place to mention here that, the order dated 04.09.2026 was passed after extensively hearing the present petitioner and the contentions sought to be raised in this Writ Petition were duly considered and rejected by this Court. In this view of the matter, we showed our disinclination to reconsider the same submissions as well as entertain the Writ Petition and gave an opportunity to learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner on instructions from the petitioner insisted that he wants to argue on merits. We then caution learned counsel for the petitioner that, if ultimately we dismiss the writ petition we will impose the heavy cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, the petitioner wants this Court to pass an appropriate order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the decision of the respondents to abruptly cancel the said tender process is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner being the L-1 bidder. Owing to pendency of the writ petition filed by the disqualified bidder, merely because the project could not commence, that by itself cannot be a ground for cancelling the said tender process. He would submit that, the impugned action of respondents is arbitrary and unreasonable, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mihan India Limited v. GMR Airports Limited and Others; (2022) 19 SCC 69.

Per contra, learned AGP has strenuously opposed the writ petition, inter alia, contending that, since a considerable period has elapsed from the date of issuance of the tender till commencement of the project, the respondents took a conscious decision to cancel the said tender process after finding the same to be not feasible. He further submits that, merely because the petitioner happens to be an L-1 bidder, he cannot seek continuation of the said tender process and issuance of work order pursuant thereto as of right. He, therefore, urged that, the writ petition is devoid of any substance and the same is liable to be dismissed.

We have learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP for the State at length, perused the record and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Indisputably, the respondents floated e-tender on 16.03.2024. The technical bids were opened on 26.03.2024. Since the said writ petition was subjudice before this Court, there was no progress for more than two and a half years since floating of the e-tender. The respondents filed affidavit-in-reply in the said Writ Petition stating that, they have decided to cancel the said tender process and to issue fresh tender within 30 days. This Court on 04.09.2026 disposed of the said writ petition by passing the following order :

Insofar as judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mihan India Limited (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, in that case, the letter of acceptance was issued in favour of the highest bidder, who in turn had deposited the security amount resulting into a concluded contractual position. The authorities thereafter cancelled the bidding process. It is in this context, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the subsequent annulment of the bidding process was arbitrary and not in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court reads thus:

However, in the instant case, the petitioner was merely declared as L-1. Neither the Letter of Acceptance nor the work order was issued in his favour therefore there was no concluded contract in existence. The stage reached in the present tender process is, therefore, materially different than in the case of Mihan India Limited (supra). With greatest respect, the said judgment, therefore, does not assist the petitioner on the facts of the present case.

The scope of judicial review in the matters relating to tenders is limited. The Court is required to examine the legality and fairness of the decision-making process and cannot substitute its own view by sitting over the decision arrived at by the tendering authority. The interference of this Court in the contractual matters has been underscored by the Hon’ble Apex Court in several judicial pronouncements. A support can be drawn from the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier and Another Vs. North-East Frontier Railway and Others; (2014) 3 SCC 760, which reads thus :

In the light of above legal exposition in the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier (supra), merely because the petitioner was declared the L-1 in the said tender process, that by itself does not give him an indefeasible or enforceable right to insist upon continuation of the said tender process or issuance of a work order in his favour. More so when the petitioner has utterly failed to demonstrate that, the decision of the respondents for cancellation of the earlier tender process is tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer. We, therefore, do not find the action of respondents, being arbitrary, mala fide, irrational or contrary to the tender conditions, which warrants interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition therefore sans merit.

Before parting with this judgment, as observed hereinabove the contentions raised in the said writ petition which were duly considered and rejected by this Court are again sought to be raised in this writ petition. This approach of the petitioner in our considered view is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the Court. In these peculiar facts situation, we are inclined to mulct the petitioner with costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only). We, therefore, pass the following order: