HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11736 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who appears on behalf of State-respondents. 2. This petition has been filed with the following prayers :- "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned corrigendum dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure No.1) to this writ petition. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing advertisement dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure No.8) to this writ petition. III. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to issue letter of intent to the petitioner company and to execute the agreement work contract with the petitioner company in furtherance of advertisement/tender dated 26.08.2025. IV. To issue any suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case filed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court. V. To award costs of this writ petition to the petitioner." 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a notice inviting tender was issued by the respondents for work as disclosed in the field of Architecture and Engineering :- "PMC Work for construction of Dental Department and Apex Centre for Women's Health Building at King Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Sthapati Associates Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director And Authorized Mr. Anuj Kumar Varshneya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Planning Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) George Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India on EPC Mode". The petitioner company, having the requisite experience, submitted its bid. It qualified the technical evaluation and secured 77.35 marks out of 100. The petitioner company was selected as H-1 on 05.10.2025. The petitioner quoted Rs.1,48,50,000/- as against the tender document maximum consultancy fee of Rs.2,97,00,000/-. It was informed that it had been declared successful in the financial evaluation as well. However, the Executive Engineer sent a letter on 24.10.2025 to the petitioner to submit reasons and justification with respect to price quoted by it, as it was much below the price given in the notice inviting tender. The petitioner, within the stipulated period of time, submitted a detailed justification to the queries raised by the respondents by its letter dated 27.10.2025 sent through e-mail. However, all of a sudden, the respondents issued a corrigendum online informing that the tender dated 26.08.2025 stood cancelled as the committee found the justification submitted by the petitioner company to be unconvincing and containing calculation errors. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before discarding the detailed justification submitted by it on 27.10.2025. Another tender relating to the same work with the same approximate cost of work was advertised by the respondents on 14.11.2025. The petitioner, being H-1 bidder whose technical and financial bids were accepted, has been ignored only because it had quoted a minimum rate even lesser than 30% of the advised price mentioned in the tender document. 5. Hence, this petition. 6. We have gone through the letter dated 24.10.2025 sent by the Executive Engineer (Technical Cell) EPC Mission, Planning Department, Lucknow and the corrigendum dated 14.11.2025, wherein specific reasons have been stated as to why the financial bid submitted by the petitioner has been found to be unbelievably low, making it virtually impossible for it to complete the work as desired by the department. 7. We find no good reason to show interference. Moreover, it is not as if, upon rejection of the petitioner's financial bid, some other person's bid has been accepted. In fact, the respondents acted fairly and issued a fresh notice WRIC No. 11736 of 2025 2 inviting tender on 14.11.2025. It is always open for the petitioner to raise its financial bid a little and participate in the tender which has been issued afresh. We, however, provide that the respondents shall not insist upon earnest money being deposited again by the petitioner and shall adjust the earnest money already deposited by it in pursuance of tender issued on 26.08.2025. 8. The writ petition is disposed of. December 8, 2025 Shubhankar WRIC No. 11736 of 2025 3 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench