2025:HHC:41863 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 12873 of 2025 Date of decision: 03.12.2025 Piar Chand Chauhan …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Dr. Lalit Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The challenge in the present case is to the cancellation of the tender vide corrigendum dated 20.06.2025. 2. A perusal of Annexure P-7 would go on to show that vide said communication the tender which was to be opened on 02.06.2025 was cancelled due to Administrative/Technical grounds. 3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that this is third time tender has been cancelled, which was for the “Upgradation of Tikker Manoh Road, which was under NABARD Scheme and there were two works as such, while referring to Annexure P-1. It is accordingly pointed out that on the first instance the tender had been issued on 03.05.2025, which was to be opened on 17.05.2025 but cancelled on 21.05.2025 and 2 2025:HHC:41863 thereafter fresh tender was floated on 22.05.2025, which was to be opened on 31.05.2025 but before that it was cancelled on 30.05.2025. Therefore, he has argued that the action of the respondents is totally arbitrary and the petitioner’s right as such to compete and bid for the said tender has been taken away on account of vested interests of certain set of employees of the State, who wish to favour certain other contractors. 4. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, while referring to his written statement and documents, has pointed out that there are two works and total four and seven number of bids, as such, had been received including the bid of petitioner contractor and it was found that gift deed at some locations between R/D 5/760 to 5/775 via Dhirwin and between R/D 7/000 to 12/95 via Jakhyol Ramehra Sulkhan side was required for cutting/removal of formation deficiency of this road. It is submitted that gift deed, as such, was sought to be obtained but the officials as such could not get the gift deed from the land owners and accordingly submitted that due to instructions issued vide letter dated 26.03.2025, the responsibility would be fixed on the concerned officials regarding the compensation amount to be recovered from them as such the tenders had been cancelled on account of non-availability of gift deed and only the ‘No Objection Certificate’ had been sought to be furnished. 3 2025:HHC:41863 5. Reference is again made to the letter dated 26.05.2025 to the Assistant Engineer, HPPWD Sub Division Bhoranj by the Executive Engineer, Bhoranj Division, HPPWD Bhoranj, to convey the latest status of gift deed for the construction of the road in question. It is, thus, submitted while referring to the various communications that the authorities were aware of the urgency and need of the widening of the road and were attempting to get the requisite gift deed while referring to the proposal of the office of Gram Panchayat, Bhakhera, dated 17.06.2025, wherein it has been mentioned that land owners were only ready to give No Objection Certificate but they have refused to give gift deeds. 6. Similarly, reference is also made to another letter dated 18.06.2025, wherein the Assistant Engineer had communicated to Executive Engineer that land owners were informed about the importance of the road and widening of the road which was not possible without gift deeds being executed, but the land owners were only ready to give No Objection Certificate but they were not ready to give gift deeds and necessary report had been submitted. 7. It is, thus, categorical case of the State that on account of the said instructions and the responsibility fixed on the officials-respondents, the tenders have been duly cancelled. We are satisfied with the explanation as such given. 4 2025:HHC:41863 8. It is settled principle that there is no vested right as such of award of the tender and the petitioner could have only applied for the same and freedom of contract is within the State and cannot be directed as has been held by the Apex Court in Montecarlo Limited v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 272. 9. The Apex Court has also held that only if the transaction is malafide or allegations of selection of a competent contractor is tailor-made, Courts are to interfere and would not otherwise sit like a court of appeal and the authorities would be best judge of its requirements and if two interpretations are possible, then the appropriate authority following certain principles, as such has to be respected. 10. Reference can also be made to Michigan Rubber (India) ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2012) 8 SCC 216 and the earlier observations made in Raunaq International Ltd vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492. 11. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient justification has been shown and it is not for this Court as such to quash the said tender and issue a writ of mandamus to open the tender for up-gradation and issue a further writ of prohibition restraining the respondents to issue fresh tender, unless the tender process is completed/put to its logical end by the respondents, or to grant compensation to the 5 2025:HHC:41863 petitioner to the tune of Rs. 7 Lakh. In the reply, it is specifically mentioned that earnest money stands automatically refunded on account of cancellation. In such circumstances, the relief(s) cannot be granted in the manner, as prayed for in the present petition. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 3rd December, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)