2025:HHC:43731 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.8380 of 2025 Decided on: 11 th December , 2025 _____________________________________________________ Vidya Sagar Bhardwaj and another ....Petitioners Versus The Chairman, H.P. Board of School Education and another ...Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioners: Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus for passing the award in favour of the petitioners being the L-1 successful bidders in the Financial & Technical Bids which were invited for the purpose of hiring accommodation for office of Book Distribution and Information and Guidance Centre within a radius of 10 km of Bilaspur vide notice dated 08.07.2024. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. The challenge is accordingly raised to the various communications issued by the respondent-Board dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-11), 04.11.2024 (Annexure P-14), 16.11.2024 (Annexure P-15) and 04.12.2024 (Annexure P-17), wherein even the FDR was returned while noting that the tender had been cancelled. 3. Apparently, the reason for cancellation of the tender from the documents and from the communications which have been challenged would go on to show that the premises which had been offered did not have easy access, although the technical bid had been opened and as per the financial bid opened on 30.09.2024, the petitioner had qualified being the lowest bidder (L-1). The Board had requested the petitioner to construct a truckable approach from the National Highway (NH) to the building at his own expense and give the necessary confirmation, and only thereafter the rent would be determined, along with the enhancement clause, as per letter dated 09.10.2024. 4. The petitioner wrote back on 30.10.2024 stating that an unmetalled kachha road was available and that he had not undertaken as such to construct the road. He has submitted that the construction had to be carried out by the Municipal Corporation, 3 Bilaspur under the Urban Development Scheme shortly, if required. 5. Vide communication dated 04.11.2024, inter se the Board had communicated that the site be inspected to verify whether the needful had been done. Resultantly, the inspection revealed that it had not been done, and the tender was cancelled on 16.11.2024 on the ground that the tender condition required a truckable approach from the National Highway (NH). This was followed by the communication dated 04.12.2024 returning the FDR to the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition came to be filed after a period of five months, on 13.05.2025. 6. The stand of the respondents is that the objective of inviting the tender was to obtain accommodation for a books godown which would be easily approachable and accessible from the National/State Highway, as per the tender notice itself. 7. It was submitted that the accommodation requirement was 2500 to 3000 sq.ft. available either in a single or multiple floors and had to be easily approachable to National/State Highway and easily accessible to motor/truck/jeep etc. The accommodation had no parking facility and the loaded trucks had no direct approach to the building, in such circumstances, the cancellation of the tender was held out to be justified. 4 8. A rejoinder has been filed that the car, jeeps and small trucks like TATA 407 can approach the premises as such and that a 4 metre metalled road is available and feasible for such vehicles. However, there is no denial regarding the fact that normal trucks cannot approach the said premises. Even the photographs as such appended would not inspire any confidence in the location as such for the purpose of the godown as such which would require off- loading of heavy material since, it is not approachable the board was well justified in cancelling the tender. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was an approach and access through a 4 metre wide road while referring to Clause A(iii) of Terms and Conditions of the notice inviting EOI, and therefore the cancellation was wrong. However, we are not as such in a position to agree with the arguments as such raised. 10. It is a settled principle that there is only a right of consideration as such and the Writ Court would not enforce an agreement. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Montecarlo Limited v. National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, (2016) 15 SCC 272, wherein it has been held that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to substitute the opinion 5 of the authorities since if the Board does not find the premises suitable, it cannot be forced to enter into a contract, especially when the trucks cannot approach the premises in question. The whole purpose of the godown would be frustrated by virtue of inaccessible location and therefore we are of the considered opinion that the decision is not liable to be interfered with. 11. The Apex Court has also held that only if the transaction is malafide or allegations of selection of a competent contractor is tailor-made the 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. 12. 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. 13. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner only had a right of consideration and this Court would not further enforce such a right as such in the absence of any legal right. Therefore a writ of mandamus cannot be issued in 6 such circumstances. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 11 th December , 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (ankit) Judge