1 2025:CGHC:58343-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 6095 of 2025 M/s Shri Buildcon Builders And Developers Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur C.G., Through Its Authorized Partner Raghudipak Sahu S/o Sukhdev Prasad Sahu. --- Petitioner versus 1 - Central Mine Planning And Design Institute Limited (CMPDI) Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Gondwana Place, Kanke Road, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834008. 2 - Regional Director, CMPDI Regional Institute- V, Seepat Road Bilaspur C.G. 495006. 3 - Head Of Department (Civil), CMPDI Regional Institute- V, Seepat Road Bilaspur C.G. 495006. 4 - SDJV, Near Chithra Talkies, Rani Road, Korba Chhattisgarh 495677, Through Mr. Karan Pandey Also R/o At Near Chithra Talkies, Rani Road, Korba, C.G. 495677. --- Respondent(s) (Cause Title Taken From Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 02/12/2025 1 Heard Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 3. 2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1 Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the Tender Committee Recommendation dated 28.10.2025 canceling the tender vide NIT No. CMPDI/RV/CVL/25-26/05/1090 dated 02.06.2025. 10.2 Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the Petitioner, M/s Shri Buildcon, is the rightful L1 (lowest) bidder in the aforesaid tender. 10.3 Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to issue Letter of Acceptance (LOA) to the Petitioner as L1 bidder for "Construction of Sports Complex in CMPDI Regional Institute V, Bilaspur CG FY 2025-26" at the Petitioner's quoted rate of Rs. 2,10,98,725.50 (including GST) within a stipulated time frame. 10.4 Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the subsequent fresh tender vide NIT No. CMPDI/RV/CVL/25-26/18/1352 dated 02.11.2025 (2nd Call) for the same work. 10.5 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted to the Petitioner.” 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in construction works, is L1 bidder for 3 CMPDI's tender for construction of sports complex, having quoted lowest rate including GST as per NIT. The Respondent No.1, Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Limited (CMPDI), through Respondent No.3, floated a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) vide NIT No. CMPDI/RV/CVL/25-26/05/1090 dated 02.06.2025 on the website https://coalindiatenders.nic.in under two-part system for the work of "Construction of Sports Complex in CMPDI Regional Institute V, Bilaspur CG FY 2025-26". The NIT expressly and unambiguously stipulated that (a) the estimated cost was INCLUDING GST (Clause 1 of NIT clearly states "Estimated Cost of Work (Including GST) (In Rs. 3,02,70,768.27") (b) Clause 8(D) of the NIT stipulated eligibility criteria related to Goods and Services Tax (GST), requiring bidders to be either GST Registered Bidder under regular scheme or GST registered bidder under composition scheme or GST unregistered bidder, and mandated submission of relevant documents as per their GST status. The petitioner, being a competent and eligible contractor, participated in the tender process and submitted its bid through the online e-procurement portal. The petitioner submitted both technical bid (Cover-1) and financial bid (Cover-II) in accordance with the terms and conditions of the NIT, and paid the requisite EMD. That on 07.07.2025, the technical bids of all bidders were opened by the respondents. Nine bidders participated in the tender, and all nine bidders including the petitioner and M/s SD JV were found to be technically qualified as per the eligibility criteria stipulated in the NIT. The financial bids (Cover II) of all the technically qualified bidders were opened by the respondents. The BOQ summary revealed the following position of all nine bidders: Bidder Quoted Percentage Quoted Rate GST Status Remarks 4 Shri Buildcon (Petitioner) -30.30% 2,10,98,725.50 With GST Lowest bidder (L1) SD JV -22.10% 1,99,83,837.71 Without GST System generated L1 but actually L5 Tayal Construction -27.27% 2,20,15,929.78 With GST Also lower bid than respondent4 Awdhesh Construction %-22.00 2,36,11,199.27 With GST Umesh Rathore -22.88% 2,33,44,816.51 With GST Also lower bid than respondent 4 M/s. Kamala Construction -10.35% 2,71,37,743.77 With GST Kumar Shanu Singh and Company -14.79% 2,57,93,721.66 With GST Viri Associates JV -25.10% 2,26,72,805.45 With GST Also lower than respondent 4 M/s. I.P. Associates +3.21% 3,12,42,459.95 With GST 4 According to the petitioner, upon careful scrutiny of the financial bids, the petitioner discovered a critical and fatal discrepancy in the bid of M/s SD JV, which had been mechanically shown by the e-procurement system as "L1 bidder" (lowest bidder). The discrepancies were as follows: (a) All eight bidders, including the petitioner, quoted their rates including GST as mandated by the NIT, since the estimated cost itself was including GST and comparison was to be made on an equal footing. (b) M/s SD JV alone quoted its rate of Rs. 1,99,83,837.71 without including GST, meaning this was the base rate exclusive of GST. 5 (c) More egregiously, M/s SD JV selected "GST Unregistered Category" in the online price bid on the e-procurement portal, which was factually incorrect and a clear violation of tender conditions, as SD JV had submitted GST Registration Certificate of its lead partner during technical evaluation and had been declared technically qualified on that basis. (d) The e-procurement system, operating mechanically on face value of quoted amounts without independent verification of GST compliance, generated M/s SD JV as "LI bidder" at Rs.1,99,83,837.71, which was manifestly incorrect and illegal. (e) The correct position, if GST is properly added to SD JV's quoted rate (applying 18% GST applicable to construction services), would be approximately Rs. 2,35,80,928.50, which would make SD JV the 5th lowest bidder (L5), not L1. (f) The petitioner, having quoted -30.30% below rate (highest percentage reduction) at Rs. 2,10,98,725.50 including GST as required by NIT, was, is, and remains the genuine and rightful L1 bidder. 5 Immediately upon discovering the aforesaid discrepancy, the petitioner, being a responsible and law-abiding contractor, brought this serious irregularity to the notice of the respondents. On 26.08.2025, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to respondent No.2 (Regional Director, CMPDI, Bilaspur), despite the clear and unambiguous representation dated 26.08.2025, respondents failed to take any corrective action or even respond to the petitioner. Being aggrieved and apprehending that the respondents might proceed to wrongly award the work to the respondent No. 4 SD JV, the petitioner 6 escalated the matter by submitting a detailed representation dated 06.10.2025 to respondent No. 1 (Chairman cum Managing Director, CMPDI, Ranchi). Instead of rectifying the patent error and declaring the Petitioner as LI bidder, the Respondents constituted a Tender Committee which issued recommendations dated 28.10.2025 taking the following decisions: TC Recommendation 1: "TC recommends to reject the bid of SD JV on account of selection of incorrect category of GST i.e., 'GST Unregistered Category' in the price bid." TC Recommendation 2: "TC recommends that the present tender be cancelled since there are no provisions available in the published NIT to award the work to subsequent L-2 Bidder, when the technically qualified L-1 bidder does not quote the price bid as per terms and conditions of the NIT." TC Recommendation 3: "TC also recommends that the Earnest Money deposited by all the 9 bidders shall be refunded back." TC also noted that "TC recommendations have been approved by the competent authority." 6 The petitioner, upon learning about the tender cancellation, immediately submitted a strong protest vide representation dated 30.10.2025 to respondent No.2. Vide email/communication dated 03.11.2025, respondents sent a reply to the petitioner's queries, merely reiterating the tender committee communication in a mechanical manner. Compounding the illegality and arbitrariness, the respondents, even before responding to the petitioner's protest dated 30.10.2025, proceeded to float a fresh tender on 02.11.2025 (2nd Call) vide NIT No. CMPDI/RV/CVL/25-26/18/1352 for the exact same work -"Construction 7 of Sports Complex in CMPDI Regional Institute V, Bilaspur CG FY 2025- 26- 2nd Call" with the same estimated cost of Rs. 3,02,70,768.27 (including GST) and same completion period of 545 days. 7 Mr. Aman Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the Tender Committee Recommendation dated 28.10.2025 (Annexure P/5), as a consequence quashing of NIT (2nd Call) dated 02.11.2025 (Annexure P/8) for it being violative of rule of law, principles of natural justice, arbitrary, and in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and also to declare the petitioner as L1 in the first tender. Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits arbitrary State action and mandates that the State and its instrumentalities must act reasonably, fairly, and in a non-discriminatory manner. The respondent No.1, being a Public Sector Undertaking and instrumentality of the State, is bound by constitutional discipline and cannot act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. The impugned decision of the respondents suffer from multiple vices, namely, the respondents have mechanically relied on system-generated ranking without independent application of mind to verify GST compliance, despite having express knowledge through the petitioner's representations that SD JV's bid was non-compliant. While correctly identifying that SD JV violated tender conditions, instead of simply declaring the next rightful bidder (i.e., the Petitioner) as L1, the respondents chose to cancel the entire tender, causing delay, cost escalation, and prejudice to all compliant bidders. The decision treats the petitioner, who complied with all tender conditions and emerged as L1 bidder, at par with or worse than a non-compliant bidder (SD JV), which is manifestly discriminatory and violates the principle of treating equals equally and unequals unequally. The respondents have failed to 8 exercise independent judgment and abdicated their duty to correctly evaluate bids as per NIT terms. The tender cancellation must withstand judicial scrutiny. Administrative actions that are opaque, erratic, or unsupported by statutory authority corrode institutional credibility and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The decision in the present case fails the test of reasonableness and is an example of arbitrary exercise of power, warranting interference by this Hon'ble Court in exercise of judicial review 8 Mr. Saxena further submits that despite receiving two detailed representations from the petitioner dated 26.08.2025 and 06.10.2025 clearly highlighting the GST discrepancy, the respondents failed to independently verify and evaluate the bids. The respondents blindly relied on the system-generated ranking without examining whether the ranking was based on correct and compliant bids. The Tender Committee, while correctly identifying that SD JV violated tender conditions by selecting incorrect GST category, failed to take the logical next step of declaring the rightful L1 bidder (the petitioner). The reasoning that "there are no provisions to award work to L-2 bidder" demonstrates complete abdication of duty and failure to apply mind, as the petitioner was never L2, but always L1. In the present case, the respondents' failure to independently evaluate bids and mechanical reliance on flawed system output amounts to non-application of mind and abdication of statutory duty. The impugned decision is based on a fundamental misinterpretation and misapplication of tender provisions, which renders it unsustainable in law. The respondents' core reasoning "there are no provisions to award work to subsequent L-2 Bidder" - is fundamentally flawed because the Petitioner was never L2 bidder. The petitioner was, is, and remains the L1 bidder throughout the process 9 based on correct evaluation as per NIT terms. The system-generated ranking showing SD JV as LI had no legal sanctity as it was based on a non-compliant bid that violated express tender conditions. A technically qualified bidder is found to have submitted non-compliant financial bid, the remedy is not cancellation but declaring the next compliant bidder as LI, which in this case is the petitioner. In the present case, there is no ambiguity the NIT clearly required rates including GST, the Petitioner and eight other bidders complied, only SD JV did not comply, and therefore the petitioner is the rightful L1 bidder. The Tender Committee's own finding that SD JV selected "incorrect category of GST i.e., GST Unregistered Category" is an admission that SD JV's bid was non- compliant and defective. Clause 8(D) of the NIT regarding GST status was a mandatory eligibility criterion at the technical evaluation stage. SD JV, having submitted GST registration certificate of its lead partner during technical evaluation, was obligated to select the correct GST category (i.e., "GST Registered") in the price bid. By selecting "GST Unregistered Category" despite being GST registered, SD JV committed a material breach of tender conditions which should have resulted in rejection of SD JV's technical bid itself or at least disqualification of financial bid. The respondents' error was in allowing SD JV to participate in the financial bid despite this fundamental non-compliance. This error cannot be used to prejudice the petitioner who is an innocent and compliant bidder. The fresh tender, being a direct consequence of the illegal cancellation, is equally liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 9 On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 4 submits that the scope of judicial review in tender matters including cancellation of tender is very limited to the extent of discrimination and involvement arbitrariness, unreasonableness. The 10 tender Committee has applied its mind and rejected tender by assigning a reason which is neither irrational nor arbitrary. Neither High Court nor Supreme Court can sit in appeal over such technical assessment. In the present case, cancellation of tender and issuance of new tender due to rejection of price bid of L1 is not arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner because the defect in the bid of L1 was discovered only after opening of price bid. All the bidders are required to mention GST category during submission of both technical and financial bid. During the submission of technical bid, the L1 has mentioned as GST registered but, when the price bid was submitted, the L1 mentioned itself as under unregistered GST category which made the bid of L1 non- compliant. The petitioner has no indefeasible right to get the tender awarded in his favour as there is no provision in the NIT to award tender to L-2 bidder. If the qualified L-1 bidder does not quote the price bid as per terms and conditions of the NIT, there is no other course of action than to cancel the tender, since there are no provisions in the published NIT to award the L-2 bidder. The NIT is the constitutional parent document for the tender. All the bidders who participated in the tender have unconditionally accepted the terms and conditions of the NIT awarding L-2 bidder without any provision in the NIT will be deemed as a favor to the L-2 bidder. It will deny equality of opportunity and level playing field and injustice to other bidders who have participated in the tender. 10 Mr. Shukla further submits that the cancellation of tender does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner or to any other bidders as they are free to participate in the new tender process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Hon'ble Court with respect to cancellation of tender after opening of price bid has categorically held that that government 11 authorities have the discretion to cancel tenders and reissue them, especially when it is in the public interest or to safeguard financial resources. The Court stressed that judicial interference in such matters must be restricted to exceptional cases, where the decision is made in bad faith or involves irrationality. There is no provision mentioned in the terms and conditions of the NIT to award to the L-2 bidder therefore the provision which is not there in the NIT cannot be read into and tender conditions have to be read strictly. The Respondents are duty-bound to cancel and re-tender after rejection of price bid of L1 to protect public funds and ensure transparency, rather than automatically awarding the contract to the L2 bidder (petitioner). As per clause 29 of the NIT, the respondents have all the right to cancel the tender process at any point of time before the award of the contract and the respondents have exercised the said right in the light of various government guidelines, Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments and NIT terms and conditions. There is no provision in the NIC portal to revoke the cancellation. Once the tender is cancelled it cannot be revived in any form and case. The tender is floated online in the NIC Coal India Tender portal. The bid ranking of the bidders is generated by the system. The process is kept as such to negate any human intervention and emotions. The system bid ranking cannot arbitrarily be altered by the tender committee without violating the sanctity of the NIT If a technically qualified L-1 bidder does not quote the price bid as per terms and conditions of the NIT there is no other course of action than to cancel the tender, since there are no provisions to award L-2 bidder. The L2 bidder/petitioner has no automatic right to be awarded the contract if L1 is disqualified. The authority has rightly cancelled the current tender and initiate a fresh tender process (re- tender) 12 11 Mr. Shukla next submits that the tender in question is a two cover tender. The tender process is purely automatic in nature which is done through Coal India NIC portal without any human interference ensuring complete transparency and fairness. The Cover 1 (technical evaluation) was opened on 07.07.2025. Nine bidders participated in the tender. All the nine bidders qualified for opening of Cover II (Price bid evaluation). The respondent No. 4-SD JV submitted the GST certificate of the lead partner M/s Deepak Pandey during the technical evaluation stage; SD JV qualified the technical evaluation under "GST Registered under regular scheme" category as per Clause 8(A) of the NIT. Therefore, the opening of the price bid of the bidder SD JV was justified and compliant. Thereafter, as per terms and conditions of the NIT, the price bid of all the nine bidders were opened on 20.08.2025 and it was found that the bidder SD JV/L1 quoted the price bid under "GST Unregistered Category" and rest all the other eight bidders selected the correct GST category. After online evaluation of the bids of all the bidders, as per system generated comparative chart, the bidder SD JV was L-1 bidder and the petitioner-Shri Buildcon was the L-2 bidder. In the light of the defect in the price bid of the L1 bidder, the Tender Committee (TC) recommended to reject the bid of the respondent No. 4-SD JV on account of selection of incorrect category of in the price bid as per S.No. 4 of GTE/QCBS Evaluation details where the bidder SD JV selected "Yes" to option of possessing a valid GST registration certificate and Clause No. 9 of the NIT which states "the Price Bid which is incomplete and not submitted as per instruction given above is liable for rejection." Since the price bid of the L-1 bidder was rejected, the Tender Committee also recommended that the present tender be cancelled since there are no provisions available in the published NIT to award the 13 work to subsequent L-2 Bidder, when the technically qualified L-1 bidder does not quote the price bid as per terms and conditions of the NIT. Since there are no provisions in the NIT to award the work to L-2 bidder, the tender was cancelled. Recommendations by the tender committee were as per the terms and conditions of the NIT which have been unconditionally been accepted by the bidders who participated in the tender. Awarding L-2 bidder without any provision in the NIT will be deemed as a favor to the L-2 bidder. 12 Mr. Shukla next submits that as per clause 29 of the NIT, the employer i.e. CMPDI reserves the right to accept, negotiate or reject any bid, and to cancel the bidding process and reject all bids, at any time prior to the award of contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected bidder or bidders or any obligation to inform the affected bidder or bidders of the grounds for the employer's action. In the e-tender NIC portal of Coal India Limited, the tender with Tender ID: 2025_CMPDI_336910 1 has been cancelled. There is no provision in the NIC portal to revoke the cancellation and new NIT has been floated vide NIT No. CMPDI/RV/CVL/25-26/18/1352 dated 02.11.2025. As such, no relief, whatsoever can be granted to the petitioner and hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 13 We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleading and the materials available on record. 14 In essence, the petitioner claims that when the respondent No. 4, who was erroneously declared as L-1 because of system generated fault, the petitioner ought to have been declared L-1 and should have been awarded the contract instead of cancelling the entire tender process and cancellation of the tender process has caused loss to the petitioner. 14 15 The law in respect of interference by the Courts in tender matters is well settled. The Apex Court, in the matter of Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others, {Civil Appeal No. 11005 of 2024, decided on 04.10.2024}, taking note of the decisions rendered in various other celebrated judgments, observed as under: “21. There cannot be any disagreement to the legal proposition propounded in catena of decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned counsels for the Respondents to the effect that the Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal in the matter of award of contracts and it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; and that the Government and its instrumentalities must have a freedom of entering into the contracts. However, it is equally well settled that the decision of the government/ its instrumentalities must be free from arbitrariness and must not be affected by any bias or actuated by malafides. Government bodies being public authorities are expected to uphold fairness, equality and public interest even while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 abhors arbitrariness. Public authorities have to ensure that no bias, favouritism or arbitrariness are shown during the bidding process and that the entire bidding process is carried out in absolutely transparent manner. 22. At this juncture, we may reiterate the well-established tenets of law pertaining to the scope of judicial intervention in Government Contracts. 23. In Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M & N Publications Limited and Others1, this Court while dealing with the scope of judicial review of award of contracts held: - “18. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process”. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] where it was said that: (p. 144a) “The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the court.” 1 (1993) 1 SCC 445 15 By way of judicial review the court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House of Lords in the aforesaid case, Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [(1982) 3 All ER 141] the courts can certainly examine whether “decision-making process” was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 24. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India2, this Court had laid down certain principles for the judicial review of administrative action. “94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we 2 (1994) 6 SCC 651 16 will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” 25. It has also been held in ABL International Limited and Another vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited and Others3, as under: - “53. From the above, it is clear that when an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution.” 26. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others4, this Court after discussing number of judgments laid down two tests to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender matters. They are: - “22. (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.” 27. In Mihan India Ltd. vs. GMR Airports Ltd. and Others5, while observing that the government contracts granted by the government bodies must uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with the contractual matters, it was observed in Para 50 as under: - “50. In view of the above, it is apparent that in government contracts, if granted by the government bodies, it is expected to uphold fairness, equality and rule of law while dealing with contractual matters. Right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India abhors arbitrariness. The transparent bidding process is 3 (2004) 3 SCC 553 4 (2007) 14 SCC 517 5 (2022) SCC OnLine SC 574 17 favoured by the Court to ensure that constitutional requirements are satisfied. It is said that the constitutional guarantee as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands the State to act in a fair and reasonable manner unless public interest demands otherwise. It is expedient that the degree of compromise of any private legitimate interest must correspond proportionately to the public interest.” 28. It was sought to be submitted by the learned Counsels for the Respondents relying upon the observations made in Central Coalfields Limited and Another vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Others6, that whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. However, in the said judgment also it is observed that if the employer has exercised the inherent authority to deviate from the essential term, such deviation has to be made applicable to all the bidders and potential bidders. It was observed in Para 47 and 48 as under:- “47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] the terms of NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision “that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached” as held in Jagdish Mandal [Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber [Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216]. 48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the 6 (2016) 8 SCC 622 18 deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489] . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot.” 16 It is not a case that upon declaring the respondent No. 4 erroneously as L-1, the sole candidature of the petitioner has been rejected rather the entire tender process has been cancelled and a fresh NIT (second call) has been floated by the respondent No. 3 wherein the petitioner can again participate. It is not a case where some favoritism is shown towards any particular bidder by the respondent authorities. If the respondent authorities had found that there was some error in scrutiny of the documents submitted by the respondent No. 4 which was declared L-1 because of system generated fault, which later came to their knowledge, then the respondent authorities were fully justified in cancelling the entire tender process and issuing second call. 17 In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 18 Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to participate in the fresh NIT floated by the respondents, in case he fulfills the terms and conditions of the said NIT. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.12.04 18:39:59 +0530