HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 28182 of 2025 Court No. - 39 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J. 1. The writ petition was moved on 27th August, 2025 and interim order of status quo was granted to petitioner. It is a supplier under a contract. 2. Mr. Shashi Nandan, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner had submitted that under challenge is cancellation of the contract dated 14th August, 2025. There was allegation of minor variation. His client escalated the issue to the Ministry and a report was called for. Before the report was published, there was request for lowering the contract price. His client not having accepted the request, the contract stood cancelled. Even before the cancellation, new notice inviting tender (NIT) was issued. On top of that, his client stood barred. He files amendment application to bring on record communication dated 20th August, 2025 reiterating the cancellation and debarring his client for item "Fabric Nylon 66 Breathable Polyurethane Coated 180 cm vide in Digital Print Similar to New Combat Uniform". He seeks confirmation of the interim order and further direction of interference. 3. Mr. Tarun Agarwal, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 4 (the purchaser). He points out from impugned cancellation order that there was delay in supply even beyond extended time, when time was of the essence. That is the ground for cancellation. Without prejudice he submits, the report has since been published and there are statements in it made against petitioner. Nevertheless, he reiterates that the cancellation was for delayed supply. His client is entitled to cancel on the facts and forfeit. In event petitioner has a grievance there is also arbitration agreement and, a reference it can ask for. He opposes the writ petition. 4. We reproduce below two paragraphs from impugned cancellation. "Please note that extended Delivery Period stipulated in the subject Supply Order Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anubhav Chandra, Rahul Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. M/S Shiva Industries, C-26 .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) has been expired on 17-05.2025. As the time and date of delivery of the stores stipulated in the supply order are deemed to be essence of the contract and to which you have failed to adhere to, Meanwhile, lower rate has been observed at the OCF, Avadi. Hence, your firm was asked to accept lower rate vide OCFS letter dated 26.06.2025, which was not accepted by your firm vide letters dated 28.06.2025 & 09.07.2025." 5. We see the purchaser asserting rights of cancellation and forfeiture. Whether petitioner caused delay in the supply as alleged would lead us to enquiry of a dispute on facts, which we are not inclined to do. However, the purchaser indicating renegotiation to forbear from cancelling the contract dis- entitles it to bar petitioner from participating in the subsequent NIT for the same item. In the premises, in event petitioner issues commencement notice for reference to arbitration within 23rd September, 2025, the purchaser will stand restrained from forfeiting the security deposit. Petitioner must make his claim/resistance to the security being forfeited as a claim in the reference, to be decided in it. Otherwise, the purchaser will be free to act beyond 23rd September, 2025, on omission of petitioner to seek reference to arbitration. If reference is sought within 23rd September, 2025, petitioner will be entitled to bid on the subsequent NIT, within 26th September, 2025. In such event, the tender is to be considered by the purchaser along with other bids received. 5. The amendment application is allowed on setting aside the debarment order. 6. The writ petition and the application are disposed of. (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Prashant Kumar,J.) September 9, 2025 Shiraz WRIC No. 28182 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad