IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3100 of 2026 ====================================================== Sushma Kumari Wife of Sumant Singh, Resident of Village- Belwasa, P.O- Hussainganj, P.S- Andar, District- Siwan, Proprietor of Radhika Enterprises, Belwasa, P.O.- Hussainganj, P.S.- Andar, District- Siwan. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Urban Development and House Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj. 4. The Engineer-in-Chief, Technical Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Superintending Engineer, Urban Development Circle, Saran. 6. The Executive Engineer, Urban Development Division, Siwan and Gopalganj, District- Siwan. 7. The Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Wasi Mohammad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH) 2 26-02-2026 The present writ application has been filed for the following reliefs: “i) To issue a writ of certiorari for setting aside/ quashing of the office order bearing Memo No. 172 dated 15.1.2026 issued under the signature of Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Gopalganj (Respondent No.7) as contained in Annexure-P/4 to this writ application, by which the contract work of Patna High Court CWJC No.3100 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 2/5 "Paver Block Brick flooring and beautification work in the premises of Samrat Ashok Bhawan located in Ward No.06 under Nagar Parishad, Gopalganj" invited vide E-Tender Notice 11/2025- 26 dated 29.7.2025 (Group No.01) in which petitioner has been declared successful being lowest bidder upon opening the bid on 15.12.2025, has illegally been cancelled on the ground of issuing fresh tender notice after revising it, without issuing any prior notice and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in this regard. ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent authority concerned to issue work order in favour of the petitioner and allow the petitioner to complete the work order against the said E-Tender Notice 11/2025-26 dated 29.7.2025 (Group No.01) because petitioner has been declared successful contractor being lowest bidder upon opening the bid on 15.12.2025, but tender in question has illegally been cancelled. iii) Any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 2. Mr. Wasi Mohammad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that the tender in question has been withdrawn in exercise of the power reserved under Clause Patna High Court CWJC No.3100 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 3/5 20 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), which reads as follows: “20- l{ke izkf/kdkj dks fcuk dksbZ dkj.k crk;s fufonk ds lHkh@fdUgh dk;ksZ dks ;g fdlh dk;Z ds fdUgh va”k@va”kksa dks jn~n djus dk vf/kdkj lqjf{kr jgsxkA blds fy, fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ nkok ekU; ugha gksxkA” 3. The Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) has been withdrawn vide order dated 15.01.2026, as contained in Annexure–P/4 to the writ application. The reason assigned by the respondents for such withdrawal is as follows: “fnukad% 30-12-2025 dks cksMZ ds cSBd esa fufonk vkea=.k lwpuk lwpuk 11@2025&26 ds xzqi la0&01 dk dk;Z uxj ifj’kn] xksikyxat ds vUrxZr okMZ la0&06 esa vofLFkr lezkV v”kksd Hkou esa isHkj CykWd ,oa Qyksfjax odZ ,oa lkSUnz;hZdj.k dk;Z dk izkDdyu dks lalksf/kr djus gsrq fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA bl ;kstuk dk iqujf{kr izkDdyu rS;kj dj iqu% fufonk izdkf’kr dh tk;sxhA” 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the tender process with full knowledge and acceptance of the terms and conditions including Clause 20 of the NIT. Petitioner, cannot, at a belated stage, be permitted to challenge the cancellation of the tender merely because the decision has gone against him. Clause 20 of the NIT expressly reserved the right of the competent authority to cancel the tender, in whole or in part. Patna High Court CWJC No.3100 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 4/5 5. It is pertinent to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. CWE-SOMA Consortium, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 172, wherein it was observed: "13. In case of a tender, there is no obligation on the part of the person issuing tender notice to accept any of the tenders or even the lowest tender. After a tender is called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors who have given tenders that there is no competition, the person issuing tender may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby cancel the tender. It is well settled that so long as the bid has not been accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour..… 23. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. In the case in hand, the respondent has neither pleaded nor established mala fide exercise of power by the appellant. While so, the decision of the Tender Committee ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court. In our considered view, the High Court erred in sitting in appeal over the decision of the appellant to cancel the tender and float a fresh tender. Equally, the High Court was not right in going into the financial Patna High Court CWJC No.3100 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 5/5 implication of a fresh tender." 6. In the present case, considering the clear stipulation contained in Clause 20 of the NIT and the discussions made above, it is evident that the respondent authority acted in accordance with the said clause while canceling the tender process. The said clause was part of the tender conditions and was well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of participation in the tender process. Having accepted the terms and conditions of the NIT, the petitioner is bound by the same. 7. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that no enforceable legal right has accrued in favour of the petitioner justifying the issuance of a writ in the present case. 8. Accordingly, we find no merit in the writ application and the same stands dismissed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Anushka/- (Sudhir Singh, J) (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U