p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.1476 of 2026 M/s. Nischint Multiservice Private Limited … Petitioner Mr. Siddhant Sarangi, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties Ms. Aishwarya Dash, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 18.02.2026 01. 1. The petitioner, who is the existing service provider of diet to the in-patients in the MKCG Medical College & Hospital, has challenged the order dated 11th December, 2025 cancelling the Tender No.25762 dated 10th December, 2025 as it is an outcome of mala fide intention. 2. According to the petitioner, the authorities have cancelled the said tender in order to facilitate the smooth passage for the erstwhile service provider who supplied the diet to the in-patients for nearly 12 years. Apart from the same, there does not appear to be any further allegations against the authority taking a decision to cancel the tender. 3. At the very outset, we must record that the order cancelling the tender does not contain any reasons, therefor p. 2 except that the authority decided to cancel the said tender simpliciter and intended to float a fresh tender for such purposes. It is within the domain of an authority to cancel the said tender simpliciter and the interference by the Writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. It is the wisdom of the authority whether to float a tender or not to float a tender and if the decision of the authority is bereft of any smack of arbitrariness or a mala fide or in contravention to the other settled legal parameters, it would not be proper on the part of the Writ Court to interfere merely on the ipse dixit of a person filing the writ petition. The act of mala fide has to be perceived and not only apparent from the conduct of the parties but may at times be reasonably gathered from such conduct. 4. We do not find any substance in the stand of the petitioner that the said tender was cancelled as the authorities intended to favour the erstwhile service provider for the simple reason that in the last tender, the petitioner was adjudged as the lowest bidder and the contract was awarded to him. Though the contract was cancelled in the midst of its tenure but on the challenge being made by filing a writ petition, the operation of the said order of cancellation was stayed meaning thereby the petitioner was allowed to continue in providing the diet to the in- patients in the said hospital. 5. Undeniably, the period of the contract has come to an end and a tender was floated in order to ensure fairness, transparency and the competitions to get the best price for supply of diet to p. 3 indoor patients in the said hospital. If the authority decided to cancel the tender though without assigning any reason, we do find any ground warranting the interference with the said order. 6. Apart from the same, the learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that since the service of providing diet to indoor patients is a recurring feature and cannot be stopped, the petitioner has been permitted to continue until the finalization of the tender to be floated in future. 7. That itself does not appear to us having created any prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, we do not find any interference to the said decision is warranted. 8. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge Aswini SETHY Designation: Personal Assistant (Secretary-in-charge) COURT, CUTTACK Signature Not Verified