Calcutta High Court
Shetgiri & Associates vs Bank Of India & Anr on 28 October, 2025
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
2025:CHC-OS:209
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Original Side
Present :- Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha
WPO 730 of 2025
Shetgiri & Associates
Vs.
Bank of India & Anr.
For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Ajay Chaubey, Adv.
Mr. Vinayak Chaubey, Adv.
Ms. Ritika Pipalwa, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Utkarash Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Ahona Majumder, Adv.
For the respondent :- Mr. Debashis Saha, Adv.
Mr. Avirup Roy Sanyal, Adv.
Ms. Sucheta Pal, Adv.
Heard on :- 28.10.2025
Judgment on :- 28.10.2025
Amrita Sinha, J.:-
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of the tender process in
which it participated and emerged as the L-1 bidder. The cancellation
was communicated to the petitioner by a communicating letter dated
22nd July, 2025. The letter of cancellation mentions that due to some
technical reasons in the tender, the bank has decided to go for re-
tendering for the same. Necessary information will be published in the
newspaper, Bank's website and MSTC-E-tendering portal.
2025:CHC-OS:209
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the cancellation is
mala fide, arbitrary and bad in law. According to the petitioner, the
authority inspected the site in question and was satisfied with the
performance of the petitioner. After declaring the petitioner as L-1
bidder, the authority ought not to have cancelled the tender process.
3. It has been submitted that no reason has been prescribed for
cancellation of the tender process which stood concluded declaring the
petitioner as the L1 bidder.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner relies on the judgment delivered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subodh Kumar Singh
Rathour Vs. Chief Executive Officer and Others reported in 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1682 paragraphs 123, 125 and 127. Relying on the
ratio laid down in the above decision it has been submitted that the
public authority ought to maintain the sanctity of tenders in public
private procurement processes. Public tenders are designed to provide a
level playing field for all potential bidders. The integrity of this process
ensures that public projects and services are delivered efficiently and
effectively, benefiting the society at large. The sanctity of contracts is a
fundamental principle.
5. The special reliance has been placed on the observation of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court mentioning that when public authorities enter into
contracts, they create legitimate expectations that the State will honour
its obligations. Arbitrary and unreasonable terminations undermine
2025:CHC-OS:209
these expectations and erode the trust of private players from the public
procurement processes and tenders.
6. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack on 8th September, 2017 in W.P.(C) No.
5272 of 2017 in the matter of M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd. Vs. Mahanadi
Coalfields Limited and others wherein the Court was of the opinion
that in view of the Central Vigilance Commission guidelines, the tender
accepting authority is not free to take any decision in an arbitrary
manner and is bound to record clear and logical reasons for any action
of rejection/recall of tenders.
7. Prayer has been made restraining the authority from floating fresh
tender and to direct the authority to award the contract in favour of the
petitioner.
8. Learned advocate representing the bank submits, upon instruction that,
the tender process was cancelled because of technical reasons. The fact
of cancellation has been made known to all the participants. The
participants have been intimated that they would be at liberty to
participate in the next tender that will be floated.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents relies on the decision delivered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest and Others Vs. Suresh Mathew and Others
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 933 paragraphs 20 and 21.
10. Learned counsel refers to the clause in the form for application in the e-
tendering process wherein it has been mentioned that the bank has
2025:CHC-OS:209
reserved the right to select or reject any or all the applications received
without any reason whatsoever. It has been submitted that because of
technical reasons, despite declaration of the L-1 bidder, the bank was
compelled to cancel the entire tender process.
11. Learned counsel for the bank submits, upon instruction that, notice of
re-tender was floated but the petitioner did not participate in the same.
Today, i.e. 28th October, 2025, is the date for opening of the bids.
12. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and
have perused the documents placed before the Court.
13. Admittedly, in the instant case the petitioner was communicated the
reason for cancellation of the tender process. The authority found that
due to technical reasons in the said tender the same had to be cancelled
and decision was taken to re-tender the same. The petitioner, though
participated in the initial tender process, but for reasons best known,
did not participate in the re-tender process. The date for opening the
bids of the subsequent tender is today.
14. Though a participant legitimately expects that after emerging as the
successful bidder, the work order and the contract would be issued but
there may be genuine and valid reasons for the authority to cancel the
process and thereafter take decision whether and when to issue the
notice of re-tender.
15. Cancellation of a tender due to technical reasons is an internal policy
decision of the tender inviting authority. Till it is proved with sufficient
documents that the cancellation was indeed illegal and arbitrary, the
2025:CHC-OS:209
Court usually refrains from exercising judicial discretion in the matter.
Making out a case that the tender process was cancelled so as to
provide benefit or advantage to any other favourable candidate of the
authority may be a ground to exercise judicial review. No case of mala
fide exercise of power by the authority has been made out in the instant
writ petition.
16. Mere arriving at a decision that the petitioner is the L-1 bidder did not
create any right in favour of the petitioner for issuance of work order
and execution of the contract in between the parties. No positive
decision or action was taken by the authority in furtherance of the
declaration of the petitioner as the L1 bidder. On the contrary, due to
technical reasons the entire tender process got cancelled and the
cancellation was duly informed to all the participants. Notice of re-
tender was floated but the petitioner chose not to participate in the
process of re-tender. The petitioner cannot claim to be prejudiced due to
cancellation of the tender process as no further step was taken by the
authority after declaration of the result of the bid.
17. Had the work order been issued in favour of the petitioner and contract
been executed between the parties and thereafter the same cancelled
without assigning any reason, then the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra),
as relied upon by the petitioner, could have been applied.
18. In Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour (supra) the Court clearly laid down
that when public authorities enter into contracts, the State ought to
2025:CHC-OS:209
honour its obligations. In the instant case, the stage of entering into
contract between the parties did not arise at all. It was only after
declaration of the result of the bid that the bank detected technical
errors/ defects/ lapses and cancelled the entire tender process. The
bank also went to the extent of communicating the fact of cancellation
of the tender process to all the participants.
19. In M/s. Sical Logistics Ltd. (supra) the Court observed that there was an
obligation for recording clear and logical reasons for rejection/recall of
tender in accordance with Central Vigilance Commission guidelines. In
the instant case, the ground for cancellation of the tender process -
'technical reason', was communicated to all the participants. It is not
that no reason for cancellation was communicated. It may be that the
reason was not a detailed one, but at least, some reason was mentioned
for cancellation of the tender process.
20. Had the petitioner been genuinely aggrieved by the cancellation of the
tender process, then the petitioner ought to have rushed to the Court
immediately after communication of the cancellation on 22nd July, 2025.
It appears that the writ petition was filed only on 16th September, 2025.
By now, the bank has proceeded with the re-tender process and today is
the date fixed for opening the bids.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh Mathew and Others
(supra) laid down that the equal opportunity to be given to the bidders
so that there would be fair play between them. Here, all the participants
were intimated about the reason for cancellation of the tender process
2025:CHC-OS:209
and everybody had the opportunity to participate in the re-tendering
process. The petitioner, in its discretion, did not avail the opportunity to
participate in the re-tender process.
22. There is no order passed by any competent forum restraining the bank
from proceeding with the re-tender process. The bank has, accordingly,
proceeded with the same and will take necessary steps to conclude the
same provided the process is in accordance with law. If the bank notices
any further discrepancy in the process of re-tender, the bank will take
necessary steps as per law.
23. The Court is not convinced that any legal right, far less; constitutional
or statutory right of the petitioner has been infringed by the act of the
respondent authority in any manner whatsoever. It does not appear that
the act of the authority is palpably arbitrary or illegal requiring
interference. The Court is not inclined to exercise the power of judicial
review in the instant case.
24. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.
25. No costs.
26. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied
to the parties upon compliance of all legal formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)
