[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S. Star Foods Associates vs The Union Of India on 17 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7235
1 WP-9258-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9258 of 2026
M/S. STAR FOODS ASSOCIATES
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kanishka Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shalabh Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the initiation of fresh tender process for the kitchen and
food supply services at ESIC Model Hospital, Indore.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
proprietorship firm engaged in food supply and catering services and was
awarded the contract for providing kitchen services at ESIC Model Hospital,
Indore vide contract No.GEMC - 511687782725383 dated 3/7/2024. The
petitioner commenced the work from 1/8/2024. He submits that as per the
condition No.22 of the tender document, the contract was for a period of one
year with a condition of one year extendable for further period of one year on
the same terms and conditions. He argued that after the expiry of the period
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7235
2 WP-9258-2026
of contract, the respondents extended the contract by different orders till
31/1/2026. He submits that even after the expiry of the extended period of
the contract he continued to make supply. He further submits that even
today, he is still supplying as per the contract. He argued that the respondents
have issued fresh tender on 16/2/2026. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently
argued that as per clause 22 of the contract tender document, the respondents
ought to have extended the contract for period of one year. He argued that he
was having a legitimate expectation of extension of one year as per the said
clause.
3. Per contra, counsel for the respondent submitted that the said clause
does not say that it is mandatory for the department to extend the period of
contract for period for one year after the expiry of one year from the initial
contract period. He further submits that in furtherance to the fresh tender
process, the petitioner had also participated. However, his tender bid has not
been accepted. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is apposite to refer
clause 22 of the Contract and the same reads as under:-
22. Contract period may further be extended by 1 year
subject to observance of satisfactory performance by
the competent authority and mutual consent of both the
parties.
5. Upon perusal of the said clause, it is axiomatic that the contract
period "may" further be extended by one year subject to observance of
satisfactory performance by the competent authority and "mutual consent" of
the parties. Thus, the said clause of the contract makes it clear that the
extension of period of one year is not mandatory for the competent authority
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:7235
3 WP-9258-2026
and it is the discretion which has been conferred to the competent authority
for extension of the contract period and further the same is subject to mutual
consent of both the parties. The words "may" and "mutual consent" makes
clear that the said clause is not making an obligation on the competent
authority to extend the contract for period of one year mandatorily. The
period of contract was extended time to time with the consent of the parties
and the petitioner has been allowed even to work after expiry of the period of
contract. Apart from that the petitioner had also participated in the fresh
tender process without there being any protest. Once he had participated in
the fresh tender process, he cannot seek extension of contract after being
unsuccessful in the said process.
6. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the petition.
7. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
8. However, this order would not come in the way of the petitioner to
raise any objection to the fresh tender process which are admissible in the
law.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
PK
