WP(C)/13988/2026 of M/S NAYAK ASSOCIATES, CUTTACK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 24 June 2026

ORDER

24.06.2026

02.

1. The petitioner, Udyog Registration Holder, participated in the tender floated by the General Manager, District Industry Centre, Keonjhar with respect to “Selection of suppliers for Apis Cerana (Indica) Bee Boxes” and Apis Cerene Indica Live Bee Colonies” vide Tender No.2238/DIC(K), dated 28.06.2021 and Tender No.2232/DIC(K) dated 28.06.2021. Three bidders were considered qualified and the financial bid was opened on 30.07.2021 wherein the petitioner claims to be the lowest bidder. Though substantial period elapsed, the supply order was not placed on the petitioner. Hence this writ petition has been filed at the behest of the petitioner.

2. The background facts as adumbrated in the writ petition emanates that one Sri Ashok Kumar Samantaray has filed a Public Interest Litigation bearing W.P.(C) PIL No.22775 of 2025 wherein the present opposite parties filed affidavit dated 17.10.2025 indicating that the tenders floated have been cancelled due to lack of competition and owing to single bid. The petitioner having approached the opposite parties could ascertain that in fact the tender was not cancelled till the filing of the said affidavit. Accordingly, he filed intervention application in the said W.P.(C) PIL No.22775 of 2025. However, the opposite parties sought to withdraw the said affidavit due to erroneous fact being pleaded which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2025 and on the said date allowing intervention application of the petitioner directed it to be impleaded as opposite party therein.

2.1. The petitioner on 29.11.2025 filed an independent writ petition being W.P.(C) No.34355 of 2025 challenging the stand of the State that the work order which has been cancelled. Since the petitioner was impleaded as opposite party in W.P.(C) PIL No.22775 of 2025 and the State was allowed to withdraw the affidavit dated 17.10.2025, the petitioner undertook to withdraw the aforesaid writ petition being W.P.(C) No.34355 of 2025. Having sought permission to withdraw said writ petition, the leave was granted and said writ petition stood disposed of as withdrawn vide Order dated 03.02.2026. Nonetheless, the opposite party, namely, General Manager, District Industry Centre, Keonjhar cancelled the Bee Keeping Tender No.2238/DIC (K), dated 28.06.2021 and Tender No.2232/DIC(K), dated 28.06.2021.

3. Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that without assigning any reason and adhering to the principles of natural justice, the opposite parties should not have cancelled the tender vide Letter No.1544 dated 20.12.2025 (Annexure-11). It is submitted that this writ petition has been filed to quash the said decision cancelling the tender and as a consequence thereto the petitioner beseeches for issue of writ of mandamus to finalise the Tender dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure-3) for supply of Bee Box and Bee Colony.

4. Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the subject-tenders have been cancelled and communicated to the petitioner by Letter dated 20.12.2025 (Annexure-11). It is submitted that the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by non-supply of reason for cancelling. The learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that it is for the tendering authority to decide whether to award work order to the lowest bidder. No vested or inchoate right accrues on any bidder, even if he is found to have quoted lowest price. In absence of any allegation of mala fide or arbitrary action on the part of the opposite parties, it cannot be said that the decision taken to cancel the tender is tainted. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review should be slow and circumspect to interfere in the decision.

4.1. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for the opposite parties that since no enforceable right had accrued in favour of the petitioner merely because he had quoted the lowest price, in absence of any work order being issued or contract being executed, this Court may not issue direction to the opposite parties to award contract for supply of Bee Boxes and Bee Colonies. Hence he fervently urged for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard Mr. Sidhant Dwibedi, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Saswat Das, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the opposite parties-State. Perused the records and considered the rival submissions of the respective parties.

6. The facts narrated in the forgoing paragraphs are not in dispute. The subject ‘tenders’ in W.P.(C) PIL No.22775 of 2025 have been cancelled by the tendering authority and such fact has been communicated to the petitioner by Letter dated 20.12.2025. Despite such fact being within his knowledge, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.34355 of 2025. This Court allowed the prayer of the petitioner and allowed it to withdraw said writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition stood disposed of vide Order dated 03.02.2026. Pertinently, no leave or liberty was sought for by the petitioner in said writ petition to revive in the event of any cause of action. Therefore, this successive writ petition in the guise of reviving the earlier one is not maintainable.

6.1. The evidence adduced in the writ petition does not percolate that the tendering authority had at any point of time accepted the bid of the petitioner and finalized the tenders. It may be highlighted at this juncture with reference to Indore Vikas Praadhikaran (IDA) Vrs. Shri Humud Jain Samaj Trust, (2024) 11 SCR 925 that merely because the petitioner is the lowest bidder in absence of any approval by the competent authority it cannot claim vested right in absence of any concluded contract or award being executed.

6.2. In State of Orissa Vrs. Harinarayan Jaiswal, (1972) 2 SCC 36, it is observed as follows:

‘13. *** Excise revenue forms an important part of every State's revenue. The Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. Hence quite naturally, the Legislature has empowered the Government to see that there is no leakage in its revenue. It is for the Government to decide whether the price offered in an auction sale is adequate. While accepting or rejecting a bid, it is merely performing an executive function. The correctness of its conclusion is not open to judicial review. We fail to see how the plea of contravention of Article 19(1)(g) or Article 14 can arise in these cases. The Government’s power to sell the exclusive privileges set out in

Section 22 was not denied. It was also not disputed that those privileges could be sold by public auction. Public auctions are held to get the best possible price. Once these aspects are recognised, there appears to be no basis for contending that the owner of the privileges in question who had offered to sell them cannot decline to accept the highest bid if he thinks that the price offered is inadequate. There is no concluded contract till the bid is accepted. Before there was a concluded contract, it was open to the bidders to withdraw their bids — see Union of India Vrs. Bhimsen Walaiti Ram, (1970) 2 SCR

594. By merely giving bids, the bidders had not acquired any vested rights. The fact that the Government was the seller does not change the legal position once its exclusive right to deal with those privileges is conceded. If the Government is the exclusive owner of those privileges, reliance on Article 19(1)(g) or Article 14 becomes irrelevant. Citizens cannot have any fundamental right to trade or carry on business in the properties or rights belonging to the Government—nor can there be any infringement of Article 14, if the Government tries to get the best available price for its valuable rights. The High Court was wholly wrong in thinking that purpose of Sections 22 and 29 of the Act was not to raise revenue. *** The High Court was not sitting on appeal against the order made by the Government. The inference of the Government that there was a collusion among the bidders may be right or wrong. But that was not open to judicial review so long as it is not proved that it was a make-believe one. The real opinion formed by the Government was that the price fetched was not adequate. That conclusion is taken on the basis of Government expectations. The conclusion reached by the Government does not affect any one’s rights. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court misapplied the ratio of the decision of this Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vrs. Company Law Board, 1966 Supp SCR 311 and Rohtas Industries Ltd. Vrs. S.T. Agarwal, (1969) 1 SCC 325.”

6.3. As it appears from the prayers made in the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for roving inquiry to be made to ascertain the reason for cancellation. If the tendering authority felt it proper to cancel the tender without issuing supply order in favour of the petitioner, this Court is afraid to issue writ of mandamus to the opposite parties to accept the tender dated 28.06.2021 by finalizing it in favour of the petitioner.

6.4. This takes this Court to consider as pleaded whether in cancelling the tenders the authority ought to have afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In essence it emanates from the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that sans adherence to principles of natural justice there could not be cancellation of the tenders. This Court was brought to the notice by Mr. Saswat Das, learned Additional Government Advocate that by judgment dated 15.01.2025 rendered by the Full Bench in M/s. Nanda Infra Construction Pvt. Ltd, Angul Vs. State of Odisha and others, W.P.(C) No.5790 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No.5535 of 2024 such plea canvassed by the petitioner therein has been negatived. In the said judgment, the Full Bench has given the following conclusion: “***

43. In view of the above discussion and the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above, we answer the questions referred to the Full Bench as under: i) While testing the correctness of a purely administrative order passed by an authority, that is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, which does not essentially require recording of any reason and includes an order in the nature of cancellation of a tender process/notice where a bid has not been accepted, the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph-8 of the decision in Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. The Chief Election Officer, AIR 1978 SC 851, will not have any application.

ii) Before cancellation of a tender notice, there is no requirement of giving an opportunity of hearing or prior notice to the highest/ lowest bidder, as such bidder does not acquire any vested right to have the auction confirmed in his / her / its favour on that basis alone. iii) When a tender process is cancelled prior to confirmation of tender/auction in favour of a bidder, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vrs. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706 is not applicable. iv) In M/s. Bansal Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., Bolangir Vrs. State of Odisha and others, [Order dated 24.06.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.334 of 2024] the Division Bench of this Court has not applied the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Sudhir Kumar Singh (supra) correctly. v.) The High Court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot direct the State or its instrumentalities to accept the bid of the lowest/highest bidder by interfering with the order of cancellation of tender, solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or on the ground that the order of is bereft of reasons, except in exceptional circumstances.”

6.5. In Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Vrs. Suresh Mathew, 2025 INSC 569 it has been referred to as follows:

“16. The question of scope of judicial review in the cases of award of contracts has already been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 517 wherein the Court observed as under:

‘22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bonafide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succor to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review should pose to itself the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; Or

(ii) Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.

(iii) Whether public interest is affected.

If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licenses, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.

***

23. We may state here that if our observations are seen qua the touchstone of questions framed by this Court in the judgment of Jagdish Mandal (supra) the answer would be in negative, therefore the decision taken by the authorities cannot be termed as a mala fide decision or a decision to favour someone. At the cost of repetition, we may state that the decision of the authority is giving a fresh opportunity to all interested bidders to compete with each other in the process of the fresh selection. In our opinion, the decision taken by the authority is not affecting the public interest, on the contrary it furthers the cause of the public interest and fair play.”

6.6. In view of the authoritative principles enunciated by the Full Bench, this Court read juxtaposed with the ratio of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, no substance is perceived in the contention(s) of the counsel for the petitioner that before cancellation of a tender, requirement of giving opportunity of hearing or prior notice to the lowest bidder is sine qua non. In view of aforesaid decisions as discussed, there is no requirement for assigning any reason by the tendering authority nor is there any ground subsists for affording opportunity of hearing, particularly when no extraordinary or exceptional circumstance has been brought on record. Since it could not be demonstrated by the petitioner that the bid was accepted, no real prejudice caused to it in cancelling the tenders.

Nothing is available on record to suggest that the bid of the petitioner was at any point of time accepted by the tendering authority, and, hence no vested right having accrued in its favour, no relief as sought for in the instant writ petition can be extended to it.

7. Under the aforesaid premises, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, and as such, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman)

Judge Bichi Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 29-Jun-2026 17:54:43 Signature Not Verified