Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Tender Cancellation During Pendency - The WCL issued a corrigendum cancelling a tender process on 12.11.2022 without court approval, indicating a potentially arbitrary approach. The Tender Committee's decision, based on a subsequent report, differed from earlier assessments, raising questions about procedural fairness and transparency. The estimated tender value was Rs.62.65 Crores, emphasizing the significance of the exercise 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 72.
Pendency of Lead Matter and Its Impact - Multiple petitions (e.g., Special Civil Applications No.19459/2022, 14857/2022) were filed challenging tenders during ongoing litigation. Courts recognized that delays and issuance of corrigenda or subsequent notices during pendency could prejudice bidders, emphasizing the need for fair process and adherence to legal procedures. Courts often stayed or scrutinized tender processes to prevent arbitrary cancellations or modifications during litigation 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 261.
Authority’s Power to Cancel or Revisit Tenders - Tender Inviting Authorities have the power to cancel tenders before award or contract execution, especially if procedural conditions are not met or if the process is challenged. However, once a tender is awarded and contract executed, cancellation becomes difficult unless there is a violation of tender conditions. Changes or clarifications are permissible before the notification of award but not after 2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35174, 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 25.
Issuance of Subsequent Tenders - Authorities sometimes issue new tenders during pendency of existing ones, either to rectify procedural issues or due to cancellation. Such actions are often scrutinized to ensure they are not used to bypass legal challenges or to favor certain bidders. Courts have held that issuing fresh NITs during pendency does not violate principles if done transparently and for valid reasons 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1229, 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1321.
Impact of Pendency on Rights and Remedies - Bidders affected by tenders during litigation can seek judicial intervention for fair treatment, damages, or to participate in new tenders. Courts have acknowledged that delays or cancellations during pendency can cause prejudice, and legal remedies are available to address such issues, including damages or participation rights in subsequent processes 2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 10559, 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1229.
Analysis and Conclusion:During the pendency of legal proceedings, authorities have issued or canceled tenders, sometimes issuing subsequent tenders or corrigenda. Courts emphasize that such actions must be transparent, procedural, and within the bounds of law. Arbitrary cancellations or modifications during litigation can be challenged, and bidders are entitled to fair treatment and remedies. The power to cancel or revise tenders exists but must be exercised judiciously, especially during ongoing disputes, to uphold principles of fairness and legality.
In the complex world of , tender processes often spark disputes that land in court. A common scenario arises when an authority issues a fresh tender while a challenging the previous one remains pending. This raises critical questions about judicial oversight, administrative discretion, and the maintenance of . If you're a bidder entangled in such a situation, understanding the legal boundaries is essential.
This article delves into the legality of subsequent tender issuance during of a , drawing from established principles and case law. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your circumstances.
During of Matter Subsequent Tender was Issued by the Authority. Is this permissible? Courts typically approach such matters with caution, balancing the authority's right to manage its procurement needs against the need to prevent circumvention of judicial proceedings. Generally, authorities enjoy wide discretion in tender matters, but actions during ongoing litigation must not undermine court processes.
Courts exercise significant restraint when it comes to interfering in tender processes. The tendering authority is often seen as the best judge of its requirements. It can cancel or reissue tenders without assigning reasons, as long as the decision isn't or . 2021 0 Supreme(J&K) 492 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 454
For instance, the may before passing order accepting a tender negotiate with lowest tendered. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41080 This underscores the flexibility authorities have pre-acceptance.
The of a generally implies maintaining the to avoid prejudice. Issuing a fresh tender without court leave may be viewed as or an attempt to evade scrutiny. 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 511
However, courts recognize that litigation shouldn't paralyze public administration indefinitely. If no exists, authorities might proceed, but transparency is key. In one case, this court while keeping the present pending, has not passed any positive interim order preventing the from floating the subsequent tender. 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3506
Authorities can cancel tenders if bids lack competition or are unsatisfactory, even during , provided the action is reasonable. The can in terms of .... Section 14 empowers the to issue general rejection of tenders before issuing any order of acceptance. 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 191
This aligns with the principle that governments must have freedom to contract based on circumstances.
2004 0 Supreme(Mad) 1130
Courts review for arbitrariness, bias, or mala fides, not as appellate bodies. If the new tender is justified, interference is unlikely, even mid-litigation. 2016 5 Supreme 465
State of Jharkhand v. CWE-SOMA Consortium: The held there's no obligation to accept the lowest tender, and cancellation for better competition is valid. Authorities aren't bound to proceed if it doesn't serve public interest.
Courts have noted that decisions must be transparent, but won't substitute views unless unreasonableness is evident. 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 589
Additional precedents reinforce this:- In scenarios where boards reject bids and opt for fresh NITs, subsequent non-participation by challengers weakens claims. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 did not participate in the subsequent NIT issued on . 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1092
Authorities frequently cancel tenders during for procedural reasons, but courts scrutinize for fairness:
Tender Cancellations: A cancelling a Rs.62.65 Crores tender without approval raised arbitrariness flags, highlighting the need for consistent reasoning. 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 72
Multiple Petitions and Delays: Courts address clustered challenges (e.g., ), staying processes to prevent prejudice from mid-litigation changes. 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 261
Power to Revisit: Pre-award cancellations are permissible if conditions aren't met, but post-execution, they're harder. Fresh NITs during are okay if transparent and justified, not to favor bidders. 2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35174 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 25 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1229 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1321
Bidders' Remedies: Affected parties can seek intervention, damages, or participation rights. As during of the aforesaid , the works for which the petitioner was the lowest bidder and was subject matter of the litigation before this Court, fresh tender had been issued... 2020 0 Supreme(J&K) 509
In one instance, fresh notices during appeals were issued, but statutory remedies remained available. 2011 0 Supreme(Kar) 151
Raise the Issue Promptly: File applications emphasizing violation and seek stays on new processes.
Document Prejudice: Highlight how the subsequent tender affects your position, e.g., lost opportunities.
Seek Court Permission: Authorities should ideally obtain leave before proceeding to avoid challenges.
Monitor Participation: Non-participation in new tenders may impact standing. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1092
If the new tender awards contracts subject to litigation outcomes, it protects interests pending resolution. 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41080
Issuing a subsequent tender during may be permissible if exercised judiciously, transparently, and without arbitrariness. Courts prioritize administrative efficiency but guard against abuse. Bidders should vigilantly protect rights through judicial remedies.
Key Takeaways:- Authorities have broad discretion pre-award, but demands caution. 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 454- No automatic without orders; challenge improper actions. 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3506- Transparency prevents successful challenges. 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 589- Remedies include stays, damages, or conditional awards.
Stay informed on evolving tender laws to navigate these disputes effectively. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.
References:- 2021 0 Supreme(J&K) 492 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 454 2017 0 Supreme(Kar) 511
2004 0 Supreme(Mad) 1130 2016 5 Supreme 465 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 589 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 41080 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 191 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1092 2021 0 Supreme(Cal) 197 2020 0 Supreme(J&K) 509 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3506 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 72 2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 261 2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35174 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 25 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 1229 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1321 #TenderLaw, #WritPetition, #LegalTenders
Notice was issued in the writ petition on 19.10.2022 and during pendency of the present proceedings the WCL issued a corrigendum cancelling the tender process on 12.11.2022. This was done without obtaining the leave of the Court and the same indicated the approach of the WCL. ... The Tender Committee which considered the subsequent report of the IEMs did not consider the earlier report o....
pendency of the lead matter, and as such, for the purpose of seeking direction to the respondent authority to proceed further in connection with E-Tender Notice No.14 of 2021-22 (Tender ID-502430), a petition is brought by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. ... The further case of the petitioner is to the effect that in the present tender, several Corrigendums came to be #HL_START....
tender and it is alleged that petitioner is stated to have manipulated or misled the concerned authority in trying to obtain tender work in his favour and it was subject-matter of correspondence among the concerned officials and the petitioner. ... While rejecting the tender the person or authority inviting the tenders is not required to give reasons even if it be a State within the mean....
Accordingly, fresh NIT dated 21st of December, 2022 has been issued by the concerned authority of the State for supply of cooked diet for indoor patients of government hospital facilities. The online bid submission date is 11th of January, 2023. ... Even if the appellant had any claim under the first NIT, then also on account of the subsequent development noted above, the appellant has now the remedy to claim damages in view of the judgment....
Provide further that subject to such general or special order as may be issued by the Government from time to time, the Tender Accepting Authority may before passing order accepting a tender negotiate with lowest tendered.” 4. ... If the respondents award tender pursuant to that tender notification vide Annexure – A, the same shall be subject to result of this writ petition. List this #....
During the pendency of the writ petition and after issuance of notice, the 2nd respondent communicates to the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not proceeding with the tender. ... The Tender Inviting Authority is empowered to cancel the tender prior to notification of award and execution of the contract. Once the award is notified and contract is executed it becomes a concluded process of te....
Tender Accepting Authority cum-negotiation Meeting dated 9-02-2022. ... During the pendency of the writ petition and after issuance of notice, the 2nd respondent communicates to the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not proceeding with the tender. ... The Tender Inviting Authority is empowered to cancel the tender prior to notification of award and execution of ....
As a matter of fact, the tender itself is not rejected, but the earlier tender notification is recalled, which would be a tacit rejection of the tender. ... (Emphasis supplied) Section 14 empowers the Tender Accepting Authority to issue general rejection of tenders before issuing any order of acceptance. The Tender Accepting Authority can in terms of ....
issuing authority and the tender issuing authority has acted in a fair manner. ... (VI) A very important fact, which is required to be noted is that subsequent to issuance of IFB dated 02.09.2022,another IFB relating to the same work was issued on 29.10.2022 and the same was challenged by another bidder in WP (C) 415/2022, who participated in the tender process ... Once an NIT is #HL_ST....
The matter was placed before the Board of IDA and on 27.07.2021, the Board accepted the recommendation of the Tender Committee. The bid of respondent No. 1 was rejected and it was resolved to issue a fresh NIT in the matter. ... It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 did not participate in the subsequent NIT issued on 17.11.2021. Respondent No. 1 before the High Court stated that by no stretch of im....
As such, the relief now sought by the petitioner is in aid of the writ petition and a necessary consequence thereof. Moreover, it is argued, the petitioner is not challenging the second tender in its entirety but merely challenges the acceptance of the bid of the private respondent, since the said respondent failed in the first tender, issued for the self-same work. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submits that the second tender was issued, upon cancellation of the fi....
As during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the works for which the petitioner was the lowest bidder and was subject matter of the litigation before this Court, fresh tender had been issued, OWP No. 910/2015 was filed. Both the petitions were taken up together and allowed vide judgment dated 18.04.2016. To challenge the same, the petitioner filed OWP No. 219/2013.
In fact, such subsequent tender was floated during the pendency of the present writ petition. It is not that the petitioner is not aware of floating of the fresh tender. But at the same time, it should be borne in mind that this court while keeping the present writ petition pending, has not passed any positive interim order preventing the TANGEDCO from floating the subsequent tender.
Again, this notice makes no reference to the Section 195 of the 1965 Act. The learned counsel for the landlords, however, attempted to make reference to certain subsequent notices issued by the Municipal Authority during pendency of proceedings.
Relying on the factual finding recorded by the Assessing Authority, it was contended by the appellant that is no ‘goods’ nor sale of such ‘goods’. During the pendency of the said appeal, fresh notices were issued for the subsequent years. Against the said assessment order, statutory appeal is filed and the same is pending.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
