# M/s G. V. Construction and Supplier v. State of U. P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 178 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-16 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 6882 of 2026 - **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari, Garima Prashad - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-g-v-construction-and-supplier-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54727 - **Pages:** 5 ## Text 178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 64.2. A bidder who submits a bid expressly declaring that it is submitting the same independently and without any partners, consortium or joint venture, cannot rely upon the technical qualifications of any third party for its qualification. 64.3. It is not open to the court to independently evaluate the technical bids and financial bids of the parties as an appellate authority for coming to its conclusion inasmuch as unless the thresholds of mala fides, intention to favour someone or bias, arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity are met, where a decision is taken purely on public interest, the court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint. 23. In any event, we would like to clarify that the petitioner had been not diligent in persuing his cause as they having received the rejection order on their representation dated 28.01.2026 did not approach this Court instantaneously and only approached this Court on 24.02.2026 after going to the Bombay High Court and thereafter to the Supreme Court. By this time, a lot of water had flown under the bridge. Not only the L-1 bidder had been declared with the culmination of tendering process on 30.01.2026, but the appropriate permission, etc. had been obtained by the State Government, keeping in mind that the tender had been finalized, as submitted by learned counsel Shri Pankaj Khare appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. 24. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner and their subsequent representation in the present tender by the Respondent-State cannot be faulted with. 25. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, with the aforesaid observations. 26. We make it clear that the State of U.P. shall not treat the suspension order of Government of Maharashtra dated 13.01.2026 as a blacklisting order in future tenders that they may issue and the petitioner shall be at liberty to participate in the same, in accordance with law, as also clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 27. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 28. There would be no order as to cost(s). ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 178 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J. THE HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. Writ C No. 6882 of 2026 M/s G. V. Construction and Supplier ...Petitioner Versus State of U. P. & Ors. ...Respondents 4 All. M/s G.V. Construction and Supplier Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 179 ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether the tender constituted the "second tender" within the meaning of Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020, thereby obliging the respondents to open bids even if less than three were received? HEADNOTES Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 : Writ Petition under Article 226 - filed against the impugned order passed by Chairman and Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit and for quashing of cancellation of 25 works and mandamus to open bids under e-tender - Tender notice - Initial tender was annulled due to serious irregularities - a fresh tender was issued, in which petitioner succeeded in 4 works but challenged cancellation of 25 works where less than three bids were received - The petitioner pleaded that the initial tender should be treated as the first tender, making the subsequent tender the second, thereby requiring opening of bids as per Clause 2 of Circular in question - respondents objected that the earlier tender was void ab initio and non est, hence the subsequent tender was the first valid tender - Court finds that, Clause 2 applies only when a tender fails due to insufficient bids, not when annulled for illegality, and therefore the subsequent tender was the first valid tender - held, judicial review in tender matters is limited and that interpretation by tendering authority deserves primacy - hence, cancellation of bids for 25 works was valid, not arbitrary or mala fide - consequently, writ petition dismissed. (Para - 19, 20, 21, 22) WP Dismissed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818. LIST OF ACTS Constitution of India, Article 226, Panchayati Raj Department Government Orders and Circulars (24.07.2020, 30.09.2020) LIST OF KEYWORDS E-tender, cancellation, irregularities, Clause 2 Circular 30.09.2020, adequate competition, judicial review, arbitrariness, mala fides, public procurement, Zila Panchayat Pilibhit, writ petition dismissed. CASE ARISING FROM Order dated 10.02.2026 passed by Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit and Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit cancelling bids for 25 works and inviting fresh tender. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Alok Kumar Yadav with Sri Rakesh Pathak. Counsel for Respondent(s): - Shri Anil Kumar Baghel, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4, C.S.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Garima Prashad, J.) 1. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Yadav with Sri Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Anil Kumar Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 10.02.2026 (Annexure No. 9) passed by Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit (respondent no. 3) and Additional Chief Officer, Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit (respondent no. 4). 180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to open the e-tender in pursuance of notification of e-tender dated 12.12.2025 for the works shown at serial nos. 17, 19, 20, 73, 79 and 144. 3. The facts, as borne out from the record, are that pursuant to the Government Order dated 24.07.2020 issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, Uttar Pradesh, an e-auction notice was published on 30.10.2025 by respondent no. 4 for execution of various works under the Zila Panchayat, Pilibhit. Though 95 works were advertised for online bidding, 112 works were tendered manually. 4. Complaints were received regarding irregularities in the said tender process. A specially constituted inquiry committee examined the matter and found that the entire tender process stood vitiated on account of serious irregularities in the online bidding mechanism. The committee recommended cancellation of the entire tender process and fresh invitation of bids. Acting upon the said report, the entire tender process was declared illegal and cancelled by order dated 09.12.2025. 5. Thereafter, a fresh e-tender notice dated 12.12.2025 was issued inviting bids for all 207 works, including those earlier advertised. The petitioner participated in the said tender process and submitted bids for approximately 10 works after depositing the requisite tender fee and security. It is undisputed that the petitioner was declared successful in 4 works out of the bids submitted by it and was accordingly allotted those works. 6. After completion of the online bidding process held on 28.12.2025, it was found that out of 207 works, bids in respect of 182 works satisfied the requirement of competition and were opened. However, in respect of 25 works, less than three bids were received. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 10.02.2026, the said 25 works were cancelled and a fresh e-tender was invited. 7. The grievance of the petitioner is confined to these 25 works. It is contended that since two rounds of tendering had already taken place, the respondents could not have issued a fresh (third) tender and were obliged to open the bids even if less than three bids were received, in view of Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender dated 30.10.2025 constituted the first tender and the subsequent tender dated 12.12.2025 constituted the second tender. Therefore, in terms of Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020, even a single technically qualified bid in the second tender ought to have been considered and opened. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tender dated 30.10.2025 having been cancelled in entirety on account of illegality and irregularities cannot be treated as a valid tender at all. It is submitted that the tender dated 12.12.2025 was in fact the first valid tender process and the impugned notice dated 10.02.2026 constitutes the second tender in respect of the said 25 works. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4 All. M/s G.V. Construction and Supplier Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 181 11. The sole question which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the tender dated 12.12.2025 was the second tender within the meaning of Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020. Clause 2 of the said Circular is reproduced hereunder: "2. In this regard, it is clarified that adequate competition must be ensured in the tendering process, and ordinarily, there should be three or more technically qualified bidders. However, if upon inviting tenders for the second time only a single bid is received and the same is technically qualified, its financial bid may be opened. If the rates quoted in the financial bid are higher than those prescribed in the BOQ (Bill of Quantities) and DPR (Detailed Project Report), a decision shall be taken at the competent level after comparing such rates with prevailing market rates. (Translated from Hindi) 12. From the material on record, it is evident that the tender process initiated by notice dated 30.10.2025 was cancelled in its entirety not on account of lack of competition or insufficiency of bids, but on account of serious irregularities vitiating the entire process. The said process was thus rendered non est in the eyes of law. Once a tender process is annulled on the ground of illegality and foundational defects, it cannot be treated as a valid tender for the purposes of counting the number of tender attempts under Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020. 13. Clause 2 operates in a situation where a tender process has failed on account of lack of adequate competition, i.e., where less than three bids are received. It is only such a tender which can be treated as the first tender for the purposes of applying Clause 2. A tender which is cancelled or rejected on any other ground, including illegality or procedural irregularity, cannot be reckoned as the first tender for the said purpose. It is, accordingly, held that only where the earlier tender has failed due to insufficient bids would the subsequent tender qualify as the second tender within the meaning of Clause 2. 14. In the present case, the tender dated 12.12.2025 was thus the first valid tender process undertaken by the respondents in accordance with law. Insofar as the 25 works in question are concerned, the bids received therein were less than three and, therefore, the same were not opened and were cancelled by the impugned order dated 10.02.2026. 15. It is evident that the decision of the respondents to cancel the bids in respect of 25 works and to issue a fresh tender does not suffer from any arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality. The earlier tender dated 30.10.2025 having been cancelled in entirety on account of serious irregularities stood vitiated and rendered non est in the eyes of law. The tender dated 12.12.2025 was thus the first valid tender process, and the cancellation of bids for the said 25 works on account of lack of adequate competition constitutes a valid and recognized ground in public procurement. 16. Consequently, the impugned tender issued thereafter in respect of these 25 works would constitute the second tender within the meaning of Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020. 17. In such circumstances, the submission of the petitioner that the earlier tender dated 30.10.2025 should be treated as the first tender cannot be accepted. 182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 18. The law relating to judicial review in contractual and tender matters is now well settled. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651, the Supreme Court has authoritatively held that the Court does not sit as a court of appeal over administrative decisions in contractual matters and that the scope of interference is confined to examining whether the decision-making process is vitiated by arbitrariness, irrationality or mala fides. It was further held that the terms of invitation to tender fall within the realm of contract and the Government must be allowed a fair degree of latitude in such matters. 19. Further, in Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the interpretation of tender documents by the employer must be accorded due deference, and unless such interpretation is found to be perverse, arbitrary or actuated by mala fides, the Court ought not to interfere. The employer, being the author of the tender, is the best judge of the meaning, scope and intent of its conditions, and its understanding is entitled to primacy. It has further been held that even if two interpretations are possible, the Court should not substitute its own view in place of that of the tendering authority, so long as the interpretation adopted is a plausible and reasonable one. 20. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court holds that even otherwise, the interpretation placed by the respondent authorities upon Clause 2 of the Circular dated 30.09.2020 does not warrant substitution. The said interpretation, namely that only such earlier tender which failed on account of lack of adequate bids can be treated as the first tender, is a reasonable and purposive interpretation. 21. In the absence of any material to demonstrate mala fides, favouritism, bias or violation of any statutory provision, this Court finds no ground to interfere in the tender process in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. The action of the respondents in cancelling the bids in respect of the aforesaid 25 works and issuing a fresh tender is in consonance with the settled principles governing public procurement and does not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The tendering authority is entitled to ensure adequate competition and transparency in the bidding process, and such decision cannot be faulted in the facts of the present case. 23. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 182 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. Writ C No. 10692 of 2026 Seema Padalia & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents