Introduction:

In the case of Ghulam Qadir Bhat and Another v/s U.T. of J&K and Others, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court deliberated on the cancellation of a contentious sheep/goat procurement tender issued by the Sheep Husbandry Department. The dispute arose when the tender process was abruptly terminated despite the petitioners being declared as the lowest bidders in the electronic Notice Inviting Tenders (e-NITs). The court’s ruling shed light on the dynamics of tendering processes, exploring the rights of the tenderer and the department’s prerogative to cancel tenders.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioners, Ghulam Qadir Bhat and another, contended that their participation in the tendering process and subsequent declaration as L-1 did not materialize into a binding contract with the department. Despite being the lowest bidders, they argued that the tender remained unfinalized, urging the court to intervene due to the delay in the process.

Contrarily, the Sheep Husbandry Department defended its decision to cancel the tender, citing valid concerns about preserving the genetic integrity of the local sheep breed. The department emphasized the discretion vested in tendering processes, asserting that no enforceable rights are created merely by being the lowest bidder until a formal contract is established.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Sindhu Sharma, presiding over the case, ruled in favor of the department, upholding the cancellation of the tender. The court clarified that participation in a tender does not confer a binding right upon the bidder until the acceptance of the offer. Highlighting the tender process as an invitation to offer, the court emphasized the absence of a concluded contract between the parties. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the department’s genuine concerns regarding the preservation of the local sheep breed, deeming them as valid grounds for the tender’s cancellation in the public interest.

The bench emphasized the limited scope of judicial intervention in contractual matters, stressing that the department’s right to cancel the tender before its finalization remains undisputed in the absence of malice or procedural irregularity.