Introduction:

In Kaushal Kishore v. State of Bihar and Ors. (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16089 of 2025), the Patna High Court delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the constitutional mandate of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness in public procurement processes. The case was adjudicated by a Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Shailendra Singh, who examined the legality of a decision taken by the Tender Committee cancelling an already concluded tender process under the Rural Road Strengthening and Management Program (RRSMP).

The petitioner, Kaushal Kishore, had participated in the tender process pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 03.07.2025 and was declared the lowest bidder (L-1) after the completion of both technical and financial evaluations. Not only had he successfully cleared all stages of the bidding process, but the Executive Engineer had also recommended issuance of the work order in his favour. However, despite the apparent finality of the process, the Tender Committee abruptly cancelled the tender on 15.09.2025 and ordered re-tendering.

The reason cited for this drastic step was that another bidder, who had been disqualified at the technical stage due to non-submission of mandatory documents, had allegedly not been provided adequate opportunity. This justification was challenged by the petitioner as being factually incorrect and legally untenable, especially in light of the fact that the disqualified bidder had himself admitted his default and waived any right to object or pursue the matter further.

The case thus raised critical issues concerning the limits of administrative discretion in contractual matters, the applicability of the doctrine of waiver, and the constitutional requirement that State action must not be arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner, through his learned senior counsel, advanced a well-structured and forceful challenge to the impugned decision, emphasizing both factual inaccuracies and legal infirmities.

1. Completion of Tender Process and Declaration as L-1

The petitioner submitted that the tender process had been conducted strictly in accordance with the terms of the NIT and applicable rules. He had successfully passed both the technical and financial evaluation stages and had been declared the lowest bidder (L-1). This status conferred upon him a legitimate expectation that the contract would be awarded to him, particularly when no irregularities had been pointed out in his bid.

2. Recommendation for Issuance of Work Order

It was further highlighted that the Executive Engineer had already recommended issuance of the work order in favour of the petitioner. This recommendation indicated that the competent authority had found the petitioner’s bid to be fully compliant and suitable for execution of the project.

3. Disqualification and Waiver by Competing Bidder

A crucial aspect of the petitioner’s case was the conduct of the disqualified bidder, Praveen Kumar. The petitioner placed on record two letters dated 12.09.2025 and 13.09.2025, in which the said bidder explicitly acknowledged his failure to submit mandatory documents relating to annual turnover. More importantly, he categorically stated that he neither intended to file any objection nor wished to pursue the matter further.

The petitioner argued that this amounted to a clear and conscious waiver of any right to challenge the disqualification.

4. Doctrine of Waiver

Relying on the well-established doctrine of waiver, the petitioner contended that once a party voluntarily relinquishes a known right, it cannot later claim the benefit of that right. In the present case, since the disqualified bidder had waived his right to object, there was no subsisting grievance that could justify cancellation of the entire tender process.

5. Arbitrary and Mala Fide Exercise of Power

The petitioner argued that the decision to cancel the tender was based on a factually incorrect premise—namely, that the disqualified bidder had been denied an opportunity. Since this premise was demonstrably false, the decision was arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

6. Non-Consideration of Relevant Material

It was also contended that the Tender Committee had failed to consider relevant material on record, particularly the letters issued by the disqualified bidder. This non-consideration rendered the decision legally unsustainable.

Arguments by the Respondents (State):

The State of Bihar and its authorities defended the impugned decision, asserting that it was taken in the interest of fairness and transparency.

1. Ensuring Fairness in Tender Process

The respondents argued that the primary objective of cancelling the tender was to ensure fairness and transparency in the bidding process. They contended that even a perceived denial of opportunity to a bidder could undermine the integrity of the process.

2. Mandatory Nature of Document Submission

It was submitted that submission of required documents was mandatory under the terms of the NIT. Since one bidder had been disqualified for non-submission, and the financial bids had already been opened, the process stood vitiated.

3. Clause Permitting Cancellation

The respondents relied on a clause in the NIT which permitted the authorities to cancel the bidding process at any stage. They argued that this clause conferred wide discretion upon the Tender Committee to act in the interest of fairness.

4. Preservation of Integrity of Process

It was further argued that allowing the process to continue despite alleged irregularities could compromise the integrity of public procurement, and therefore, re-tendering was the most appropriate course of action.

Court’s Judgment:

After a thorough examination of the facts and legal principles, the Patna High Court delivered a decisive judgment in favour of the petitioner.

1. Framing of the Core Issue

At the outset, the Court identified the central issue: whether the authorities were justified in cancelling the tender process on the ground of denial of opportunity to a bidder who had already waived his right.

2. Finding of Factually Incorrect Basis

The Court found that the very foundation of the impugned decision was factually incorrect. The material on record clearly demonstrated that the disqualified bidder had voluntarily and consciously waived his right to submit documents or raise objections.

3. Application of Doctrine of Waiver

The Court applied the doctrine of waiver, observing that it is a well-recognized principle of law that a person who knowingly relinquishes a right cannot later be heard to complain. In this case, the disqualified bidder had unequivocally accepted his disqualification and had chosen not to contest it.

4. No Subsisting Grievance

The Court held that once the bidder had waived his rights, there was no subsisting grievance that required consideration. Therefore, the justification for cancelling the tender—namely, denial of opportunity—was entirely misplaced.

5. Manifest Arbitrariness under Article 14

The Court observed that State action must conform to the principles of fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness as mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution. It held that the impugned decision, being based on a non-existent ground, was manifestly arbitrary and violative of these principles.

6. Contradictory and Unsustainable Reasoning

The Court noted the inherent contradiction in the authorities’ reasoning: on the one hand, the bidder had waived his rights; on the other hand, the authorities claimed that he had been denied an opportunity. This contradiction rendered the decision unsustainable.

7. Limits of Administrative Discretion

While acknowledging that the State has discretion in contractual matters, the Court emphasized that such discretion is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of law. Arbitrary or irrational decisions cannot be justified merely by invoking contractual clauses.

8. Non-Consideration of Relevant Material

The Court also found that the Tender Committee had failed to consider crucial material, namely the letters issued by the disqualified bidder. This amounted to non-application of mind and further vitiated the decision.

9. Setting Aside of Impugned Decision

In light of these findings, the Court held that the decision dated 15.09.2025 cancelling the tender process was unsustainable in law. It accordingly set aside the impugned decision and allowed the writ petition.