1. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri Y. Balaji, Ld. Government Pleader for Roads and Buildings and Transport.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

                  “It is therefore, prayed that the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on part of the respondent No.3 herein in directing the respondent No.5 to cancel the tender, dated 27.01.2025 of “Performance based Maintenance Contract (05 years) from Km.76.00 to Km.99.971 of NH-42 in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2023-2025 under PBMC mode” vide the memo NO.PBMC/NH42/EENH/DEE1 /AEE3/ 2025, dated 04.09.2025, without assigning any reasons whatsoever as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the Tender Conditions, dated 27.01.2025 in NIT.28/NH-42/SE.NH.ATP/AEE-1/2025- 26, apart from bring violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently:

                  a. Set aside the Cancellation Memo No.PBMC/NH42/EENH/DEEl/AEE3/2025, dated 04.09.2025 of “Performance based Maintenance Contract (05 years) from Km.76.00 to Km.99.971 of NH-42 in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2023-2025 under PBMC mode in favour of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

                  b. Direct the respondents to finalise the tender, dated 27.01.2025 of “Performance based Maintenance Contract (05 years) from Km.76.00 to Km.99.971 of NH-42 in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the year 2023-2025 under PBMC mode in favour of the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. The facts would indicate that the Respondent No.2 had issued a Tender Notification on 27.01.2025 (Ex.P.4) calling for bids for “Performance-Based Maintenance of Roads” through e-tendering from experienced firms for the operation and maintenance works for a period of five (05) years from Km.76.000 to Km.99.971 of NH-42 in the State of Andhra Pradesh for the years 2024-2025 under the PBMC mode; that as the Writ Petitioner firm had the eligibility and experience in such works, had participated in the tender; that the tender process has technical bid as well as financial bid; that four (04) bidders have participated in the bidding namely (i) M/s. Siddhartha Civil Works Pvt. Limited, Bengaluru, (ii) M/s. Nithin Sai Constructions, Ananthapuramu (iii) M/s. DMC-M/s.SKC (JV) Ananthapuramu and (iv) M/s. Siva Sai Constructions, Kadiri (the Writ Petitioner herein); that while considering the four (04) bids, after elementary scrutiny, the Evaluation Committee consisting of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and a representative of Finance Department of the concerned wing, have decided on 15.05.2025 to obtain explanation from two of the bidders namely M/s. Nithin Sai Constructions, Ananthapuramu and M/s. DMC-M/s.SKC (JV) Ananthapuramu with regard to omission of certain works in the B-Value as to why they should not be disqualified; that after considering the responses, both the bidders were disqualified and therefore, only two bidders remained in the fray namely M/s. Siddhartha Civil Works Pvt. Limited, Bengaluru and M/s. Siva Sai Constructions, Kadiri (the Writ Petitioner herein).

4. It is further submitted that M/s. Siddhartha Civil Works Pvt. Limited, Bengaluru, for the reasons best known to it, did not update the B-value as per the tender conditions as on 24.06.2025 and therefore, the financial bid was postponed to 28.06.2025; that despite the opportunity granted and despite the correspondence by Respondent No.5, M/s. Siddhartha Civil Works Pvt. Limited, Bengaluru had failed to respond and therefore its‟ bid was deemed to be „non-responsive‟.

5. It is further submitted that since three bidders out of the four bidders have been eliminated from the test, only the Writ Petitioner was left out as the sole bidder; that the bidder quoted Rs.56,44,62,660.94, which was +4.50% to the cost put to the tender and the Writ Petitioner was deemed to be the lowest bidder; that there was some correspondence whether to proceed or withdraw the tender because only a single bidder had remained in fray; that a communication was received from the Union of India (Respondent No.1) directing the other Official Respondents to re-invite the tender due to the single technically and financially by qualified bidder i.e., the Writ Petitioner herein ; and that the intention of the Respondent No.1 was communicated to Respondent No.4 through Letter dated 06.08.2025 (Ex.P.3).

6. Since the Respondent No.4, which is merely a Tender Inviting Authority which had no role to play for cancellation of tender, had issued the Proceeding dated 06.08.2025 (Ex.P.3) for cancelling the tender by invoking the Clause 30 of the Tender Conditions, the Writ Petitioner had challenged the same in W.P.No.21168 of 2025 before this Court complaining that after financial bid was open, the price offer of the Writ Petitioner got disclosed to the public and therefore, the Writ Petitioner is prejudiced regarding the loss of confidentiality; that vide Order dated 12.08.2025 in W.P.No.21168 of 2025, this Court had directed the Respondents to maintain confidentiality of the record, particularly with regard to the financial bids which have already been opened and the Official Respondents shall not disclose the contents of the financial bid of any bidder to anyone else.

7. However, the Writ Petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition challenging the cancellation of the tender itself by stating that the cancellation of the tender is illegal because the Official Respondents did not disclose the cause for cancellation.

8. Vide Order dated 26.09.2025, this Court had directed the Respondents not to proceed with the re-tendering process till the next listing. This interim Order continued from time to time till completion of pleadings.

9. Sri B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the cancellation is bad in law since no reasons have been assigned for such cancellation. He would also submit that the law entitles even a single bidder for the award of the contract.

COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT OF RESPONDENT NO.6:

10. Respondent No.6 has filed Counter-Affidavit along with I.A.No.3 of 2025 for vacating the Interim Order dated 26.09.2025 passed by this Court in this Writ Petition.

11. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.6 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Minutes of the Evaluation Committee held on 22.07.2025 of the Chambers of the Engineer-in-Chief. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No.6 has taken this Court through Paras-15 and 16 of the Minutes, which indicate that the Respondents have found it necessary to seek clarification from the Central Ministry on a single technically and financially valid bid. Vide Proceeding dated 02.09.2025, the Evaluation Committee, in its meeting, opined that in view of the decision taken by the Ministry and keeping in view of the directions, and the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee to cancel the tenders as per the Clause 30 of the RFB, it was decided to cancel the tender. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the Respondents have issued fresh Tender Notification on 06.09.2025 calling for fresh tenders for the same value of the work.

12. Having considered the rival contentions, it is required to examine whether the Respondent Authorities have the power to cancel the Tender Notification in case of single bidder. The law in this regard is well settled that the right of the employer to cancel the tenders at any stage is unquestionable with only few exceptions. The question whether the employer has power to cancel a tender at any stage is no more res integra inasmuch as the legal preposition is well settled by the Judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court. [Please see i) Jagadish Mandal v. State of Orissa : (2007) 14 SCC 517 – Para No.22, ii) Shimnit Utsch India Private Ltd., and Another v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited and Others : (2010) 6 SCC 303 – Para No.64, iii) Maa Binda Express Carrier and another v. North-East Frontier Railway and Others : (2014) 3 SCC 760 – Para Nos.8 to 12 iv) State of Jharkhand and others v. CWE- Soma Consortium : (2016) 14 SCC 172 – Para Nos.13, 20 to 23, v) Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Others v. Suresh Mathew and Others : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 933 – Para No.22, vi) Sri Karthikeya Security Services v. Mc Lean India Ltd. And Others in W.A.No.964 of 2025 (High Court of Andhra Pradesh)].

13. In Maa Binda Express Carrier and Another v. North East Frontier Railway and Others : (2014) 3 SCC 760, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held in Para No.12 as under:

                  “12. As pointed out in the earlier part of this order, the decision to cancel the tender process was in no way discriminatory or mala fide. On the contrary, if a contract had been awarded despite the deficiencies in the tender process serious questions touching the legality and propriety affecting the validity of the tender process would have arisen. Inasmuch as the competent authority decided to cancel the tender process, it did not violate any fundamental right of the appellant nor could the action of the respondent be termed unreasonable so as to warrant any interference from this Court. The Division Bench of the High Court was, in that view, perfectly justified in setting aside the order [Maa Binda Express Carrier v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 4668 of 2011, order dated 4-2-2012 (Gau)] passed by the Single Judge and dismissing the writ petition.”

14. In State of Jharkhand and Others v. CWE-Soma Consortium : (2016) 14 SCC 172, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had dealt with similar situation. Para Nos.13 & 20 to 23 of the said Judgment are usefully extracted hereunder:

                  “13. In case of a tender, there is no obligation on the part of the person issuing tender notice to accept any of the tenders or even the lowest tender. After a tender is called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors who have given tenders that there is no competition, the person issuing tender may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby cancel the tender. It is well settled that so long as the bid has not been accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour (vide Laxmikant v. Satyawan [Laxmikant v. Satyawan, (1996) 4 SCC 208] , Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments [Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments, (2007) 1 SCC 477] and U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma [U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 5 SCC 182 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 737] ).

                  20. Admittedly, in the pre-bid meeting held on 24-3-2014, ten tenderers have participated. After conclusion of the pre-bid meeting on 24-3-2014, as a result of stringent conditions prescribed in Clauses 4.5(A)(a) and 4.5(A)(c), only three tenderers could participate in the bidding process and submit their bids. As noticed earlier, upon scrutiny two were found non-responsive. In our considered view, the High Court erred in presuming that there was adequate competition. In order to make the tender more competitive, the Tender Committee in its collective wisdom has taken the decision to cancel and reinvite tenders in the light of SBD norms. As noticed earlier, the same was reiterated in a subsequent meeting held on 9-7-2014. While so, the High Court was not justified to sit in judgment over the decision of the Tender Committee and substitute its opinion on the cancellation of tender. Decision of the State issuing tender notice to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders could not have been interfered with by the High Court unless found to be mala fide or arbitrary. When the authority took a decision to cancel the tender due to lack of adequate competition and in order to make it more competitive, it decided to invite fresh tenders, it cannot be said that there are any mala fides or want of bona fides in such decision. While exercising judicial review in the matter of government contracts, the primary concern of the court is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process or whether it is vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness.

                  21. Observing that while exercising power of judicial review, the Court does not sit as appellate court over the decision of the Government but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made, in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651] , SCC in para 70 it was held as under: (SCC p. 675)

                  “70. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down.”

                  (emphasis in original)

                  22. The Government must have freedom of contract. In Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. [Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138] , SCC in para 12 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 147)

                  “12. After an exhaustive consideration of a large number of decisions and standard books on administrative law, the Court enunciated the principle that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principles of reasonableness but also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. It was also pointed out that quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. (See para 113 of the Report, SCC para 94.)”

                  The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision as held in Laxmikant v. Satyawan [Laxmikant v. Satyawan, (1996) 4 SCC 208], the Government must have freedom of contract.

                  23. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. In the case in hand, the respondent has neither pleaded nor established mala fide exercise of power by the appellant. While so, the decision of the Tender Committee ought not to have been interfered with by the High Court. In our considered view, the High Court erred in sitting in appeal over the decision of the appellant to cancel the tender and float a fresh tender. Equally, the High Court was not right in going into the financial implication of a fresh tender.”

15. Recently, the Hon‟ble Apex Court had dealt with the situation in IJM Corporation Berhad v. National Highways Authority of India & Another [SLP (Civil) No.10811 of 2022] dated 05.07.2022, the Hon‟ble Apex Court framed the issue for consideration as under:

                  “It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the petitioner had fulfilled the eligibility criteria of the RFP (Required for Proposal) and quoted high premium, all of a sudden, the NHAI annulled the tender process on 30.03.2022 without assigning any reason and against the extant policy guidelines. On the following day, the website of the respondent authorities indicated that the tender process had been annulled for administrative reasons.”

16. In respect of the above issue, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held :

                  “Apart from the reasons recorded by the High Court, this Court finds that a tenderer has no right to question the cancellation of the tender process or the action of the employer not to accept a single tender. Moreover, our attention has been drawn to the tender documents and, in particular, Volume I of the revised RFP, that is, bid documents for International Competitive Bidding under a Single Stage Bidding Process will be precisely for six laning of Kagal – Satara Section of NH-48 under the Bharatmala Pariyojana. Clause 2.16 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the RFP, the Authority reserves the right to reject any bid and to annul the bidding process and reject all bids at any time without any liability or any obligation for such acceptance, rejection or annulment, and without assigning any reasons thereof. In the event the NHAI rejects or annuls all the bids, it may, in its discretion, invite all eligible bidders to submit fresh bids hereunder. Clause 3.8.2 of the Bid document clearly provides that in the event highest bidder withdraws or is not selected for any reason, the authority shall annul the bidding process and invite fresh bids. In the event the authority rejects or annuls all the bids, it may, in its discretion invite all eligible bidders to submit fresh bids.

                  The NHAI had clearly reserved to itself the right to annul the bidding process. Clause 6.2 provided that the NHAI might have sole discretion and without incurring any obligation or liability, suspend and/or cancel the bidding process and/or amend and/or supplement the bidding process or modify the dates or other terms and conditions relating thereto.

                  The petitioner submitted its tender in terms of the RFP and obviously after going through the terms and conditions of the RFP. It is not open to the petitioner to question the annulment of the tender process.

                  This Court is also unable to accept the emphatic submission of Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel that the rejection is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. The decision has apparently been taken having regard to the financial interest of the NHAI. However, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the calculations presented by Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the NHAI since this Court does not sit in appeal over the merits of an administrative decision to annul the tender process, in a Special Leave Petition arising out of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.

                  The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.”

17. This Court has considered the facts of the case which would indicate that the bidders have responded to the Tender Notification dated 27.01.2025 and that only four bidders have submitted their bids. The facts would also indicate that out of the four bidders, two bidders were disqualified at the preliminary stage (technical bid) and the third bidder namely M/s. Siddhartha Civil Works Pvt. Limited was treated as non-responsive inasmuch as the said M/s. Siddhartha Civil Works Pvt. Limited had not updated the B-value as per the tender conditions.

18. It is pertinent to note that on the advise of the Union of India, the single bid of the Writ Petitioner herein was sought to be cancelled. The Writ Petitioner has not attributed any malafidies or discrimination against the Respondents herein. In the absence of any malice and any perversity in cancellation of the tender, this Court would be loath in interfering with the decisions of the Respondent Authorities in cancelling the Tender Notification. This apart, it is settled law that the Government has the power to cancel the tender. The reasons which are indicated by the Evaluation Committee are just and reasonable. This court does not find any irregularity in the decision making process nor any perversity in the decision itself for cancelling the tender as only a single bidder remained in the fray. In the instant case, for the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

20. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.