JABALPUR, India, Sept. 7 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Aug. 8:

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 02.04.2025 whereby the respondent No.2/Jabalpur Development Authority has decided to annul the tender and invite a fresh tender.

2. Respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority had invited public bids for auction of plot situated at Scheme number 5/14, Vijay Nagar Plot No. J12 measuring 1500 sq feet. Petitioner had participated in the tender process along with several other bidders. The highest bidder in the said tender process withdrew his bid. Consequently, Petitioner, who was H-2 became the H-1. The respondent/authority instead of proceeding further with the tender process decided to cancel the tender and has once again invited bids. Petitioner admittedly did not participate in the second tender process.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the highest bidder was disqualified and had withdrawn his bid, petitioner whose bid was the second highest should have been declared the highest bidder and the plot allotted to the petitioner.

4. Per contra learned counsel for respondents submits that the Tender Inviting Authority had reserved the right to accept or cancel any bid and to revoke the tender process without assigning any reason and the authorities were of the view that the tender process was not fair since the first bidder had withdrawn his bid and consequently, the tender was canceled and a fresh tender invited.

5. Learned counsel for respondent/Jabalpur Development Authority submits that in the second tender process, petitioner failed to participate and the bid now received is higher than the bid of the petitioner submitted in the first tender process.

6. Reference may be had to the advertisement dated 17.01.2025 which in clause 11 categorically stipulates that the authority reserves the right to accept or reject any bid and also revoke the tender process without assigning any reason.

7. In the instant case, the highest bidder who had submitted the bid pursuant to the said bid advertisement was disqualified as having withdrawn his bid on the ground that there was a typographical error in his bid documents. Petitioner was the second highest bidder, however, the authorities by the order dated 02.04.2025 decided to cancel the bid and invite fresh bids.

8. Clause 11 of the bid document conferred an unfettered right on the authority to cancel the tender process without assigning any reason. The authorities issued a fresh advertisement inviting fresh bids and admittedly, the bid now received is higher than the price offered by the petitioner. Petitioner also failed to participate in the said process. Consequently, the decision of the authority in canceling the bid appears to be reasonable as the authority has now got an offer higher than the offer given by the petitioner pursuant to the 1st advertisement.

9. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Orchid Infrastructure Developers Private Limited, (2017) 4 SCC 243 wherein the Supreme Court considering the cancellation of a bid of the higher bidder has inter alia held as under:

"13. It is a settled law that the highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. The Government or its authority could validly retain power to accept or reject the highest bid in the interest of public revenue. We are of the considered opinion that there was no right acquired and no vested right accrued in favour of the plaintiff merely because his bid amount was highest and had deposited 10% of the bid amount.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2025/WP/22902/WP_22902_2025_FinalOrder_08-08-2025.pdf)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.