Authority: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital

Order Date: 24 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s Babaji Advertising Agency, a proprietorship firm classified as an MSME.
  • Respondents: Union of India and others, including the Cantonment Board, Nainital.
  • Nature of Proceeding: Writ Petition (M/B) No.714 of 2026 challenging the auction notice dated 22‑08‑2026 issued on the GeM portal for the establishment of 6 Unipoles and 50 Poles for advertisement within Nainital Cantt.
  • Background: The petitioner initially participated in an online tender process issued on 03‑07‑2026 (Cantonment Board notice) offering ₹16,95,660 for one year (₹50,86,980 for three years). The bid was rejected because the GeM portal did not display the petitioner as an MSME. The petitioner filed WPMB No.662 of 2026; the original tender was later cancelled as infructuous on 13‑08‑2026.
  • Subsequent Tender: A new tender notice was posted on 24‑08‑2026 with a bid submission window of three days (22‑08‑2026 14:00 hrs to 24‑08‑2026 12:00 hrs). The petitioner argued that this period was insufficient, especially as 22‑08‑2026 was a Saturday and 23‑08‑2026 a Sunday (bank holiday), violating Rule 161(ii) & (vi) of the General Financial Rules, 2017 which prescribe a minimum of three weeks for bid submission.
  • Key Allegations: Violation of GFR 2017 timing provisions; rejection of MSME status on GeM; insufficient time to submit Earnest Money Deposit (EMD).
  • Court Proceedings: On 09‑09‑2026, the Court directed respondent No.4 (Cantonment Board) to obtain clear instructions on the timing issue. Subsequent hearings on 15‑09‑2026 and 17‑09‑2026 examined the bid amounts (previous bid ₹16,95,660/yr, ₹50,86,980/3 yrs; current H‑1 bid ₹10,00,000) and the petitioner’s willingness to offer >₹50 lakhs.
  • Security Deposit: The Court ordered the petitioner to deposit ₹25,00,000 before the Registrar General, High Court, by 22‑09‑2026 to demonstrate bonafide intent. The deposit would remain in escrow until the fresh tender process is finalized.

Final Outcome

  • The tender notice dated 22‑08‑2026 is quashed.
  • The Cantonment Board is directed to re‑tender the work after cancelling the present process.
  • Both the petitioner and the private respondent (successful bidder Shri Govind Singh Bisht) are free to submit bids in the fresh tender.
  • The ₹25 lakh deposit remains in court custody until the fresh tender concludes; it will be returned if the petitioner submits a technically responsive bid exceeding ₹50 lakh, otherwise it will be forfeited to the Cantonment Board.
  • The Cantonment Board is instructed to complete the re‑tendering process expeditiously.
  • The writ petition is disposed of.

Topics: Procurement, Legal