Authority: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu

Order Date: 21.08.2026 (Reserved on 11.08.2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – M/s Dinesh Kumar Sharma Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (th. Harsh Kumar Sharma); Respondents – Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and others (Public Works (R&B) Department, JKRRDA, etc.).
  • Tender Details: e‑NIT No. CEJ/PMGSY/792 of 2025‑26 dated 30.07.2025 for construction and maintenance of a 21.300 km road (L135‑Link Road Dhyangarh to Dharan) using waste plastic, Package No. JK20‑4210, PMGSY‑IV, Batch‑I, Block‑Thakrakote, District Reasi.
  • Bid Evaluation: Petitioner submitted complete technical and financial bids and was declared responsive in the Technical Evaluation Report dated 17.11.2025. Competing bidder Vikesh Kumar was declared non‑responsive for failing to upload the Income Tax Return for FY 2023‑24 as required by clauses 4.2(III), 4.4(a)(III) and 12.2(b)(III) of the Standard Bidding Document (SBD).
  • Litigation by Vikesh Kumar: Vikesh Kumar filed writ petition WP(C) 3258/2025 challenging the technical evaluation; interim relief was granted on 19.11.2025. Respondents issued a revised technical summary (No. CEJ/PMGSY/20590 dated 10.12.2025) declaring Vikesh Kumar as L‑1. Vikesh Kumar later withdrew the prayer part of his petition on 31.01.2026 and the writ petition was fully withdrawn on 29.05.2026.
  • Communication dated 16.03.2026: The Public Works (R&B) Department clarified that there was no legal impediment to finalising the tender; after Vikesh Kumar’s disqualification, the petitioner became the L‑1 bidder and was eligible for award.
  • Subsequent Action by Respondents: Despite the clarification, the authorities cancelled the original e‑NIT and issued a fresh e‑NIT dated 20.07.2026. A corrigendum dated 16.07.2026 recorded the cancellation of the earlier e‑NIT.
  • Grounds for Cancellation: The Contract Committee, chaired by the Engineer‑in‑Chief (Secretary Technical), noted a price differential of ₹6,05,12,020 between the petitioner’s bid and Vikesh Kumar’s bid. Citing the large financial impact on the State exchequer, the Committee unanimously resolved to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders.
  • Legal Arguments: The petitioner argued that, as the L‑1 bidder, it was entitled to award and that the cancellation was arbitrary, mala fide and violative of Article 14. The respondents contended that the cancellation was a bona‑fide decision under clauses 27 and 28 of the SBD, which reserve the employer’s absolute right to accept, reject or cancel any bid without liability.
  • Judicial Precedents Cited: The judgment referenced several Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including West Bengal Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. (2001), Shanti Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Odisha (2025), Rachna Construction Co. v. State of MP (2020), Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Orchid Infrastructure Developers (2017), Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2006), and Air India Ltd v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000), among others, to establish that the lowest bidder has no vested right and that the employer may cancel a tender for cogent reasons.
  • Clause Analysis: Clause 27 of the SBD outlines the award criteria (lowest responsive bid), while Clause 28 expressly reserves the employer’s right to cancel the bidding process at any time, overriding Clause 27.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed the writ petition WP(C) 2355/2026, holding that the petitioner had no indefeasible right to the contract despite being the L‑1 bidder and that the employer’s cancellation under Clause 28 was lawful.
  • The parallel writ WP(C) 2426/2026, raising identical issues, was also dismissed.
  • Consequently, the original e‑NIT dated 30.07.2025 remains cancelled, and the fresh e‑NIT dated 20.07.2026 stands as the valid tender invitation.

Topics: Tender Cancellation, Public Procurement, Judicial Review