Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 13 November 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – State of Mizoram (including its General Administration Department, GAD); Respondent – Excel Vincom Private Limited (the successful bidder) and an associate.
  • Property: Plot at 24, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Ballygunge, Kolkata‑700019, purchased by the Government of Mizoram in 1973 and used as a guest house until demolition in 2020.
  • Tender Process: On 26 May 2023 GAD floated an e‑tender‑cum‑e‑auction (Tender ID: 2023‑SGAD‑374‑1). Excel Vincom emerged as the highest bidder. A sale agreement (unregistered) was executed on 6 Oct 2023.
  • Payments: The bidder deposited the full consideration of Rs 38,29,91,994 (after TDS of Rs 41,94,666). Payment milestones included Rs 18,98,82,000 via RTGS on 31 Oct 2023 and the balance with penal interest of 1% per month (Rs 35,86,660) on 7 Dec 2023.
  • Political Change: General elections in Mizoram were held in Oct 2023; a new government assumed office on 8 Dec 2023.
  • Public Protest: Kolkata‑based Mizo student and welfare groups submitted representations on 22 Dec and 27 Dec 2023, claiming the land had heritage value and should not be sold.
  • Cancellation: GAD issued a notification on 4 Jan 2024 (circulated 5 Jan) cancelling the tender under Clause 3.1.11, Clause 5.5 and Clause 6.2, stating the sale was against the “general interest of the public”. The earnest money was to be refunded, with no liability for compensation.
  • Lower Court Order: On 2 Apr 2024 a Single Judge allowed WPA No. 1344 of 2024, set aside the cancellation, and directed the State to execute the sale deed within six weeks.
  • Appeal Arguments (Appellant): Asserted lack of Council of Ministers’ approval, non‑compliance with Rule 309 of GFR 2017, that the agreement was only an “agreement to agree”, reliance on promissory estoppel being inapplicable, and that the arbitration clause barred the writ petition.
  • Appeal Arguments (Respondent): Emphasised that the bid had been accepted (Letter of Intent dated 4 Aug 2023), that full payment had been made, that the only pending step was execution of the conveyance, and that the State’s power to cancel under Clause 3.1.11 could not be exercised arbitrarily.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • The 2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act removed the discretion to deny specific performance where equity demands it; thus, the State must show a very strong public‑interest ground.
  • Clause 5.5 and Clause 5.6 do not confer ownership, but receipt of full payment, execution of the sale agreement and preparation of a draft conveyance created a vested equitable right for the bidder.
  • Promissory estoppel applied, turning the contractual promise into enforceable rights.
  • The cancellation was not justified by any “overwhelming” public interest; the two letters from civil society did not meet that threshold.
  • The presumption of regularity under Section 114 of the Evidence Act stands; no evidence disproved the regularity of the tender.
  • The State’s power under Clause 3.1.11 is not absolute; it cannot be used arbitrarily or in a manner that defeats a settled contractual right.
  • The court rejected the argument that the arbitration clause barred the writ, noting that a writ under Article 226 remains discretionary and can be entertained even where alternative remedies exist.
  • Final Outcome: The appellate court dismissed the appeal, upheld the Single Judge’s order, and extended the time for execution of the sale deed by eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

Final Outcome

  • Appeal dismissed; the State of Mizoram must execute the sale deed for the Kolkata land in favour of Excel Vincom Private Limited.
  • Deadline for execution extended by eight weeks from 13 Nov 2026.

Topics: Government Procurement, Contract Law