Where a Notice Inviting Tender empowers the authority to accept or reject any or all bids, can a bidder insist on further negotiation of his bid?

No. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids, and no bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided. Condition No. 6 of the NIT empowered the authority to accept or reject any or all bids.

Judicial review of tender process — Notice Inviting Tender — Highest bidder — No vested right — Concluded contract — Cancellation of bid — Fair treatment — Freedom of contract — Judicial review of tender — Highest bidder — no vested right without allotment letter — Held: The highest bidder has no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour; in the absence of an allotment letter and acceptance of the highest bid there is no concluded contract, and no relief could have been granted. (¶12, 14) Judicial review of tender — Annulment of tender — no interference absent mala fide exercise of power — Held further: While exercising the power of judicial review the Court does not sit as an appellate Court over the decision of the government but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; absent mala fide exercise of power, the Tender Committee's decision stands. (¶13) Judicial review of tender — Writ court fixing base price — beyond the function of the High Court — Held further: A writ court cannot fix the base price or modify the offer and direct allotment; that virtually amounts to confirmation of the auction in favour of the bidder, which is not the function of the High Court. (¶13, 14) Judicial review of tender — Bidder's rights — fair treatment, no further negotiation — Held further: A bidder has no right in the matter of bid except of fair treatment and cannot insist for further negotiation; where the bid was rejected for valid and cogent reasons the interference was unwarranted. Appeal allowed. (¶14, 17)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of INDORE VIKAS PRAADHIKARAN (IDA) & ANR v. SHRI HUMUD JAIN SAMAJ TRUST & ANR — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India