Public Tender| Experience Of Building A Road Can't Be Equated With Internal Development Works Of A Township: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that experience of building and maintaining a road cannot be equated with experience of internal development works in a township, and that such experience was an essential condition of the tender from which no deviation was permissible.

The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held

“If the authority were to treat work experience in making a road as equivalent to undertaking internal development works in a Township, then the eligibility condition would be rendered practically meaningless as the specialised nature of work required to develop a Township cannot be equated with that of constructing a road and maintaining it.”

The Agra Development Authority floated e-tenders for internal development works in two of its townships, Sindhupuram (Township-1) and Yamunapuram (Township-4). Petitioner, a construction firm, bid for both and was shown as technically qualified when technical bids were opened on 23.04.2026. Two days later both tenders were cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances, and fresh notices were issued the same day.

Petitioner challenged the cancellation, alleging that the Authority had looked at the financial bids before they were lawfully opened in order to favour chosen contractors. It did not bid afresh, and letters of intent went to respondent nos. 5 and 6.

The Authority's case was that petitioner's name had been wrongly shown as qualified by the Executive Engineer, its bid having in fact been rejected for want of similar work experience, and that the process stood tainted once an ineligible bidder was shown as qualified.

The Court found no reasoning in the cancellation order beyond the phrase used in it, and nothing in the tender notice or the instructions to bidders defining what those unforeseen circumstances could be. Condition 16 made the Vice Chairman's decision on the e-tender unchallengeable in court but gave him no power to reject a tender without reasons.

Relying on Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner and others, the Court held that the missing reasoning could not be supplied by affidavit, and that the cancellation order was arbitrary.

On the original records, however, the Court found that the technical evaluation committee had recorded petitioner's work as not of the similar nature required and of lesser value than the project demanded, and that its name appeared nowhere among the successful bidders. The experience certificate it relied on showed the widening and strengthening of the Hathras Jalesar road, with no experience of laying sewerage pipes or drainage infrastructure.

“Even though we have proceeded to hold that the cancellation order was not substantiated by any reasons and that the reasons could not be provided by means of an affidavit thus holding the cancellation order to be illegal , yet on an examination of the original records, we find that there is substantial justification for cancellation of the entire bid process for both the Townships.”

Noting that the Executive Engineer had since been suspended, the Court held the cancellation to be neither discriminatory nor mala fide. Since the works had to be carried out before plots could be allotted to prospective allottees, work experience was an essential condition, deviation from which would result in substandard living conditions within the township.

The challenge to the show cause notice proposing forfeiture of petitioner's earnest money was also rejected, the Court finding no material to show mala fides, predetermination or patent lack of jurisdiction, and leaving the Authority free to proceed in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.