JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. We have heard learned counsels, and proceed to dispose of the Writ Petition, since counter affidavit has already been filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition to assail the order dated 11.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 3, i.e. the Superintending Engineer, 9th Circle, Public Works Department, Dehradun, whereby the Superintending Engineer cancelled the Tender ID No. 2023_pwd_58405_1, which was opened on 12.06.2023, for “unavoidable reasons”. The petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender invited by the respondents for the work, namely “Under One Time Maintenance Head, the Maintenance Work of Kyarapul Damta to Kota Mudha Motor Road”. The tender was initiated on 08.05.2023, and the last date for submission of the bids, and for opening of the bids, was fixed as 12.06.2023. The bids were invited through the e-tendering process, and the bidders were also required to submit their bids physically by the last date of submission, i.e. 12.06.2023 by 03:00 P.M. The bids were opened immediately thereafter. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner emerged as the lowest bidder upon opening of the tender. On 14.06.2023, the respondents also required the petitioner to submit a clarification, which communication reads as follows :- ^^mijksDr fo"k;d lUnfHkZr i= ds Øe esa voxr djokuk gS fd fnukad 12-06-2023 dks mijksDr dk;Z dh Financial Bid [kksyh xÃ ftlesa vkidh fufonk çFke U;wure ikÃ xÃ gSA bl dk;Z dh BOQ ds en la[;k 2 esa Unit esa =qfVoa'k Cum dh txg Rmt gks x;k Fkk] ;fn vki en la[;k 2 esa? "Cum" Unit ls dk;Z djus dks lger gS rks i= ds ek/;e ls viuh lgefr foHkkx dks çsf"kr djuk lqfu'kfpr djs] rkfd fufonk fuLrkj.k dh vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsaA** 3. The petitioner provided the clarification on the same day, as desired. Thereafter, the respondents have issued the impugned communication. 4. Upon service of notice, requiring the respondents to explain their said conduct, they have filed their counter affidavit. The stand of the respondents, in their counter affidavit, is that a total of 120 online bids were received for the work in question. However, only 09 physical bids were submitted by the bidders up till 03:00 P.M. on 12.06.2023. 4. Upon service of notice, requiring the respondents to explain their said conduct, they have filed their counter affidavit. The stand of the respondents, in their counter affidavit, is that a total of 120 online bids were received for the work in question. However, only 09 physical bids were submitted by the bidders up till 03:00 P.M. on 12.06.2023. In relation to another work, namely “One time Anurakshan Maintenance Work Radu Mundhol Motor Road”, for which e-bids were also invited, up till 12.06.2023, 03:00 P.M., 107 e-bids were received, and 14 physical bids were received. The stand of the respondents is that on 12.06.2023, 09 bidders, who had submitted their e-bids in response to the tender in question, made a complaint that some persons prevented them from submitting their physical bids, when they sought to do so on 12.06.2023. The stand of the respondents is that, in the light of the said complaints, the order was issued by respondent no. 3, cancelling the tendering process for “unavoidable reasons”. 5. Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the said complaint, which is annexed as Annexure No. CA-3 along with the counter affidavit, is completely vague. It does not name any person, or describe any person, who physically obstructed the complainants from submitting their bids. No complaint to Police was made by any of the said bidders contemporaneously by calling Dial 100 Number. No officer of the respondents was contacted for that purpose on the same day, on real time basis. He submits that the office of the respondents, where the bid was to be submitted, is situated in Dehradun, and if the complaint of the said 09 bidders is to be believed, it would follow that in broad daylight, the said 09 bidders were prevented from submitting their bids by some unknown persons. Even the number of such persons is not named. It is not explained, as to how 09 bidders, including the petitioner, were able to submit the physical copies of their bids. It is also argued that if the complaint of these complainants were to be ignored, there were still 102 bidders, who had submitted their e-bids, and had not submitted their physical bids by 03:00 P.M. on 12.06.2023, who did not raise a grievance like the 09 bidders, who made the complaint. 6. It is also argued that if the complaint of these complainants were to be ignored, there were still 102 bidders, who had submitted their e-bids, and had not submitted their physical bids by 03:00 P.M. on 12.06.2023, who did not raise a grievance like the 09 bidders, who made the complaint. 6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents proceeded to cancel the tender in question, without undertaking any inquiry whatsoever, and without identifying any person, who may have allegedly obstructed the 09 complainants from submitting their physical bids. He further submits that if this modus operandi of the complainants were allowed to succeed, and if this becomes the norm, it would become practically impossible for any tender to proceed, as any bidder, or even a non-bidder, may file a complaint of being prevented from submitting the bid, by making a vague and unsubstantiated complaint. Mr. Kothari submits that the cancellation of the tender, after opening of the bids is mindless, unreasonable, and arbitrary. The fact that the respondents proceeded to open the bids, shows that sufficient number of bids had been received, and there was healthy competition. 7. On the other hand, the submission of Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh - learned Additional Advocate General for the State, is that the cancellation of the tender has been undertaken for good reasons, on the basis of the complaint received by the respondents. He submits that it is only 09 out of 120 bidders - who had submitted their e-bids, who were able to submit their physical bids, and this probabilizes the complaint made, and grievance raised by the said 09 bidders. 8. We have considered these submissions of the parties, and examined the records. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Kothari that, merely because some of the bidders (09 of them), made a complaint that they were not able to submit their physical bids, on being obstructed physically by some unknown persons, the tendering process could not have been cancelled, particularly, when there was absolutely no substantiation of the said complaint, and no inquiry whatsoever was conducted by the respondents, before taking the decision to cancel the tendering process. The complaint is vague, inasmuch as, it neither names any person, or describe anyone, who may have caused such alleged obstruction. The complaint is vague, inasmuch as, it neither names any person, or describe anyone, who may have caused such alleged obstruction. The number of such persons; the place where the obstruction took place, and; the manner of such obstruction, are not disclosed. The complaint appears to be as vague, as could be. The police was not called, and no officer of the respondents was contacted, who may have been manning the office, where the bids were required to be submitted. It is not explained, as to how 09 bidders were actually allowed to submit their bids in respect of the tender in question, and how in respect of another tender, out of 107 bidders, who had submitted their e-bids, 14 physical bids were permitted to be submitted. The complainants do not even name any person, who may have been behind the alleged obstruction. It is not that such a complaint was supported by any statement by any officer of the respondents, who was posted in the office, where the bids were being received. It is not explained, as to why only 09 complainants submitted the complaint, when a total of 120 e-bids were received. Even if the 09 bidders, who had submitted their physical bids, and the 09 bidders, who had submitted their complaints, were to be excluded, that would still leave 102 bidders, who had submitted their e-bids, but not submitted their physical bids, and it is not explained as to why such a large number of bidders, or a majority of them, had not made a similar complaint. 9. The submission of Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, that only 09 bidders had submitted their physical bids out of 120, and this fact probabilizes the complaint, has no merit, since a vast majority of the bidders, who had submitted their e-bids, did not similarly complain to the respondents. It could well be, that the said bidders after submitting their online bids, may have subsequently decided not to proceed with their participation. 10. We also find merit in the submission of Mr. Kothari that if this modus operandi - adopted by the 09 complainant-bidders, were to be allowed to succeed, without there being any credible material to substantiate such a complaint, it would become very easy for any person to scuttle the tendering process, which is undertaken with a lot of prior preparation and expense. 11. Kothari that if this modus operandi - adopted by the 09 complainant-bidders, were to be allowed to succeed, without there being any credible material to substantiate such a complaint, it would become very easy for any person to scuttle the tendering process, which is undertaken with a lot of prior preparation and expense. 11. The works in question are time-sensitive in nature. They have to be executed on time, and public interest demands that such works are not delayed. The whole tendering process has been cancelled, which would mean that the respondents would have to reinitiate the same. No one can guarantee that a similar complaint would not be received in respect of the same, or other tenders in future. The approach adopted by the respondent-authorities would be completely destructive of the tendering process, and ensure that it never succeeds, if this yardstick were to be adopted by them. We could have appreciated if the complaints were substantiated, or there was any other cogent material to probabilize the truth of the same. However, there is none at all in the present case. The impugned decision taken by the respondents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is completely baseless, mindless and arbitrary and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 12. We, accordingly, quash the impugned Office Memorandum dated 11.07.2023 issued by the respondents. The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms, with costs quantified at Rs.20,000/- to be paid by the respondents. 13. Consequently, pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.

Kishan Datt Sharma v. State of Uttarakhand