Tender rules cannot be changed mid-process; altered allotment through negotiation was quashed and fresh bidding required.

A tender disqualification based on prior experience was found unjustified because the petitioner's textbook publishing experience was relevant and the criminal allegation against his father did not disqualify him. Once the tender terms were changed after bids were received, fairness and transparency required a fresh tender; allotment through negotiations with existing bidders was arbitrary and liable to be quashed. The State's supervisory power could be used to correct an illegal tender decision, but not to approve negotiation-based allotment after altering the rules. Compensation was refused because there was no clear legal entitlement to the contract.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitioner's initial disqualification from the tender process was justified; (ii) whether the tender conditions could be altered after bids had been received and the work allotted through negotiations with existing bidders instead of inviting a fresh tender; (iii) whether the State's supervisory intervention in the tender process was lawful; and (iv) whether compensation could be awarded for the alleged loss of work.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitioner's initial disqualification from the tender process was justified.

Analysis: The eligibility clause concerning prior experience was construed in a practical and purposive manner. Experience of publishing textbooks for the Madrasha Board was held to be relevant and not excluded merely because the named boards in the tender were illustrative. The allegation based on the petitioner's father's criminal case did not establish any disqualifying lack of credibility, since the petitioner himself was not named as an accused and no charge-sheet level material implicated him.

Conclusion: The initial disqualification was unjustified and contrary to the tender conditions.

Issue (ii): Whether the tender conditions could be altered after bids had been received and the work allotted through negotiations with existing bidders instead of inviting a fresh tender.

Analysis: The terms of the tender were altered after the bidding process had begun, including the treatment of royalty as a non-determinative factor. Such a change amounted to changing the rules of the game midway. Once the tender conditions were modified, fairness and transparency required a fresh tender rather than allotment through negotiations among the existing bidders. The allotment made on the altered basis was therefore arbitrary and vitiated by favouritism.

Conclusion: The altered tender process and the consequential work order were unlawful and liable to be quashed.

Issue (iii): Whether the State's supervisory intervention in the tender process was lawful.

Analysis: The State possessed supervisory power under the relevant statute to oversee and, where necessary, interfere with the Council's decisions. Intervention to correct an illegal and unfair tender decision was therefore within jurisdiction. However, directing negotiations with existing bidders after changing the tender terms was not lawful because the proper course was a fresh tender.

Conclusion: The supervisory intervention was lawful to the extent it corrected illegality, but the direction to proceed by negotiations was not in accordance with law.

Issue (iv): Whether compensation could be awarded for the alleged loss of work.

Analysis: Although the tender process was found to be defective, it could not be concluded with certainty that the writ petitioner was legally entitled to the contract itself. In the absence of a clear legal entitlement to allotment, compensatory relief in public law was not warranted.

Conclusion: Compensation was not payable.

Final Conclusion: The work order was rightly set aside, no compensation was granted, and the directions for a fresh tender if the Council required printing through an outside agency were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where tender conditions are altered after bids have been invited, the authority must invite a fresh tender and cannot lawfully proceed by negotiated allotment among existing bidders.

---