Tender cancellation for lack of real competition upheld where only one responsive bid remained and no mala fides were shown.

In judicial review of a government tender, cancellation to invite fresh bids was upheld where the tender conditions departed from the standard documents and only one responsive bid remained after the pre-bid stage. The Court held that, under contractual clauses reserving power to reject bids and cancel the process, the tender authority could act to secure wider competition. Judicial review was limited to whether the decision was vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or collateral purpose. As no mala fides or lack of bona fides was shown, the High Court could not substitute its own view on competition or financial implications, and interference was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the tender committee's decision to cancel the tender and invite fresh tenders on the ground of lack of adequate competition.

Analysis: The tender conditions departed from the approved standard bidding documents, and after the pre-bid stage only three bidders remained, of whom only one was found responsive. The tender committee cancelled the process to secure wider competition and acted within the contractual clauses reserving power to reject bids and cancel the bidding process. In judicial review of government contracts, the Court does not sit in appeal over the administrative decision but examines only whether the decision-making process is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, unreasonableness, or collateral purpose. No mala fide or lack of bona fides was established, and the High Court was not entitled to substitute its own view on the adequacy of competition or on financial implications.

Conclusion: The High Court's interference was unjustified, and the State's decision to cancel the tender and re-invite bids was valid.

Final Conclusion: The tender authority's discretion to reject the bid process for want of real competition was upheld, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In government contracts, a court will interfere with cancellation of tender only if the decision is shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or unreasonable; where only one responsive bid remains and the authority cancels the tender to secure wider competition, the decision is ordinarily valid.

---