The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a construction firm that challenged the cancellation of e-tenders for internal development works in two Agra Development Authority townships. The bench, comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh, ruled that the firm’s experience in building and maintaining roads was not equivalent to the specialized work required for township infrastructure, such as laying sewerage pipes and drainage systems.
According to LiveLaw, the Agra Development Authority had floated e-tenders for internal development in Sindhupuram and Yamunapuram. The petitioner, a construction firm, was initially shown as technically qualified when technical bids were opened on April 23, 2026. Two days later, the Authority cancelled both tenders citing unforeseen circumstances and issued fresh notices. The petitioner argued that the Authority had improperly viewed financial bids early to favor specific contractors, leading to the cancellation of its qualification.
The court examined the cancellation order and found it lacked specific reasoning, relying only on the phrase "unforeseen circumstances" without defining them in the tender notice. Citing the precedent of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, the bench held that the missing reasoning could not be supplied later by affidavit, making the cancellation order arbitrary. However, upon reviewing the original records, the court found that the technical evaluation committee had noted the petitioner's work was of lesser value and not of a similar nature to the project demands.
The petitioner’s experience certificate highlighted the widening and strengthening of the Hathras Jalesar road, but lacked evidence of experience with internal township infrastructure. The court noted that since the works had to be completed before plots could be allotted to prospective allottees, specific work experience was an essential condition. Deviating from this requirement would risk substandard living conditions within the township. The bench concluded that the cancellation was neither discriminatory nor mala fide, especially after the Executive Engineer who had initially qualified the petitioner was suspended.
The court also addressed the show cause notice proposing the forfeiture of the petitioner's earnest money. Finding no material to indicate predetermination or a lack of jurisdiction, the bench left the Authority free to proceed in accordance with law. The writ petition was ultimately dismissed, allowing the Authority to continue with the new tender process for the two townships.