Dismissed¶50

Raj Kumar Saini v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC23 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/3112/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Earnest money forfeiture on withdrawal of tender; bid validity period of 75 days; Clauses 21 and 32 of tender document; Notice Inviting Tender (NIT); PWD horticulture maintenance tenders; withdrawal within seven days - 50% forfeiture; judicial review of government contracts limited to decision-making process; arbitrariness and fundamental rights; Tata Cellular v Union of India (1994) 4 SCC 651; Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517; W.P.(C) 3112/2025; Delhi High Court; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner admittedly withdrew its bids on 30.08.2024, i.e., three days from opening of bids, the withdrawal squarely attracted the tender-condition consequence of forfeiture of 50% of the deposited money. ¶37

Raj Kumar Saini Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's withdrawal of its bids on the ground that incorrect rates had been quoted attracts the consequence of forfeiture of 50% of the earnest money deposited pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT').

¶20

Court's answer

¶37

Ratio / Principle

Having accepted the terms and conditions subject to which the tender was liable to be dealt with, the petitioner was not entitled to withdraw the bid till the period of its validity; withdrawal during the validity period entails forfeiture of 50% of the deposit.

¶48

Key takeaways

A bidder who participated in the tender process with open eyes cannot be permitted to avoid the consequence expressly stipulated in the tender document.ratio¶49
Judicial review of the exercise of contractual powers by government bodies is confined to reviewing the decision-making process, not the merits; absent a clear case of arbitrariness, mala fides or irrationality, equity and natural justice may stay at a distance in essentially commercial tender evaluation.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.) dismissed a writ petition filed by a horticulture contractor who withdrew his bids three days after the opening of four PWD tenders (floated 27.08.2024) on the ground of incorrectly quoted rates. Under Clauses 21 and 32 of the tender document, bids were to remain open for acceptance for 75 days from the opening of the technical bid; withdrawal within seven days permitted forfeiture of 50% of the earnest money, and after seven days, 100%. The Court held that a bidder who accepted the tender terms and participated 'with open eyes' must bear the consequence expressly stipulated when withdrawing during the bid-validity period. Relying on Tata Cellular v Union of India and Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa, the Court noted that judicial review of governmental contractual powers is limited to the decision-making process, and finding nothing arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights in the forfeiture of 50% of the earnest money, declined interference.

¶1

$~61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3112/2025

¶4

Date of decision: 23.04.2026 .

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF:- RAJ KUMAR SAINI .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Apurva Upmanyu and Ms. Aparna Vishal, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents

¶9

Through: Mr.Tushar Sannu and Mr. Parvin Bansal, Advocates.

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶12

J U D G E M E N T

¶13

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner is a contractor engaged in the horticulture business. The petitioner had submitted bids on four tenders floated by respondent no.2/PWD on 27.08.2024, for the comprehensive maintenance and development of dense horticulture work in East Road Sub Division-I, II, III and IV (Civil), under Hort. Sub-division East Horticulture division.

¶15

The petitioner then withdrew his bids three days after the tenders were floated i.e. on 30.08.2024. Resultantly, 50% of earnest money deposited was forfeited.

¶16

The short issue that arises for the consideration in the present petition is whether the petitioner’s withdrawal of its bids, on the ground that

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:05.05.2026 19:42:33

¶19

Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶20

incorrect rates had been quoted would attract the consequence of forfeiture of 50% of the earnest money deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender (‘NIT’).

¶21

It is not disputed that the technical bids were opened on 27.08.2024, and that the petitioner withdrew its bids on 30.08.2024. The bids herein had to remain open for acceptance for a period of 75 days, from the date of opening of the technical bid. The tender conditions further prescribe that if any tenderer withdraws the tender or makes any modification in the terms and conditions of the tender within in seven days from opening of the bid, the government would be at liberty to forfeit 50% of the earnest money deposited. If such withdrawal is made after seven days, the consequence prescribed is forfeiture of 100% of the earnest money deposited.

¶22

The relevant clauses i.e. Clause 21 and 32 of the tendered document are extracted as under:-

¶23

“Clause 21

¶24

21. The bid for the work shall remain open for acceptance for a period of 75 (Seventy Five) days, from the date of opening of the technical bid.

¶25

(i) If any tenderer with draws his tenders or makes any modification in the terms and conditions of the tender which is not acceptable to the department in within 7 days after opening of tender (excluding date of opening of tender) then the Government shall without prejudice to any other right or remedy, be at liberty to forfeit 50% of the earnest money absolutely.

¶26

(ii) After 7 days of opening of tender the Government shall without prejudice to any other right or remedy, be at liberty to forfeit 100% of the earnest money absolutely.

¶27

(iii) The bidders shall not be allowed to participate in the rebidding process of the work.

¶28

Clause 32

¶29

'32. The bid for the work shall remain open for acceptance for a period of 75 (Seventy-Five) days, from the date of opening of the technical bid. - 1(i) If any tenderer with draws his tenders or makes any modifications

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:05.05.2026 19:42:33

¶34

in the terms & condition of the tender which is not acceptable to the department in within 7 days after opening of tender (excluding date of opening of tender) then the government shall without prejudice to any other right or remedy, be at liberty to forfeit 50% of the earnest money absolutely.

¶35

(ii) After 7 days of opening of tender the Government shall without prejudice to any other right or remedy, be at liberty to forfeit 100% of the earnest money absolutely.

¶36

(iii) The bidders shall not be allowed to participate in the rebidding process of the work.”

¶37

In the instant case, the petitioner admittedly withdrew its bids on 30.08.2024, i.e., 3 days from opening of bids. The withdrawal, therefore squarely attracted the consequence under the tender conditions for forfeiture of 50% of the deposited money.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the communication dated 0.6.09.2024 and the response submitted thereto, to contend that the petitioner’s case ought not to have been treated as a one of withdrawal simpliciter.

¶39

This Court has perused the material on record, and the submissions herein. However, it is to be noted that, while exercising judicial review on the exercise of a contractual powers by the government bodies, Courts are to be mindful of the inherent limitations in the exercise of that power as laid down by the Supreme Court through a number of judgements, including that of Tata Cellular v Union of India¹

¶40

Evaluation of tenders and awarding of contracts are essentially commercial in nature. In the absence of a clear case of arbitrariness, mala fides, or irrationality, the principles of equity, and natural justice may stay at a distance² . The judicial quest in such administrative matters ought to be

¶41

1 (1994) 4 SCC 651

¶42

2 Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa,(2007) 14 SCC 517, para 22

¶43

Signature Not Verified

¶44

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:05.05.2026 19:42:33

¶47

limited to a review of the decision making process itself, and not the merits on which the decision is being made ( Supra) . That being said, this Court is unable to accept the submission made by the counsel, placing reliance on the communication dated 06.09.2024, and the reply thereto.

¶48

It is a clear case where the petitioners had accepted the terms and conditions subject to which the tender was liable to be dealt with. The petitioners were, therefore not entitled to withdraw the bid till the period of its validity. The petitioners having withdrawn the bid on 30.08.2024, during the validity of bid, would have to bear the necessary consequence, which is forfeiture of 50% of the deposit.

¶49

The petitioner, having participated in the tender process with open eyes, cannot be permitted to avoid the consequence expressly stipulated in the tender document.

¶50

The Court does not find that the decision of the respondents is arbitrary or otherwise violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners. Thus, no interference is called for in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.

¶51

(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV) JUDGE

¶52

APRIL 23, 2026 Nc

¶53

Signature Not Verified

¶54

Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KA URAV

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA Signing Date:05.05.2026 19:42:33

Raj Kumar Saini v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Saini v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Dr. Raman Mahindra Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Naresh Khorwal Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Rashtriya Nirbal Uthan Sansthan and Anr. Vs State of N.C.T of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Modern Convent School Vs Yogender Kumar

M/S Kashish Overseas Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Cgst & Anr.

Shweta Sawhney Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Krishan Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Office of the Lt.Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Ram Nath Singh President Rwa (North) and Ors. Vs the Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs Directorate of Enforcement through Its Deputy Director Gurgaon Zonal Office & Anr.

Indian National Trade Union Congress Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajarshi Goswami Vs Union of India & Anr.

Pawan Bhimsaria Vs Cpio Union Bank of India Kolkata