State abused its position under a misconceived notion, all its actions, such as award of contracts or tenders, were nothing but a generosity which it could, at its own whims, choose to deny, alter, modify, or take away without any consequences. Law cannot afford to remain static [M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395].

ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553 laid down and approved, relief against a State or its instrumentalities, in matters related to contractual obligations, can be sought under Writ Jurisdiction. See, Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 728 and M.P. Power Management Co. Ltd., Jabalpur v. Sky Power Southeast Solar India Pvt. Ltd., (2023) 2 SCC 703.

Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corporation, (1993) 2 SCC 279 held, an action is bad even without proof of motive of dishonesty, if authority is found to have acted contrary to reason. Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr., (1975) 1 SCC 737 held, those who contract with open eyes must accept burdens of contract along with its benefit. It further held, enforcement of rights and obligations arising out of a contract cannot depend on whether contracting party finds it prudent to abide by it.

A mere possibility of fetching higher license fees was no ground to cancel tender. This is nothing but a classic textbook case of an arbitrary and capricious exercise of powers to cancel tender on basis of extraneous considerations and at behest of concerned Minister-in-Charge.

– Hon’ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer, [Civil Appeal No. 6741 of 2024].

_____

Court in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Engineer, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1682 speaking through Justice Pardiwala for a Three-Judge Bench took note of a number of earlier decisions.

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol, General Manager, Business Network Planning (Retail) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited v. P. Soundarya, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7845 of 2024] decided on 02.05.2025.