THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.23516 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not confirming the tender of the petitioner vide its Proceedings Lr.No.12684/EMC/MC/H/05, dated 27.07.2011, as illegal and arbitrary; and consequently, direct the respondent authorities to confirm the tender of the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that in pursuance of a notification calling for tenders for grant of licenses for vehicle parking stand at Maitrivanam and Swarna Jayanthi Commercial Complexes, the petitioner made an application and he quoted the amount of Rs.1,52,400/-. The upset price fixed by the respondent authorities is at Rs.1,50,000/-. Thereafter, the present impugned letter has been passed by respondent No.2 asking the petitioner to take back the demand draft paid towards E.M.D. and no reasons were assigned in the letter. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The respondents filed a detailed counter denying the allegations in the writ petition and stated that the tender submitted by the petitioner was not confirmed, as there was lack of response from the other tenderers due to the bandh called on Telangana issue and the same was informed to the petitioner vide letter, dated 27.07.2011, with a request to collect the demand draft paid towards E.M.D; that when the tenders were opened, out of the four tenderers, the petitioner has submitted the highest tender; that they received three representations from Sri Venkata Shiva Sai Enterprises, Smt P.Uma Rani and Sri V.B.Narsimha Rao stating that they have not participated in the sealed tender process due to forty eight hours Telangana bandh i.e., on 05.07.2011 and 06.07.2011; that one of the terms and conditions of the auction broucher is that the auction officer shall have right to accept or reject any bid/tender without assigning any reason and no grievance thereof would be entertained and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the same and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner submitted a bid amount, which is the highest, but he is not given the license for vehicle parking in terms of the tender notification; that respondent No.2 acted arbitrarily in passing the impugned order and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the tender of the petitioner has not been accepted after assigning reasons because several persons have not participated in the process of tenders for the reason that 05.07.2011 and 06.07.2011 happened to be Telangana Bandh and therefore, the respondents are going to issue a fresh tender notification for the same purpose and the petitioner can as well participate in the tender process; and hence, he prays to sustain the impugned order. 6. No doubt, a tender cannot be cancelled arbitrarily. There must be some bona fides on the part of the respondents in not acting upon the tender notification issued by them. If there are malafides attributable to the respondents or acting in arbitrary manner, then, certainly, it can be a ground to interfere with the action of the respondents. The reason given for not allotting the tender to the petitioner was that several persons made representations to the respondents for the reason that due to Telangana Bandh on 05.07.2011 and 06.07.2011, they could not obtain the demand drafts and therefore, they are willing to quote higher amounts. On both days, the banks were closed disabling the persons to obtain demand drafts and to participate in the process of tender. Therefore, by sufficient and cogent reasons, the tender of the petitioner has not been accepted. The respondents are going to issue a fresh tender notification for the same purpose. The petitioner, if so advised, can as well participate in the process of tender. When there is no arbitrary or illegal action or violation of any right of the petitioner, the question of issuing mandamus to the respondents does not arise. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 27th October, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.23516 OF 2011 Date: 27.10.2011 AMD