IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 391 OF 2008 M/S. JEE MULTI SERVICES AGENCY ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Zeller D'souza, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Ms. R. Chodankar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 7th August, 2008 P.C. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 18.6.2008 addressed to the petitioner by respondent No.2. The communication states that the tender documents have been rejected invoking item No.6 of the general terms and conditions of the tender documents and the earnest money deposit is returned. 2. It is undisputed before us that the petitioner had submitted his bid in pursuance of a notice issued by the Director, Directorate of Social Welfare, Government of Goa. The tender notice was published in the daily newspapers. The tender notice states that the concerned Directorate is inviting bids from interested parties for verification of beneficiaries under the Dayanand Social Security Scheme. The scheme is to be implemented all over Goa. The detailed tender documents were also forwarded. General terms and conditions clearly stipulate that the Director of Social Welfare, Panaji-Goa reserves the right to accept or reject any or all tenders/offers without assigning any reason. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that his bid satisfied all the conditions, including the eligibility criteria. Along with the petitioner, R.M.P's Centre for Development, Planning and Research has also put in its bid. They were also found to be eligible. But the petitioner's bid was the lowest. The petitioner quoted a rate of Rs.33.20 per beneficiary and the said R.M.P's Centre for Development, Planning and Research quoted Rs.40/- per beneficiary. 4. Inspite of the tender/bid of the petitioner being lowest, the petitioner was not awarded the tender and ultimately, it learnt by obtaining requisite information from the Authorities under the Right to Information Act that, there is going to be a retender of the scheme, thereby the petitioner being denied its right to be awarded with the contract. The grievance is that the petitoner has a legitimate expectation of the contract being awarded to it since the bid is lowest and satisfies the requisite criteria. 5. The only argument canvassed by the petitioner's counsel is that while there is a right to reject the tender, the State cannot act arbitrarily and defeat the legitimate expectation. All actions of the State, in matters of contract, have to be fair and reasonable and must meet the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. On this petition, notice was issued and an affidavit has now been filed. The affidavit is by the Director, Directorate of Social Welfare, Government of Goa. He has fairly stated in the affidavit that in response to the tender notice, 4 forms were sold, out of which 3 parties applied for the said tender work. The affidavit states that upon opening the technical bid, only two tenderers were qualified, namely R.M.P's Centre for Development, Planning and Research and the petitioner. It is clearly stated further that the petitioner quoted Rs.33.20 per beneficiary in the financial bid. The first Tenderer made a representation to the respondent that in the past their organization has conducted survey and that they are ready to negotiate the rates. They also requested to bifurcate the beneficiaries Districtwise and and allot the survey work of any one District to them at par with the lowest rates quoted by the petitioner. Hence, the files were moved and the representation was put up to all the Authorities for their views and comments and finally decision was taken to retender after taking proper rate analysis and by exploring other options. 7. Further, in para 13 of the affidavit in reply, the reasons are set out with regard to the Financial estimates which ultimately led to the decision as above being taken. All allegations regarding illegality and arbitrariness, so also unreasonableness have been specifically denied. 8. The petitioner does not dispute the right and power of the Authorities to reject the tender. The clause in that behalf has not been challenged. The petitioner has not alleged malafides either. The petitioner has also annexed to the petition the information collected by it under the RTI Act. From a perusal thereof, it does not appear to us that the Authorities have acted unreasonably, unfairly or arbitrarily in the matter pertaining to the representation made by the other bidder and its highlighting the fact that they had earlier conducted the work of survey of this scheme. The Authorities have decided to explore all options, including negotiations. The petitioner has not stated that any negotiations were held or that the negotiations came to be concluded in its absence. File notings have been perused by us with the assistance of the Counsel appearing for the petitoner. We do not find any merit in the contention that the decision to reject the bids was taken without any application of mind or that no reasons are assigned. The same has not been taken only to deprive the Petitioner from being awarded the contract. The Authorities can always take a decision to divide and bifurcate the work depending upon fund position. That is how they decided to take fresh estimates and commence the process again. 8 It is settled law that the State can take decision to reject all tenders and that power is reserved in the Authorities. Merely because such a power is reserved in the Authorities, does not mean that they will act arbitrarily or unreasonably and unfairly. In the matters of commercial nature, reasons can be gathered from the record. From the record, which is placed before us, it is apparent that the Director took the final decision based upon financial estimates and in the public interest. In such circumstances, merely because the petitoner submitted its bid, does not mean that it has a right to be awarded the contract. Such a right does not necessarily flow from acceptance of the bid, is an undisputed position. 9. In the absence of specific allegations and without even the other bidder having been made party to the petition, we do not find this to be a fit case for our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, summarily, dismissed. However, dismissal of this petition will not prevent the petitioner from submitting its bid in case the tender process is again initiated. Rejection of the petition shall not mean that the petitioner's bid must not be considered by the Authorities. All pleas, as far as retendering process is concerned, are kept open. No order as to costs. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R.C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.