Writ Petition No.12743 of 2010 12.12.2011 Shri V.K.Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. With consent heard finally. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking relief to quash the Notice Inviting Tender (for short the N.I.T.) dated 07.10.2010 (Annexure P-9) with a direction to the respondent to allow the petitioner to restart the work allotted to him vide work order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-2) in pursuance to the N.I.T. (Annexure P-1) issued in March, 2010. Briefly stated the respondent had issued a N.I.T. (Annexure P-1) in March, 2010 for electrification work as specified in the said N.I.T. In pursuance to the aforesaid N.I.T. the petitioner amongst others submitted his bid. The petitioner's bid being lowest was accepted and a work order was issued by Collector, Ujjain in his favour on 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-2). However, on 06.04.2010 (Annexure P-5) the petitioner was informed to stop the work until further orders. Thereafter, on 07.10.2010 (Annexure P-9) a fresh N.I.T. was issued for the work described in it. Aggrieved the petitioner filed this petition challenging the issuance of the fresh N.I.T. and seeking direction to allow him to work. This Court vide interim order dated 22.10.2010 restrained the respondent from opening the tender received in pursuance to the N.I.T. dated 07.10.2010. On being noticed the respondent filed reply on 26.11.2010 and made a statement that the N.I.T. dated 07.10.2010 has been cancelled by the Collector, Ujjain vide order dated 03.11.2010 (Annexure R-1). A prayer was made through the said reply to dismiss the petition as having been rendered infructuous in view of the order dated 03.11.2010. Thereafter an additional reply was filed by the respondents on 24.03.2011 placing on record an order dated 04.11.2010 (Annexure R-2) by which the work order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-2) issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. It is pertinent to mention that though the cancellation was said to be ordered on 04.11.2010 but no reference of it was made in the reply dated 26.11.2010 and instead it was stated that the petition has rendered infructuous. Be that as it may. Thereafter a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner challenging the said order dated 04.11.2010 by which the work order dated 23.03.2010 was cancelled. On being directed by this Court, a detailed reply of the petition and rejoinder was filed by the respondent placing on record documents to show as to in what circumstances petitioner's work order was cancelled. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record produced by the State regarding acceptance of the tender of the petitioner and its cancellation. On deep scrutiny of the original record, we find that the N.I.T. was issued in March, 2010 and it was duly published. The tenders received were considered and the petitioner's tender being of minimum rate the same was accepted by the respondent. Thereafter work order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-2) was issued in his favour. Thereafter merely on the basis of some complaint by one Ajay Singh Chouhan the work order was stayed and the matter was got examined by the Superintendent Engineer, M.P. Western Region Electricity Distribution Company, Ujjain and the Senior Legal Advisor of the respondent. Both of them after deep scrutiny of the record found that there is no substance in complaint made by Ajay Singh Chouhan. They as also the District Collector suggested not to cancel the petitioner's work order. However, ignoring the recommendations of the various authorities including Collector, it has been ordered by the minister concerned to re-invite the bids. It appears that in the circumstances the petitioner's work order was cancelled. In the entire record, we find no justifiable material on the basis of which the respondent could have cancelled the work order issued in favour of the petitioner and to order for re- invitation of bids. On the other hand the Superintendent Engineer and the Collector had found no illegalities in accepting the petitioner's tender and issuance of work order. In view of the aforesaid, the action of stay of work order, the order of cancellation of work order being arbitrary and illegal are liable to be quashed. We accordingly allow this writ petition and quash the order Annexure R-2 by which the petitioner's tender and the work order has been cancelled and direct the respondent to allow the petitioner to complete the work alloted to him on the basis of the tender (Annexure P-1) vide work order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure P-2). However, it is made clear that the respondent shall be free to proceed on the other tender dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-10) if the work of it is different from the work which is to be performed by the petitioner in pursuance to the tender Annexure P-1 and work order Annexure P-2. With the aforesaid directions, a writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Cc within three days. (Shantanu Kemkar) (Prakash Shrivastava) Judge Judge AM.