WP(C) 3042/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. NC Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. BD Da s, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner, who is an empanelled contractor under the North Lakhimpur Electr ical Circle, APDCL, North Lakhimpur, by the present petition, has challenged the decision of the respondent authority communicated vide communication dated 27.5 .2011 issued by the General Manager, NAZ APDCL, CAZ, Tezpur to initiate a fresh process for awarding contract. The ground on which the said decision has been pu t to challenge is that since the respondent authority issued the short tender no tice on 14.12.2010 for the work in question i.e. electrification under TSP and S CSP scheme pursuant to which the petitioner’s offer against Group B and D having been found to be the lowest was recommended for awarding the contract, the resp ondent authority without any reasonable justification cannot cancel the tender p rocess initiated by the said short tender notice dated 14.12.2010 and direct ini tiation of fresh tender process. Mr. NC Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the ground on which the earlier process was done away with, i.e. the notice invitin g tender was not widely circulated, is not tenable in the facts and circumstance s of the case as the earlier tender notice dated 14.12.2010 was widely circulate d amongst the empanelled contractors apart from putting the same in the office n otice board. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that since the committee co nstituted for the purpose of scrutinizing the tenders submitted by various bidde rs proposed to award the contract relating to Group B and D items in favour of t he petitioner and such proposal having been approved by the competent authority, the General Manager, NAZ Tezpur ought not to have done away with the earlier pr ocess and direct initiation of fresh tender process. The learned counsel, theref ore, submits that the decision to cancel the earlier process is arbitrary and he nce needs to be interfered with. Mr. BD Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents placing relianc e on the affidavits-in-opposition filed, has submitted that though the short ten der notice dated 14.12.2010 was issued, the same, however, was not widely publis hed and even all the empanelled contractors were not informed about issuance of such tender except the petitioner and three others who submitted their bids. It has also been submitted by the learned senior counsel that since out of 17 empan elled contractors only four participated, who were served with the copy of the t ender notice, the decision was taken by the authority to cancel the said process so that all the empanelled contractors, apart from others, can participate in s uch process. The learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that such decision o f the respondent authority needs no interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It appears from the materials made available on record that the short tender not ice dated 14.12.2010 was issued by the Deputy General Manager, North Lakhimpur, Electrical Circle, APDCL for various construction works divided in six groups na mely Group A to F. By such tender notice sealed tenders were invited from the re puted and financially sound contractors who have HT license, Labour Registration Certificate and experience for the works empanelled under NLEC, APDCL to be car ried out on full turn key basis. It also appears that a copy of such tender notice was put up in the notice board in the office of the Deputy General Manager apart from sending it to all Senior Managers in the APDCL for wide circulation. The records do not reveal making wi de circulation of the short tender notice and instead it reveals sending of such tender notice to four contractors including the petitioner who participated in the tender process. Even all the empanelled contractors were not informed about the said short tender notice. The authority keeping in view the aforesaid positi on had decided to cancel the said tender process, though the tender committee ha ving found the bid of the petitioner as lowest against Group B and D work recomm ended issuance of work order in his favour and though such proposal was initiall y approved by the competent authority. It is also not in dispute that though pursuant to the decision t aken on 27.5.2011 to issue fresh notice inviting tender though such notice was i ssued giving copy to all the empanelled contractors not a single bidder has subm itted his bid for which, according to Mr. BD Das, the learned senior counsel, th e respondent authority now has taken the decision to issue fresh tender notice i n the newspaper, thereby give wide publicity so that the eligible contractors c an submit their respective bids irrespective of whether they are empanelled cont ractors or not. Since the short tender notice dated 14.12.2010 was not widely published, which r esulted in participation by only four empanelled contractors and such notice wer e sent to only four empanelled contractors, no fault can be found with the decis ion of the respondent authority to cancel such process and to initiate a fresh p rocess as the authority for good and sufficient reason con cancel the process in itiated by it. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to interfe re with the decision of the respondent authority to initiate the fresh process f or awarding the works in question. It is needless to say that since the respondent authority has taken the decision to issue fresh notice and to publish the same in the newspaper giving wide publ icity allowing the qualified eligible contractors, apart from the empanelled con tractors to participate in the process, the respondent authority shall definitel y follow such process allowing all the eligible contractors irrespective of thei r empanelment to participate in the said process. The writ petition stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. No cost. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.