1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1310 OF 2009 Durgaprasad s/o Rameshwar Toshniwal, Prop. M/s. GVC Electronics, Vazirabad, Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Union of India, Through the Secretary, Information and Broadcast Ministry, 2) The D.G.M. (Sales), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 1029, Sales Cell, Corporate Office, New Delhi, 3) General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Parbhani, 2nd Floor, Telephone Bhavan, Behind SBH, Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.G.G. Dodya Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioner has questioned the decision of Respondent No.3 of cancelling the tender process which commenced in terms of public notice dated 14th August, 2008 and to call fresh tenders for the S.S.A. Parbhani vide notice dated 15th January, 2009. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had participated in the tender process which obviously acted as promise to the Petitioner in as much as his tender would be considered on its own merit and taken to its logical end. Besides, the authority has terminated the tender process without any just reasons. 4. It is well established position that the authority issuing the tender, has right to cancel the tender at any stage without even giving 3 reasons for such decision. It is not necessary for us to examine whether the reason which weighed with the authority for cancelling the tender process, was germane or otherwise. No right has accrued in favour of the Petitioner. We are not impressed with the argument of the Petitioner that promise was given to the Petitioner or any prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner on account of cancellation of the tender notice. 5. Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of M/s. B.G. Ahuja and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, A.I.R. 1991 Bombay, 307. The exposition in that case has no application at all to the issue on hand. In that case, the tender submitted by the Petitioners was rejected even though it was the lowest tender and the Petitioners had become eligible to participate in the tender process on account of the changed policy. 4 6. Be that as it may, in our opinion, no interference is warranted, hence Writ Petition is dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/FEB10/wp1310.09