WP(C) 375/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel, assisted by Mr. H. Sarma, lea rned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.D. Das, learned Standing Counse l, ASEB. The petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act , 1956 responded to the Annexure-1 NIT dated 30.11.2007 involving contract work of disposal of Balance of Plant (BOP) and Machineries/Materials of Bongaigaon Th ermal Power Station. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has ind icated the price quoted by different parties. The price offered by the petitione r was 11 Crores. According to the petitioner, it being the highest bidder ought to have been awarded the contract. The respondents have cancelled the said NIT by Annexure-4 communication dated 10.1.2008. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ peti tion. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit giving details of the initiation of tender process and its eventual cancellation. The grounds assigne d for cancellation of the tender process is that the price quoted by the tendere rs was found to be much below than the value assessed by the valuer. In the affi davit, the respondents have indicated the dates on which, various decisions were taken. The decision to invite open tenders was taken on 1.8.2007. On 4.9.2007, the Chairman of the Board directed to place the matter before the Tender Purchas e Committee for consideration and appointment of valuer for valuation of the ass ets of Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station (BTPS). Thereafter the Tender Purchase C ommittee by its resolution No. 8 adopted in the meeting held on 11.9.2007 appoin ted one Sri A.K. Chakraborty for valuation of the assets of BTPS. The valuer sub mitted his report on 17.10.2007, whch was received by the Board on 2.11.2007. In between the aforesaid dates i.e. 17.10.2007 and 2.11.2007, the NIT da ted 24.10.2007 was issued. The valuer report was approved by the Board on 31.10. 200. ON 19.12.2007 upon opening of the tenders, it was found that the price quot ed by the tenderers was much below the assessed value as per the valuers report. Thereafter, upon consideration of the matters, the NIT was cancelled by order d ated 10.1.2008 and the same was also notified in the news papers on 26.1.2008. After the aforesaid cancellation of the earlier NIT, fresh NIT was issue d on 30.1.2008 with the estimated value of Rs. 21.4 Crores. The affidavit has also revealed that the Managing Director and the Chair man of the Board have approved the cancellation of the NIT. Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the NIT h aving not specified the approved rate, the Board could not have cancelled the NI T on the basis of the valuer’s report obtained subsequently. On the other hand, Mr. Das, learned Standing Counsel, ASEB submits that by the time NIT was issued, the valuer report was not ready, but was received latter on by the Board. He su bmits that the factual aspect cannot be ignored on the point of technicality. It cannot be said that the decision of the Board to cancel the tender pr ocess in view of the fact that the price quoted by the tenderers is in lower sid e than the approved rate, is in colorable exercise of power and/or arbitrary. It is true that the NIT was issued without receiving the valuer’s report. However, it is also on record that by the time the NIT dated 24.10.2007 was issued, the valuer had already prepared the report on 17.10.2007 and the same was received l ater on and thereafter upon consideration of the bid offered by the tenderers an d on comparison of the same, the Board took the conscious decision to cancel the tender process. Such decision of the Board cannot be said to be opposed the pub lic interest, rather it is in the public interest. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. It wil l be appropriate for the petitioner to respond the fresh NIT, which in the meant ime has been issued by the respondent Board. Writ petition is disposed of.