^a?ts%%^^^^f^^!^?^^?^li^!^^^^ffips'^SB!B"l!";^i^'1^ '-•Zi; HIGH COURT OFCHHATTtSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHfVIUKH, J. PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C) No.2112 of 2007 Rajendfa Singh, Through the Povi/er of attorney holder Kumar Nagendra S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, aged about 29 years, R/o Uttari Krishnapuri; Patna Sadar, Police Station - Shrikrishnapyri, . Patna(Bihar) Versus l': State of Chhattisgarh, through the Seoretary, Works Department D.K.S. Bhawan (C.G.) 2. Engirieer ; in Chief Publie Works Department Sirpur Bhawan, Raipur. 3. Superintendent Engineer, National High WayReason, Raipur(C.G.) 4. Executjve Engineer, Public Works Department, National Highway Division Jagdalpur, Distriot Baster (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Writ petition underArticle 226/227 of Constitution of India. Present: Shri Prateek Shanna, counsel for thepetitioner. 9hriSumesh Bajaj, G.A. for the State/respondents. ORALORDER (Passed on 10th April, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed ^ by H.L. Dattu, CJ. The matter is listed for admission. By the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposai. (2) The petitioner in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constltution of India calls ,jn question the order passed by the respondent No.4 dated 09-02-2007 and the advertisement issued by respondent No.4 dated 16-03-2007 on the grouhd that thesame are arbitrary and oapricious. (3) Respondent No.4 in the writ petition had issued an advertisement calling for the applicants who are desirous of participating in the tender -2- process. The petitioner had participated in such tender process and he was informed that he is the highest bjdder. (4) Before entering into any contraot with the petitioner, the respondents onoe again have passed an order dated 09-02-2007 canceling the earlier tender process and thereafter have issued an advertisement ^dated 1603-2007. (5) Learned oounsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the entire action of the respondents is not only arbitrary, but also capricious, therefore, this Court should interfere with the tender process initiated by respondent No.4. (6) First and foremost, merely because the petitioner is the highest bidder he does not have any right to come before this Court and request this Court to quash the subsequent tender process initiated by the respondents. The person, who issued advertisement inviting applications from the applicants for participating in the tender process, has every right to recall the earliertender process and to re-advertise. Thjs appears to be the settled legal position of law. . (7) After going through the order passedby the respondent No.4 and the advertisement issued by him, we do not think that there is any arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. In that view of the matter, we do not intend to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writpetition is rejected. Ordered accordingty. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge fc'