H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble Shri Dhitendra Mishra & Hon’bie Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Writ Petition (C) No.1 094 of 2011 0f )(J Mls. Rahul Agency through Vijay Kumar Soni. S/o. Late lndradeo £30m aged about 45 vears R/o. Gu‘mohar. Shastri Ward: Mayapur, Ambikapur, PS. Ambikapur, distt. Surguja (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary. Forest Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Conservator of Forest and Area Director (Bephant Reserve) Forest Circle Ambikapur, dist. Surguja (CG) Divisional Forest Officer North Surguja Forest Division Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Divisional Forest Officer South Surguja Forest Division Ambikapur, distt. Surguja (CG) Divisional Forest Officer East Surguia Forest Division Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (CG) Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India Present: Shri Bhupendra Singh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri AS. Kachhawaha. Dy. Advocate Genera! for the State. o R A L. o R. o e R (25.02201 1) Fetitmner Vs. Respondents 1 . V 1. By the instant petiticn, the petitioner has prayed for the foilowing re!iefs;~ “10.1 That, the Hon’b!e Court may kincHy be pleased to caH the records regarding to the case of Petitioner for ite kind perusal‘ 10.2 That, the Hon’bie Court may kindly be pieaeed to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 on 0902.201 1. 10.3 Cost of petition may aiso be granted to the petitioners. 10.4 Any other reiief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may aiso kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” Grievance of the petitioner is that in response to tender Notice of Annexure-PH, the petitioner participated in the tender process and submitted his offer. After opening the technical bid, financial bid submitted by the petitioner was opened and the rate quoted by the petitioner was lowest. However, respondent No.2 cancelled the tender and published second tender notice vide Annexure—P!3 for the same work and returned security deposit of Rs.2,50,000/— vide memo dated 11.02.2010 (Annexure~P/4) to the petitioner. The tender was canoeiled without giving any notice to the petitioner and without application of mind with maiafide intention; and therefore, the petitioner is entitied for the relief claimed in the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the pleadings in the writ petition and documents appended therewith, é/ Bini 4. lt is sewed law that it is within the discretion of the tendering authority to canoe! the entire tender process in public interest, and the successful bidder does not have any legal right that the tender work must be awarded to him only on his being lowest. The decision of canceling the entire tender process is not judicialiy reviewable unless there is allegation that it is actuated with ulterior motive, arbitrariness or matice. 5. After going through the pleadings in the writ petition, we find that after cancelling the entire tender process, security deposit has been returned to the petitioner and fresh tender has been invited for the work. 6. in that View of the matter, we do not find any substance in the writ petition and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sdl— Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra R.N. Chandrakar i Judge Judge