THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3309 of 2011 ORDER: The Executive Engineer, R & B Circle, Madanapalle, the 2nd respondent herein, issued tender notice, dated 29.12.2010, for uprooting of the trees on both sides of Rayachoty - Angallu road (56/2 - 60/2 kilometres), for the purpose of widening of the road. The cost of this was mentioned as Rs.6,96,890/-. The tenders were scheduled to be opened on 21.01.2011. The petitioner and several others submitted their tenders. The 2nd respondent did not open the tenders. On 25.01.2011, the Superintending Engineer, Chittoor, the 1st respondent herein, addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent stating that certain defects were pointed out in the tender notice, in news item and that fresh tender be issued by incorporating certain measures. Accordingly, a fresh tender notification, dated 31.01.2011 was issued. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the action of the respondents. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government for Roads and Buildings. In response to a tender notice, dated 29.12.2010, the petitioner submitted his tender. No further steps were taken. It appears that a news item was published, pointing out certain defects in the tender notice, in the context of the fixation of the security deposit, valuation of the trees by the Forest Department etc. The 1st respondent took note of the same and directed the 2nd respondent to issue fresh tender notice. Accordingly the impugned notice dated 31.01.2011 was issued. A comparison of the tender notices discloses that in the first one, the security deposit was fixed at Rs.17,500/-, whereas under the second notification, it is mentioned as Rs.1,75,000/-. Further improvements are also said to have been made. The petitioner did not get any right on account of mere submission of tender. It is always open for an authority that issued tender notice to cancel it without assigning any reasons. It is only when a tenderer had incurred liability that such steps can be assailed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.14.02.2011. GJ