IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1106 of 2010 (M/S) Pratap Singh Rawat S/O Sri Ratan Singh Rawat, resident of village Jagdhar, P.O. Paukhal, District Tehri Garhwal and four others. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Public Works Department, Dehradun and four others. … Respondent. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya & Mr. Ravi Joshi, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.Shah, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Date July 01, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned tender notice dated 16-6-2010 (Annexure-9 to the petition) issued by the respondent no.3, whereby fresh tenders were invited for the work mentioned in the tender notice. The grievance of the petitioners is that fresh tenders have been invited without any rhyme and reason. According to the petitioners, the respondent no. 3 issued tender notice vide official letter no. 832/1087 dated 9-4-2010 whereby registered contractors have been offered for the construction of motor road within the limits of circle. Bids were invited upto 10-5-2010 and the date of opening of the bids was mentioned 11-5-2010 at 3 p.m. in the presence of registered contractors or their respective representative in the office of respondent no. 3. Certain other conditions were also to be adhered to by the bidders as mentioned in the tender notice. According to the petitioners, the respondent no. 3 without following due process of law cancelled the said tender notice and fresh tender notice was issued on 20-4-2010, which was published 2 in daily newspaper Dainik Jagran on 9-5-2010. Tenders were again invited from registered contractors upto 24-5-2010 and the date of opening of tenders was 25-5-2010. The respondent no. 3 again issued a corrigendum whereby it was informed that the tender notice which was published in Dainik Jagran on 9-5-2010 and tenders were to be opened on 25.5.2010 shall be opened on 28-5- 2010 in place of 25-5-2010. The petitioner no. 1 moved an application before the District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal on 24-5-2010 requesting him to open the bids in the office of respondent no.2 so that unsocial elements may not be able to obtain the tender bids. The application of the petitioner no. 1 and the endorsement made by the District Magistrate thereon has been annexed as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. The Superintending Engineer sent a letter to the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Kirtinagar with a direction that transparency be maintained at the time of opening of tenders and has also endorsed a copy to the District Magistrate concerned (Annexure-6 to the petition). The respondent nos. 4 and 5 also made a complaint to respondent no.3-Executive Engineer that some social elements are restraining them from bidding and they could not file their bid. Learned Standing Counsel has contended in reply that as per clause of the tender it is the discretion of the committee to cancel the tenders without assigning any reason. I have perused the complaint made by the petitioner to the District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal (Annexure No. 5 to the petition). The petitioner no. 1 made a complaint that some local contractors of Kirtinagar make obstruction in purchase of tender and the government has to bear loss in the sale of tenders. The same averments were also made by respondent no. 4 and 5. On the 3 basis of these complaints, the respondent no. 2 cancelled the earlier tender notice and issued fresh notice inviting the tenders. No prejudice was caused to the petitioners. It appears that same position was there with the respondent no.4 and 5 and they were also restrained by some unsocial elements. The petitioners may participate in the fresh bids. The writ petition is devoid of merit. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP