WA 295/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A. K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA (Goel,J.) This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge declining t o interfere with the decision taken by the General Manager, Assam Power Distribu tion Company Limited, to initiate fresh tender process for electrification under the schemes of the Company called TSP and SCSP. The tender process was initiated on 14.12.2010 in pursuance of which bid given b y the appellant was found to be lowest and recommended for award of contract. Ho wever, the matter was put up to the General Manager, who was of the view that th e tender had not been widely published and only put on Notice Board as a result of which there was no sufficient participation. Out of 17 empanelled contractors only 4 participated. Accordingly, decision to initiate fresh tender process was taken. Learned Single Judge did not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orde r as the cancellation of the process was for good and sufficient reasons. The fi nding of the learned Single Judge is as under : Since the short tender notice dated 14.12.2010 was not widely published, which resulted in participation by only four empanelled contractors and such notice we re sent to only four empanelled contractors, no fault can be found with the deci sion of the respondent authority to cancel such process and to initiate a fresh process as the authority for good and sufficient reason can cancel the process i nitiated by it. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the writ petition to interfe re with the decision of the respondent authority to initiate the fresh process f or awarding the works in question. It is needless to say that since the respondent authority has taken the decision to issue fresh notice and to publish the same in the newspaper giving wide publ icity allowing the qualified eligible contractors, apart from the empanelled con tractors to participate in the process, the respondent authority shall definitel y follow such process allowing all the eligible contractors irrespective of thei r empanelment to participate in the said process. We have heard Mr. N. C. Das, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Standing Counsel, ASEB. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no other empanelled contrac tor had made any grievance and thus it could not be presumed that there was no s ufficient participation. In these circumstances, cancellation of tender process was arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the above submission and further sub mitted that the fresh process initiated is in the final stage. After due consideration, we are of the view that submission of the appellant can not be accepted. It is not the case of the appellant that the decision of the General Manager is malafide for any extraneous consideration. Once a bonafide decision is taken, in absence of unfairness or illegality interference under Article 226 may not be c alled for. In the present case the General Manager having formed an opinion that in the int erest of better participation, a fresh process should be initiated, we do not fi nd any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in declining to inter fere with the said decision. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed.