WP(C) 5551/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondent Corporatio n to go for retentering in cancellation of the earlier NIT (Annexure-1) issued on 08.09.07 for the work of ARC for house keeping at ETP, LPB and Tank Farm are a inside the Guwahati Refinery. The petitioner alongwith 5 others submitted tenders in response to Annex ure-I NIT dated 08.09.07 relating to aforesaid work. The NIT was under single bi d system and the petitioner being the L1 bidder, was with the expectation that work would be entrusted to him. However, when the work order was not issued in h is favour and rather the respondent Corporation decided to go for retendering, t he petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. According to the respondents the decision to go for retendering had to b e taken in view of the ambiguity in the NIT relating to certain conditions. On t he other hand, it is the plea of the petitioner in his affidavit in reply that s uch conditions did not call for any further scrutiny and eventual decision to ca ncel the tender process initiated. Upon a reference to awarding of the contract ual works in respect of similar nature of NIT with the purported similar conditi ons, it is the case of the petitioner that cancellation of the NIT was not neces sary. In the additional affidavit filed by the respondent Corporation the matt er has been clarified on the basis of the records. It has been stated that the a nomalies were detected in the NIT subsequent to the response shown to the same b y the tenderers. Such anomalies have been indicated in paragraph- 3 of the addi tional affidavit, are as follows: In item no. CCL0102800 - hire charges for providing and dewatering pumps for p umping out water etc. & , the unit of measurement is DAY which shall be measu ed as number of days of pump hired/ run per hose power (HP) of pump used. The te rm hired /run per horse power (HP) of pump used as has been used in the SOR is not clear inasmuch as, even if the pump is hired without running it, payment fo r that particular day shall have to be made. Moreover, if the pump is hired/ run even for half a day, payment for the entire day shall have to be made. As per the description of item no. CCL32060XX - transportation of vario us materials by trucks & , the unit of measurement is EACH , i.e. payment shal have to be made for each truck, per trip. The size/capacity of the truck is not mentioned in the item nor does the volume/ weight, i.e. the quantity of the mat erials to be transported finds mention in the said item. This would lead to an a mbiguity in the measurement of the work as well as payment to be made to the con tractor for example the same price shall have to be paid for a small truck carry ing 2 bags cement and a big truck carrying 200 bags of cement. Item no. CCL3500200- removal of oil spillage by sprinkling earth/ san d etc. & . The scope of work, as per this item includes the removal of oil spil lage, complete with labour, materials, tools tackles sand etc. and the item ther eafter provides that sand shall be supplied by the Engineer-in-charge, i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. This clause which on the one hand says that the work includes the providing of the sand by the contractor and thereafter states that the sand shall be provided by the Engineer-in-charge shall lead to an ambiguity at the time of payments to be made to the contractor . Having noticed the aforesaid purported anomalies, the authorized officer by his note dated 08.10.07 placed the matter before the higher authority pointi ng out the defects in SOR. In the note the suggestion made was for cancellation of the tender process and to go for retendering, in view of the anomalies. The proposal was accepted by the higher authority and thereafter clarification in re spect of such anomalies were sought for from the Head Office in New Delhi. As noted above, the purported anomalies in the SOR were in respect of s ize of the truck, hiring charge of the pump and supply of sand as to whether s uch supply would be from the Engineer or from the contractor. From the records produced by the learned counsel for the Corporation, it appears that necessary c larification was furnished by the Head Office, New Delhi and as per the said cla rification the size/capacity of the truck ought to have been specified in the N IT. From the said materials on record, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the res pondent Corporation submits that the decision taken by the local authority towar ds cancellation of the NIT, was because of the anomalies and the approval of th e higher authority. As regards the subsequent work order issued which according to Mr. B.D. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner was with same purported anom alies, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the Corporation has drawn my attention to t he NIT dated 25.09.07 annexed to the affidavit in reply as Annexure-B on the bas is of which it is the plea of the petitioner that with similar purported anomali es work order were issued. Mr. Deka submits that in the said NIT it was clearly specified that the agency shall deploy truck minimum capacity of which is 5 cum , unlike the earlier occasion when there is no specification relating to the s ize of the truck. I have gone through the entire records produced by Mr. Deka , learned co unsel for the Corporation relating to both the NITs. The records have revealed t hat vide note dated 08.10.07, pointing out the anomalies in the NIT approval was sought for cancellation of the NIT. Such approval was accorded and thereafter t he Headquarter of the respondent Corporation also clarified the position stating that the size/ capacity of the truck must have been specified in the NIT. Be it stated here that the major chunk of the work is in respect of the carriage. As regards the NIT on the basis of which subsequent work order has been issued, th e petitioner has raised his claim that parity has not been maintained in the wo rk order. Acting on the NIT, it was noticed that the capacity of the truck was s pecified and that other items did not call for any revision of SOR. The aforesaid decision making process cannot be said to be on extraneous consideration and/or any arbitrary exercise of power. In that view of the matte r, I am of the considered opinion that no inference is called for in respect of the decision taken by the respondent Corporation towards cancellation of the ear lier tender process and to go for retendering. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost s. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.