- (1.) WE have heard Sri U.N. Sharma senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anoop Trivedi for the petitioner.
(2.) THE petitioner is merely the highest tenderer, which does not, by itself, give him any right to have his tender accepted. In all, there were only three tenders received; one from the Bareilly Development Authority, one from the Avas Vikas Parishad and the third one from the petitioner, which is a private concern. The tenders were subject to approval by the Assets Sale Committee, which has refused to accept and grant approval to any of these tenders. The impugned order dated 26-10-2005 does not disclose any reasons. Normally, in all the tender documents there is a condition, which, in the present case, can be found as a condition No. 4 at page 16 that the right to reject all or any tender “without assigning any reason” is reserved.
(3.) IN substance the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that merely because (1) the petitioner was the highest tenderer, (2) the impugned order does not disclose reasons for rejecting all tenders, and (3) the petitioner has chosen to file this writ petition with Court fee of Rs. 100/-, therefore, the respondents are bound to disclose, by way of counter-affidavit, the reasons for refusing to grant approval and rejecting all the tenders. In our opinion, the right reserved to reject tenders “without assigning reasons” cannot be defeated merely because of all or any of the aforesaid three circumstances, without anything further.;