- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is aggrieved by issuance of fresh tender notice. It is submitted that out of the five tenderers, the offer of two parties were rejected due to lack of documents. Thereafter, the technical bids of two parties were not accepted, and therefore, even if petitioner was the only tenderer, his financial bid should have been opened. It is further submitted that it will appear from annexure 4 that case of other party - Sanjay Choudhary was wrongly rejected and therefore, there remained two tenderers, and thus there was no justification for inviting tender afresh. Counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order.
(2.) It is settled position that this Court can only examine the decision making process. It appears that after rejection of offers of two parties, the technical bid of three parties including the petitioner were examined, and it was decided not to open bids of two parties for the reasons mentioned by the tender committee. Thus, petitioner remained the single tenderer and therefore, it was decided not to open his financial bid, and readvertise the tender. It is not possible to examine whether Sanjay Choudhary was disqualified rightly or wrongly. I find no arbitrariness or malafide in the decision making process.
(3.) Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.;