- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent-company. The petitioner-appellant was denied the contract in question, for which the appellant was found to be L-1 tenderer after opening of the financial bid, but subsequent to that, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the offer of the private respondent no. 3, who could not qualify in the technical bid, was entertained.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent-company submitted that not only the tender in question has been cancelled but fresh tender inviting offers has also been issued.
(3.) Be that as it may, the detailed facts are not necessary, in view of the fact that the tender in question has been cancelled by the respondent-company even after work-order has been given to the respondent no. 3, as the respondent no. 3 defaulted in submitting security/guarantee.;