N.N.TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to grant work order in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the quotation submitted by the petitioner in response to the Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT), being NIT No. 01/2006 -07 dated 21st August, 2006 issued by the respondents for supply of diesel pump set of 5 H.P. for the purpose of cultivation. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the subsequent NIT dated 3rd April, 2007.
(2.) IT has been stated that the said NIT was issued for supply of diesel pump of 5 H.P. having I.S.O. and B.I.S. certification having 100 Kg. maximum weight of engine. Three tenderers were found qualified. The petitioner was found as L -l and price quoted by it was Rs. 20,501/ - per engine. In spite of the same, the work order has not been issued in favour of the petitioner. In the meantime, the respondents have floated another tender for the same purpose and in the said tender, they have not provided any weight of engine. The petitioner has challenged the subsequent NIT also on the ground that when the process of earlier tender was completed and the petitioner was found L -l, there was no rational for inviting another tender for the same purpose. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue work order and has also prayed for quashing the subsequent tender. The State respondents have contested the petitioner's contentions and submitted that for earlier tender, a decision was taken in the meeting in which quorum was not complete. There was thus vigilance objection and was also an objection by M/s. Hind Machineries. In view of the above, the earlier tender was cancelled in terms of Clause 13 of the NIT, in which it was clearly mentioned that the tender may be cancelled at any stage without assigning any reason.
(3.) THE decision was taken for fresh tender. In the fresh tender in view of the inherent irregularity in the earlier decision. In the fresh tender, the petitioner could have also participated, but he did not choose to do so. In response to the said NIT, several tenderers were submitted their bids and three tenderers were qualified and out of them, M/s. Hind Machineries, respondent No. 5, was found L -l. There is, thus, no illegality or irregularity in inviting the subsequent tender after cancelling the earlier tender.;