The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power to extend the validity of tenders is limited to exceptional cases, and if the evaluation is not completed within the stipulated or extended period, the tenders become invalid, and fresh tenders must be called for.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of construction and engineering. The third respondent invited tenders for the construction of Barrages across Bhima River at various places. The petitioner submitted his bid towards such tender by complying with all the formalities. The tenders were opened by the Executive Engineer of the third respondent on 8-11-2001. In all there were 17 bids. Out of these, 16 bids were opened at the first instance and thereafter the Executive engineer adjourned the proceedings and later reconvened after an hour to open the 17th bid, namely that of M/s. G. H. Reddy and Associates. The petitioner was the second lowest tenderer. The terms and conditions of the tender inter alia provide that the offer of the tenderer shall be valid up to 7-2-2002. The tenderers had to provide bank guarantee and same has to be in force for a period of three months. As no decision was taken by the third respondent, they called upon the petitioner and the lowest bidder and others to extend the validity of tender for a period of two months, i. e. , till 7-4-2002. Accordingly, the petitioner extended the validity period and also extended the bank guarantee. However, the lowest tenderer neither extended the validity period nor he offered the bank security. As no decisions were taken beyond the expiry of the extended period, again the petitioner was requested to extend the validity of the tender for a period of two months, which was acceded to by the petitioner. The said two months' period expired on 7-6-2002.

( 2 ) IN the meanwhile, it appears that in a meeting held on 13-5-2002 the third respondent took a decision to cancel the tender and to invite fresh tenders. Accordingly, a letter dated 2-6-2002 cancelling the tender was issued, which is produced as per annexure-R1. As the petitioner was not aware of this cancellation, his tender has not been accepted, his enquiries did not yield any results and when he came to know that an attempt to invite the fresh tender is being made, he preferred these writ petitions on 6-6-2002, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the Board of the third respondent on 13-5-2002 calling for fresh tenders and for a direction to award contract in favour of the petitioner as he being the lowest bidder. He also sought for an interim order.

( 3 ) ON 5-8-2002, an interim order was granted by this Court to the effect that any decision to be taken by the respondents regarding the allotment of contract in pursuance of the tender dated 29-6-2002 is subject-to the result of these writ petitions.

( 4 ) THE respondents have entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. They did not dispute the facts aforesaid, but they contend that the Board of Directors of the third respondent in the meeting held on 13-5-2002 after considering all the aspects and as per Rule 22{3) of the Karnataka transparency in Public Procurement Rules, decided to cancel the tender and call for the tender afresh. Accordingly, fresh tender has been called on 29-6-2002 and therefore they submit that there is no merit in these writ petitions and sought for the rejection of the same.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri G. L. Vishwanath contended that a reading of Rule 22 makes it very clear that the Tender Accepting Authority has the power to extend the validity of tender and that provision cannot be construed to mean that such an extension can be given only once and on proper interpretation of the said rule it is clear that the Tender Accepting authority has a jurisdiction to grant extensions as required and when once the extension is granted on 7-2-2002 which expired on 7-4-2002 and again on 7-4-2002 the validity of the tender was extended up to 7-6-2002 and therefore the authorities were not justified in cancelling the tender on 13-5-2002 on the ground that Rule 22 (3) does not provide for further extension. He also submitted that the author