Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

As the same questions of facts and law involved in all the four petitions, they are clubbed, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In all these petitions, the challenge is raised to the new tender notification, dated 21-3-2016 for taking up repairs and reconditioning works of failed distribution transformers, wounds, etc.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have taken part in the tender process initiated pursuant to the notification, dated 29-10-2015. They claim to be LI bidders. Without operationalising the bids of the petitioners, the respondents have resorted to call for fresh tenders.

4. Smt. Shwetha Ravishankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 21967 and 21968 of 2016 submits that no reason whatsoever is assigned for not awarding the work order to the petitioners. She complains of the violations of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioners are not put on notice, much less being afforded with an opportunity of hearing. She submits that earlier tender process is not being terminated. Therefore, the initiation of the new tender process is not sustainable. She submits that the respondents have floated the fresh tender only to favour the respondents no. 5 and 6.

5. Sri Kalyan R, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 20876 and 20877 of 2016 makes the submissions akin to those of Smt. Shwetha Ravishankar. He submits that the respondents have not complied with the requirements of Section 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999.

6. Sri H.M. Manjunath, the learned Counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 in W.P. Nos. 21967 and 21968 of 2016 submits that pursuant to the impugned tender notification, tenders are scrutinised, evaluated, accepted and that the work orders are already issued to the selected tenderers. He submits that the work orders in respect of the subject-matters of W.P. Nos. 21967 and 21968 of 2016 are issued to M/s. Banashankari Enterprises and M/s. Geetha Enterprises respectively. He submits that without making them the parties, these petitions cannot be maintained.

7. He read out Clause 19.0 of the tender notification, dated 29-10-2015. It is as follows:

"19.0 BESCOM reserves the right to accept or reject any bid, and to annul the bidding process and reject all bids at any time prior to award of Contract without incurring any liability to the affected Bidder/Bidders or any obligation to inform the affected Bidder/Bidders."

8. Having taken part in the tender process subject to the clause extracted herein above, the petitioners cannot contend that the new tender process cannot be initiated without informing them of the cancellation of the earlier tender process. On being asked as to whether the petitioners are given any intimation of acceptance of the bid, he answers in the negative.

9. He submits that the earlier bid process had to be abandoned on account of a mistake in the tender notification. Instead of mentioning aluminium and copper wound, the earlier notification mentioned only aluminium wound. He submits that fresh notification is issued in about 35 places and not merely in the place in which the petitioners claim to be the L1 bidders. He denies the allegation of favouritism. He submits that the petitioners have also submitted their bids in response to the second tender notification but in respect of other places.

10. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, the learned High Court Government Pleader would make the submissions akin to those of Sri H.M. Manjunath.

11. In the course of rejoinder, Smt. Shwetha Ravishankar submits that the petitioners have had no knowledge of the selection of the tenderers pursuant to the impugned notification. She submits that even in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents no. 2 to 4, there is no whisper of the name of the selected tenderers. She submits that nothing prevented the respondents no. 2 to 4 from including the copper in the earlier