Arindam Sinha, J.

Four petitioners have joined together in this writ petition seeking to maintain a challenge against order dated 13th November, 2013 made by the Government of West Bengal cancelling tender dated 21st November, 2012 requiring supply of ready-to-eat rice-based and wheat-based micro nutrient fortified energy dense food for consumption by Below Poverty Line adolescent girls. The four petitioners were found to be technically qualified tenderers by the e-Tender Committee.

At the outset Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of an applicant who wanted to be added as a party, submitted his client had also bid for the said tender and put in earnest money. Therefore, his client was interested in the tender that stood cancelled and consequentially interested in any proceeding that may affect such cancellation.

Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner opposed the prayer of the applicant. He submitted it would appear from the annexure to the application for addition of party, the applicant therein had accepted the rejection of his bid and was only interested in obtaining refund of earnest money deposited. Hence, according to Mr. Chatterjee, the applicant was neither a necessary nor a proper party in a matter between the petitioners who were successful bidders, in seeking to maintain their challenge against the cancellation of the tender.

It appears from the minutes of the meeting held by the Tender Committee on 23rd May, 2013, inter alia, that if the four qualified bidders are taken into account, then the required quantity of ready to eat food packets would be made available. In that meeting the said committee had resolved to place the entire matter before the Government for approval. It is after this the impugned order dated 13th November, 2013 cancelling the tender was issued. It is, therefore, clear the petitioners do not have a concluded contract. In the circumstances, the objection of Mr. Chatterjee to the applicant’s prayer for being added as a party cannot be sustained. CAN No.2232 of 2014 is allowed and the applicant therein added as a party upon amendment to be made to the cause title of the writ petition.

Mr. Bandopadhyay, then took a preliminary point relying on the decision reported in (2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 760 (Maa Binda Express Carrier And Anr. Vs. North-East Frontier Railway And Ors.) to urge submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. He submitted the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was similar to the case at hand. In that case it had been held the decision to cancel the tender process was not discriminatory nor mala fide, in favour of the case of the Railways who had urged, inter alia, the cancellation of the tender process was also on the ground that the Railways administration had discovered a serious deficiency in the same in as much as the tender forms had been issued without enclosing therewith the terms and conditions subject to which the contract could be allotted or awarded.

Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of the petitioners and relying on the decision reported in (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 303 in particular paragraph 64 thereof submitted the Government had the administrative discretion to cancel the tender process in public interest provided such action was not actuated with ulterior motive or was otherwise not vitiated by any vice of arbitrariness or irrationality or in violation of some statutory provision. He submitted in this case the cancellation of the tender was arbitrary and irrational.

This court finds the Hon’ble Supreme Court in both the decisions referred to above had considered the matter of cancellation of a tender to be a decision which was in no way discriminatory or mala fide or arbitrary or irrational or in violation of some statutor