B.K. Sharma, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure-C notice dated 12.9.2011, by which, the particular tender notice issued on 13.6.2011 in respect of the job "Annual Mechanical Maintenance Rate Contract For General/Common Items" has been cancelled. As stated in the said notice, such cancellation is due to technical reasons. The petitioners are engaged with contractual business of mechanical maintenance and other allied works. When the aforesaid NIT was issued, the petitioners responded to the same by submitting their tenders.

2. Upon scrutiny of the tender bids on 29.8.2011, the Tender Committee found the technical bids submitted by the petitioners as responsive and submitted its recommendation for opening of their respective price bids. The price bids were opened on 30.8.2011 in presence of the representatives of the petitioners. While the petitioner No. 4 emerged as the L-1 bidder, the petitioners No. 3 and 6 emerged as L-2 bidders and the other petitioners emerged as L-3 bidders. It was found that the quoted rate of L-1 bidder was more than 10% higher than the estimate of the respondent corporation. At one stage, it was decided to invite the petitioner No. 4 with detailed price break up for negotiation for reduction in the rate offered by him. Since the work was to be split among 6 qualified bidders, it was also decided to ask L-2 and L-3 bidders to accept the finally negotiated L-1 rates.

3. The case projected in the writ petition is that when the petitioners had been waiting for rate negotiation in acceptance of the decision taken by the competent authority, the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Sr. Manager (EMCC) of the respondent Mill issued the impugned notice canceling the NIT dated 13.6.2011 with the decision to go for fresh NIT. It is this decision to cancel the NIT, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. In the additional affidavit coupled with the consolidated additional affidavit bringing certain subsequent development on record, the petitioners have contended that the respondent corporation has acted in the matter illegally and that there has been violation of the norms fixed for processing tenders. It has also been contended that the decision making process is not valid one being not founded on transparency and fairplay.

5. Referring to the guidelines relating to negotiated settlement and also the practice being followed by the respondent corporation in such matters, the petitioners have pleaded that there has been discretion in abandoning the negotiated settlement with the decision to go for fresh NIT.

6. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentions raised in the writ petition. It has been contended that the impugned cancellation of the earlier tender process is founded on valid ground and that the petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right that the tender should have been finalized on the basis of the negotiated settlement irrespective of viability of the rates quoted by them.

7. I have heard Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, HPCL. I have also considered the entire materials on record including the records produced by Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, HPCL.

8. In support of his argument, Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the three decisions, which are reported in 2012 (1) GLT 271(Dhirendra Chandra Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.); 2011 (3) GLT 695 (Ackruti Plates Private Ltd Vs. State of Tripura & Ors.) and (2007) 8 SCC 1 (Reliance Energy Ltd. Vs. Maharastra State Road Development Corpn. & Ors.). Referring to the said decisions and also the file containing the impugned decision produced by Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, HPCL, Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the particular decision to cancel the earlier NIT was taken through the competent authority without placing the relevant materials befo