The power of judicial review can only be exercised if the process adopted or decision made by the authorities is mala fide, intended to favor someone, or so arbitrary and irrational that no responsible authority acting reasonably could have reached.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

Facts, as emerged from the record, are that the Himachal Pradesh Agro Industries Limited, invited tenders for the purchase of Plant Protection Equipments (A) (Foot, Hand Compression & Knapsack, Sprayer etc.) for the Department of Horticulture, Agriculture etc., Himachal Pradesh for the year 2017-2018 by advertising Notice Inviting Tender (for short ‘NIT’) in Hindustan Times (Delhi Edition) on 2nd February, 2017. Pursuant to aforesaid NIT, petitioner, who claimed itself to be authorized manufacturer of the Plant Protection Equipments, qua which tenders were issued/invited, submitted tender document (Annexure P-2). As per terms and conditions contained in tender form (Annexure P-3), tender was to be opened on 23rd February, 2017 at 3.30 P.M.

2. As per averments contained in the petition as well as record perused by this Court, tenders submitted by the petitioner as well as other tenderers were opened on the same day and thereafter rates were read-over and announced loudly by one of the Member of the Tenders Opening Committee (for short ‘TOC’). As per petitioner, its tender was found to be lowest amongst other nine bidders and as such he was legitimately expecting that rate contract in terms of Tender Notice would be awarded to it on or before 31st March, 2017, since, till that date, there was already rate contract in operation. As per petitioner, on 23rd February, 2017, simultaneously other tenders pertaining to altogether different works were also processed and opened by the same ‘TOC’, who after opening the same out rightly rejected one tender for want of earnest money, whereas, in the case of present tender, all tenders were found in order and proper and as such after conclusion of meeting, ‘TOC’ apprised the petitioner that he would be awarded tender/rate contract with respect to the present tender on or before expiry of previous tenders i.e. 31st March, 2017. Petitioner has further alleged that respondents despite awarding work to it, being lowest tenderer, decided to convene a meeting of Technical Scrutiny Sub Committee (for short ‘TSSC’), having four members including one person, who was also a Member of TOC’ i.e. respondent No.3. As per petitioner, ‘TSSC’ was otherwise required to call the present petitioner for negotiation and thereafter award the rate contract, but, Committee, referred above, without associating the petitioner, who was the lowest tenderer, convened the meeting. However, fact remains that the Committee, as referred above, did not take any decision with regard to awarding of work to the petitioner-firm, as a result of which it was compelled to file various representations vide Annexures P-4 to P-8. Since no action, if any, was taken by the Authorities concerned, pursuant to aforesaid representations sent by the petitioner, petitioner vide Annexure P-9 got legal notice served upon the respondents calling upon them to award work to it being the lowest bidder. In the aforesaid background, petitioner alleging malafide or inaction on the part of respondents in not awarding it work despite its being lowest bidder, approached this Court by way of instant petition on 2nd May, 2017.

3. At this stage, it may be noticed that during the pendency of petition, referred above, communication dated 29th April, 2017 (Annexure P-10) came to be issued by respondent, cancelling therein tenders in question (Annexure R-2/C annexed with application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment filed by the writ petitioner). Pursuant to aforesaid development, petitioner sought permission of this Court to amend writ petition, which was allowed and by way of amended petition, petitioner, apart from other reliefs, also prayed for quashing communication dated 29th April, 2017 (Annexure P-10).

4. Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner-firm, while inviting the attention of this Court to the document dated 29th April, 2017, whereby tender in question c