The court has the discretion to safeguard the interests of the concerned parties and may issue directions to prevent injustice, even if the petitioner failed to challenge the tender cancellation and did not participate in the subsequent tender.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to call for the tender notification dated 23.10.2002 which was published in a newspaper on 26.10.2002 by the first respondent, to quash the same and consequently allot the contract to the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, the first respondent has invited tenders on earlier occasion on 10.09.2002 towards collection of parking fee in Chennai Mofussil Bus Terminal in Koyambedu, Chennai, through an advertisement in a Tamil daily by tender notification dated 6.9.2002. The upset price for the above tender was fixed at Rs.25 lakhs, wherein the petitioner has participated and made an offer of Rs.32,05,000/-. On 27.9.2002, when the tenders were opened, the petitioner was declared as the highest bidder. Thereafter, since the petitioner did not receive any communication from the first respondent, he has submitted a representation dated 16.10.2002 to the first respondent to allot the contract in his favour as early as possible. However, to his shock and surprise, the tender was cancelled on 25.10.2002 by the first respondent without assigning any reasons. Subsequently, the first respondent has invited fresh tender notification dated 23.10.2002, once again through their advertisement in a newspaper called 'Dinabumi' on 26.10.2002, which was opened on 13.11.2002. In the subsequent tender, the second respondent was selected as the successful bidder, even though he has quoted a lesser amount in the previous tender which was opened on 27.9.2002.

3. According to the petitioner, the first respondent ought not to have called for retender without even cancelling the earlier tender and the representation submitted by it was not considered and there is no transparency in awarding the contract

4. The first respondent has filed a counter-affidavit, disputing the various averments urged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as well as the stay petition. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that in the earlier tender, which was opened on 27.9.2002, three tenderers participated and even though the amount offered by the petitioner was the highest, a decision was taken by the first respondent to call for retender. In fact, the earlier tender was widely published in two leading newspapers. The learned counsel further contended that even though the tender submitted by the petitioner was rejected as early as on 25.10.2002, and the retender schedule was available for sale from 26.10.2002 till 12.11.2002 which was due to be opened on 13.11.2002, the petitioner has not availed the opportunity of purchasing the said tender schedules and participating the tender. The retender was also widely circulated as was done earlier which was opened in the presence of all the participants. It cannot be suggested that there was no transparency on the part of the first respondent in finalising the tender. According to the learned counsel, the terms and conditions of earlier tender notification clearly proceeds to the effect that the tender submitted by any individual can be cancelled without assigning any reasons. Further, the tender has to be finalised urgently, in view of the fact that the inaugural function of the bus terminal was fixed on 18.11.2002. Hence, immediately, after opening the retender on 13.11.2002, the same was finalised on 14.11.2002 and the work order was issued on the same day and the site was also handed over to the successful bidder viz., the second respondent on 14.11.2002 in order to make it ready on 18.11.2002. The learned counsel would further contend that in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the second respondent was not permitted to make use of the site even though he has paid the entire amount.

5. The learned counsel for the second respondent would contend that the writ petition itself is frivolous and filed for mala fide reasons. The writ petition is not maintainable in law, inasmuch as the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the