Court cannot reappreciate the facts and examine the decisions taken on merits.

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner, appellant herein, wherein, the writ-petitioner had challenged the tender notice issued by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, first respondent herein, dated 7-10-2002 and sought a direction to accept the tender by the petitioner in pursuance of the tender notice dated 14-8-2001 and award the contract.

2. Neyveli Lignite Corporation had required certain machinery and therefore floated a tender on 3-2-2001 for the supply of 6-Nos. of pipe layers. There was a specification that the concerned pipe layers should be equipped with Power Shift Transmission System (in short ‘PST System’). It seems that the second respondent responded to this tender notice and the petitioner could not since the petitioner, who is also a manufacturer of pipe layers, did not manufacture the pipe layers equipped with PST System. The pipe layers manufactured by the petitioner are equipped with Hydrostatic Drive Technolocy (in short HDT System) which, according to the petitioners, is a better and modern technology. The petitioner had enquired with the first respondent as to whether they could also offer the tender but was dissuaded as the petitioner were not able to supply the pipe layers with PST system.

3. On 14-8-2001, the first respondent floated another tender. This time the tender was for the supply of 13-Nos. of pipe layers. However, this time, the requirement was slightly changed in the sense that the pipe layers could be either with PST System or with HDT System. Petitioner submitted tender.

4. The tenders were opened on 20-2-2002. It was found that the prices quoted by the petitioner were the lowest (in short L1) while the rates quoted by the second respondent was the third lowest (in short L3). Nothing was done substantially thereafter though the petitioner was invited for the further negotiations by the officials of the first respondent. However, suddenly on 23-9-2002 petitioner received a letter from the first respondent that for the administrative reasons, the tender dated 14-8-2002, for which the petitioner was L1, was not to be processed.

5. A representation was sent by the petitioners on 30-9-2002 to the Hon’ble Minister for Coal, Ministry of Coal with a copy thereof to the Joint Secretary against the communication dated 23-9-2002. Nothing was heard by the petitioner in respect of that. Instead, petitioner saw that on 7-10-2002 the first respondent had floated a third tender for 19-Nos. pipe layers. Again the manufacturers of pipe layers equipped with both systems, viz. PST System as well as HDT System could vie for this.

6. It seems that the petitioner took part in this tender also. Though initially the petitioner sought the extension of time for the tender, which extension was not given to them, the petitioner seems to have submitted the tender in time by filing its bid. Petitioner then filed a writ petition (W.P. No.40533 of 2002) on 1-11-2002. The technical bids were opened in respect of the tenders including the petitioner’s and the second respondent on 7-11-2002 on which day, the petitioner moved the learned single Judge of this Court and obtained an order of injunction, restraining the first respondent from proceeding further with the said tender notice. Ultimately the matter was heard by the learned single Judge and was dismissed on 20-12-2002. It is against this order, dismissing the writ petition, that the present writ appeal is directed.

7. Learned single Judge took the view that firstly the first respondent had the right to cancel the tender at any time. Learned Judge further took the view that since the scope of judicial review in such matters is extremely limited to examine only the “decision-making process” and not the “merits of the decision” and further since there was nothing arbitrary or unfair or illegal or contrary to the principles of Wednesbury’s reasonableness, petiti