The Corporation's rejection of tenders under Condition No. 5 of NIT was justified to save public money, and the petitioner had no indefeasible right for contract award.

Swatanter Kumar, J. - Punjab Police Housing Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation), an instrumentality of the State, invited tenders, vide advertisement dated 14.4.2001, amongst others for awarding the contract in relation to construction of 96 houses at Punjab Armed Police Lines, Jalandhar. 4.5.2001 was the date fixed for opening of the tenders. The petitioner firm, which are carrying on the business of civil contracts, engineers and fabricators, responded to the above tender inquiry and submitted its tenders in regard to the above work. The tenders were opened on 4.5.2001. The petitioner-firm was declared to be the lowest tenderer. According to the petitioner, the firm was called for negotiations on 10.5.2001 by the Corporation. The petitioner firm offered to give 2% rebate on electrical portion only. However, they were again called for negotiation and respondent No. 4 desired that petitioner should reduce the price further. In the meeting held on 30th May, 2001, the petitioner as a matter of goodwill agreed to give further rebate of Rs. 11, 000/- in all and expressed their inability to reduce any further the rates of tender. The Chief Engineer-respondent No. 4 recommended the case of the petitioner to respondent No. 2 for issuance of appropriate order, as a result of acceptance of the tender.

2. The petitioner, who appears to be well informed of the progress of the file and noting on the office file, has stated in the writ petition that on 7.6.2001, the file was put up to respondent No. 2, who made the noting "put up the case with NIT". After perusal of the entire matter on 8.6.2001, the respondent No. 2 passed the following order :

"No. Being competent authority, I invoke condition No. 5 of NIT and reject the tenders. Re-invite. Release the Earnest Money."

3. In furtherance to the order dated 8.6.2001, the Corporation issued a letter to the petitioner-firm in the above terms and further it was ordered that fresh tenders be invited. On 12.6.2001, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was returned and fresh advertisement was released in the newspaper, copy of which is annexed to the petition as Annexure P/7 inviting fresh tenders by 29th June, 2001. On these facts, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondent No. 1 dated 8.6.2001 and return of his earnest money dated 12th June, 2001.

4. According to the petitioner, the order dated 8th June, 2001 has not been passed by the competent authority, is an arbitrary exercise of powers and the petitioner being the lowest tenderer, has a vested right to be awarded the tender work.

5. Upon notice, the respondents filed a detailed reply. According to the respondents, the facts are hardly in dispute. It is stated that the rate quoted by the petitioner in the tender was highly excessive and, therefore, in the interest of the Corporation, the respondent No. 1 had passed the order rejecting all the tenders received in pursuance to the first advertisement and, therefore, necessity arose for reinviting the tenders. According to the respondents, in furtherance to the 2nd notice inviting the tenders, the tenders have already been received and tender stand awarded at a much lower rate than quoted by the petitioner and, as such, the present petition has become infructuous and no relief can be granted to the petitioner. In addition to this, it is also contended that the terms of the contract fall purely in the field of contractual obligation simplicitor and the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court.

6. At the very outset, we must notice that no allegation of mala fide or bias in exercise of its power has either been stated in the petition or even otherwise attributed on the part of any of the respondents. In absence of any mala fide or mal-practice alleged to have been adopted by the respondents, this court at best can examine this petition within a very limited compass i.e. whether the respondents hav