ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question Notification dated 14-11-2022 and all subsequent actions whereby the respondents have re-tendered the tender that was sought to be awarded to the petitioner and has sought a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to take the declaration of the petitioner to be the lowest bidder to its logical conclusion.

2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Y.T. Abhinay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner claims to be a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 having established on 17-05-1988 and further claims that it is in the business of manufacturing, supply, erection and commissioning of LED Graphic, video, text displays, LED lighting solutions, embedded systems, electronic products, telecom software and communication and all other allied products and also entertain annual maintenance contracts at various divisions and zones of the Indian Railways. The 2nd respondent/South Western Railways issues notice inviting tender on 03-10-2022 floating three tenders relating to Passenger Information Systems. The tender was for display of LED graphic screens for the information about the trains in the Railways. The petitioner submitted its bid along with others who were three in number and emerged as a lowest bidder i.e., L1 on 28-11-2022. It was directed that the petitioner should produce all test certificates that would necessitate the tender to be taken further and the approval of those certificates was to be by the RDSO. The certificates and the conditions stipulated in the said communication were to be complied by the petitioner on or before 06-12-2022. A communication is made on 05-12-2022 indicating that the Company has all the infrastructure and capacity in terms of the communications of RDSO or has latest equipments for installations of various IPIS equipments. On 22-12-2022 finding that the petitioner was short falling in the specifications the respondents refloated the very tender in which the petitioner had emerged as the lowest bidder. The petitioner again communicates to the respondents on 23.12.2022 about the unilateral decision being taken with regard to the tender of the petitioner. On 24-12-2022 the tender in which the petitioner had participated was cancelled, EMD amount refunded and the work re-tendered. It is this that drives the petitioner to this court in the subject petition.

4. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the petitioner had all the infrastructure. The tender could not have been cancelled mid- stream after declaring the petitioner to be the lowest bidder. The respondent being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India could not have acted arbitrarily by cancelling the tender and re-tendering the same work. He would submit that the entire action is in violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner is kept in dark on all the events that have happened pursuant to his declaration as the lowest bidder.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that mere declaration of the petitioner as the lowest bidder would not get him the work order. There were several specifications that were to be met pursuant to declaration of L1 which were concerning infrastructure and capacity of the petitioner to perform the contract as approved by the RDSO. The petitioner failing in the said specifications cannot now contend that the respondents cannot re- tender the same work. It is his contention that the work had to be completed within six months and in this jugglery two months have already passed. He seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned senior counsel in reply would seek to place reliance upon the manual of the Central Vigilance Commission insofar as it rela