Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29604-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34945 of 2024 Petitioner :- M/S Kamal Narayan Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kumar Singh,Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Manish Pandey Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manish Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Dinesh Singh and Devaang Salva, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 and learned State Counsel for the State-respondent. Learned State Counsel has furnished instructions, which are taken on record. Its copy has been given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved by short term tender notice issued by the respondents with regard to a project for raising height of the wall. The tender is challenged on the ground that the petitioner had participated in the previous bid and being the second lowest tenderer, he was entitled to award of contract. It is also submitted that without informing the petitioner with regard to cancellation of the bid, a fresh bid has been invited. Second tender was cancelled on 30.09.2024 and a fresh tender has been called thereafter. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that in the previous bid, three persons submitted financial bids and bid of L-1 was Rs.8. The respondents stated that the work in such low amount was not feasible as a long wall had to be raised and the other two bidders had bid an amount of Rs.59,00,000/- and Rs.69,00,000/- respectively. It is stated that respondents took a bonafide decision to call for fresh tenders as competitive bids were found lacking and the lowest bidder otherwise was being excluded from consideration. Our attention has been invited to page no.101 of the writ which is a representation of the petitioner in which the petitioner himself admits that officials of respondents had called him and told him that he takes part in a fresh bid floated by respondents. The petitioner however has refused to accept such terms of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that version of the respondents that he was informed of cancellation of the bid, is not correct. Though we find that the representation of the petitioner dated 13.10.2024 is not very specific, yet a reasonable inference can be drawn inasmuch as the petitioner has stated that he was told by the officials of Smart City Mission that they would get work done from him but he refused to accept their version and thereafter bid was cancelled. The fresh bid was otherwise published on the website. We are also informed that no work order has otherwise been issued as the project was part of Mahakumbh Mela, Prayagraj which is already over. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere in the matter, particularly as law is well settled that the lowest tenderer has no indefensible right to claim contract and for valid reasons, it is open for the employer to invite a fresh tender. The fact that the lowest tenderer had quoted rate on which work was not possible and, therefore, only two persons remained in the fray due to which a fresh tender was invited, cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 rkg Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad