JUDGMENT The short, rather only question raised in this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India by the petitioner is whether decision of respondent (Indore Development Authority) dated 12.5.2000, contained in Annexure P-3, rejecting all the tenders including that of the tender of petitioner, is legal and proper? Or whether it can be termed as an act of arbitrariness on the part of respondent, thereby entitling this Court to quash it under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India? Facts is brief are that respondent No. 1 Indore Development Authority, for brevity hereinafter referred to as IDA, on 7.4.2000 (Annexure P-2), invited tenders from public at large for sale of certain plots in their Scheme No. 94. Petitioner and three more submitted their tenders quoting their respective prices for purchase of the said plot. The following were the rates offered by the four parties including petitioner: 1. Gharonda Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 4,000/- p.sq.f. 2. Gurvindersingh Bhatia Rs. 3,767.82/- p.sq.f. 3. M/s. Sai Akam Company Rs. 4,090/- p.sq.f. 4. Sagar Enterprises Rs. 4,344/- p.sq.f. By Annexure P-3 dated 12.5.2000, the respondent was pleased to cancel the entire bid saying that in view of the fact that land in question is situated near Bombay Hospital and that it has more usefulness and, thirdly, the tender was invited for the first time, all the tenders are rejected. Indeed this decision was taken by the Committee consisting of three senior officials - two from IDA and third one from State - Joint Director, Town and Country Planning. It is this decision of the IDA which is impugned by the petitioner in this petition essentially on the ground that since the price quoted by the petitioner was the highest amongst all four and, secondly, no reasons having been assigned for rejection, a case of arbitrary action or, one may say, unreasonableness on the part of IDA is made out. It was urged that when the petitioner was admittedly found to be the highest. the IDA was bound to allot the land to them. Reliance was placed by learned counsel on rule 18 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Anya Samrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975, as also on an authority reported in 1994 JLJ 571 (Mangal Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd. v. State). I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel. the IDA was bound to allot the land to them. Reliance was placed by learned counsel on rule 18 of M.P. Nagar Tatha Anya Samrachanao Ka Vyayan Niyam, 1975, as also on an authority reported in 1994 JLJ 571 (Mangal Amusement Park Pvt. Ltd. v. State). I am unable to accept the submission of learned counsel. In my opinion, no case of arbitrariness is discernable if one reads the impugned order Annexure P-3 referred supra. It is not a case of grant to a person who is lower than the petitioner. In such eventuality, a clear case of arbitrary action on the part of IDA is made out unless they satisfactorily explain their conduct as to why a person (tenderer) who quoted less was preferred than the one who quoted more. In a case where ·the entire tender process is cancelled on certain grounds, does not exhibit any arbitrariness on the part of IDA (authority). It is for IDA to decide which is the best price that they can fetch in tender. It may be that the price offered by petitioner is highest, but it is only for petitioner and not for IDA who has to part away with their largess. Merely because out of four tenderers, petitioner turned out to be the highest by itself does not give him any legal or preferential right compelling the IDA to allot the plot and accept petitioner's bid. I do not agree to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that no reasons were assigned for rejection and hence the impugned decision is bad. Firstly, the argument that no reasons were assigned is factually incorrect. Perusal of Annexure P-3 does indicate that it does mention as many as three grounds narrated supra. Whether those grounds are adequate or inadequate is not for this Court to examine in its writ jurisdiction. But that apart, the grounds which were made basis do justify rejection of entire tender process which did not result in allotment of plot in favour of either. The persons who were the members of committee are all responsible officers of the State and IDA and therefore to question their wisdom in coming to a conclusion for rejection of entire process is not justified. In my opinion, decision to reinvite the tender is conceived in the best interest of IDA. The persons who were the members of committee are all responsible officers of the State and IDA and therefore to question their wisdom in coming to a conclusion for rejection of entire process is not justified. In my opinion, decision to reinvite the tender is conceived in the best interest of IDA. It is an effort to get best available price for the largess put to sale by IDA. The more is the publicity, the better is the price in a healthy competition amongst the bidders. It rather eliminets the stigma of arbitrariness on the part of officials dealing with the cases who are making sincere efforts to fetch more revenue for the State. The petitioner is not prevented by the respondent (IDA) from again participating in the fresh tender process and bid for the same plot. In view of aforesaid discussion, the petition is found to be devoid of any merit. It is dismissed in limine.