Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. This writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge dated 7.12.2004. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 2. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned single Judge and hence we are not repeating the same. The petitioner/appellant submitted that he was the highest bidder in an auction, but after that auction the authorities have decided to hold a fresh auction. 3. It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that even the highest bidder has no absolute indefeasible right to get the contract. There may be various reasons why the authorities may not accept the bid of the highest bidder, especially when the highest bid was inadequate or for some other good reason vide S.Selvarani v. The Commissioner, Karaikudi Municipality and another (2005 Writ L.R. 30). 4. It would have been a different matter, if the authorities, after deciding not to give a contract to the highest bidder, had given it to some one else by private negotiation. However, that is not the case here. Here, after rejecting the highest bid of the petitioner the authorities decided to hold a fresh auction. There is nothing illegal in this. The petitioner can also participate in the fresh auction. 5. Thus, there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed. Consequently WAMP No.701 of 2005 is also dismissed.