ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Steel Authority of India Ltd and Container Corporation of India Ltd. 2. Petitioner, who submitted his offer in response to the Invitation to Tender dated 26.8.2004, Annexure - 1 issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and after acceptance of his tender, was allowed Letter of Intent dated 16.12.2004, Annexure - 7, has come to this Court assailing the orders dated 12.4.2005, as contained in Annexure - 11, where under the said letter of Intent dated 16.12.2004, Annexure - 7 has been cancelled for his failure to furnish conversion certificate as also the Bank guarantee in terms of the tender notice which the petitioner was directed to furnish under letter dated 17.12.2004, Annexure - B. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in support of this application contended that the conversion certificate as required under tender notice could not be furnished to the Steel Authority of India Ltd. as the Collector, Patna, who is authorized to issue the same has not issued the said certificate in spite of repeated requests made by the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure - 10 series and thus for failure of the Collector, Patna the Steel Authority of India Ltd. should not take action against him. He further contended that the Bank Guarantee was not furnished as submission of the bank guarantee alone would not have served any purpose, since the Collector, Patna had not issued conversion certificate. In these circumstances it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the action of the Respondents not to await the issue of conversion certificate by the Collector, Patna and to cancel the Letter of Intent under the impugned order tantamounts to accommodating the Container Corporation of India Ltd. even when they have quoted much higher rate for execution of the contract and are marked as L3 tenderers which is wholly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. 4. On the other hand, Sri Ray Shivaji Nath, appearing for the Steel Authority of India Ltd., with reference to his counter affidavit as also the Letter dated 17.12.2004 and 29.12.2004 issued by the Steel Authority of India Ltd., as contained in Annexures - 8 and 9 as also the impugned order dated 12.4.2005, Annexure - 11, submitted that repeated indulgence was allowed to the petitioner to carry out the post contract formalities as per the tender terms, but the petitioner failed to respond to the request made under letter dated 17.12.2004 and 29.12.2004, the Steel Authority of India Ltd. had no option, but to cancel the Letter of Intent under the impugned order in which it was categorically stated that even after passage of four months, the petitioner neither complied with any of the stipulated condition nor communicated with the Authorities. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Container Corporation of India has submitted with reference to his counter affidavit that the contract has now been awarded to the Corporation and the Corporation is in absolute readiness to go ahead with the work order but is not being allowed to work as there is an interim order passed by this Court on 19.5.2005. He also submitted that the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings filed by them as also the impugned order dated 11.4.2005, Annexure - 11, I am satisfied that the petitioner has failed to carry out the post contract formality as was required under the tender notice itself and the authorities having awaited for about four months had no option, but to cancel the Letter of Intent. The action of Respondents does not appear to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 7. There does not appear any merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 8. The interim order dated 19.5.2005, passed in this case is accordingly vacated.