JUDGMENT Hemant Gupta, J. - The challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated. 7.11.2007 (Annexure P.8) as well as the advertisement dated 15.12.2007 (Annexure P.10), whereby the respondents have invited additional offers in respect of the opening of "The State of the Art Hotel/Hospitality Management Institute" at Tilyar (Rohtak) and Badhkal (Faridabad). 2. The respondents invited the Expression of Interest (for short the EOI) from interested institutions/hotel chains/societies/bodies possessing experience and expertise in hotel, hospitality, travel and tourism management for setting of "The State of the Art Hotel/Hospitality Management Institutes" at Tilyar (Rohtak) and Badhakal (Faridabad) vide advertisement dated 13.2.2006 published in the Economic Times. The last date for receipt of EOI was 31.3.2006. 3. The petitioner is stated to be a major player in the Hotel and tourism sectors and one of the leading business houses in the country commanding forefront position in hospitality chain under the banner of "Bharat Hotel" with a net worth of more than Rs. 7500 crores. The petitioner submitted its EOI in the project vide letter dated 18.2.2006. The petitioner was called to appear before a Committee under the Chairpersonship of Minister of State for Tourism, Haryana on 12.6.2006 for making a presentation on its EOI for explaining the profile of its organisation and also for giving the details of the proposed offer for setting up the proposed institute. Apart from the petitioner, 6-7 other interested parties also made their representations on 12.6.2006. It was on 5.6.2007, almost a year later, the petitioner was informed that its name has been short listed for obtaining financial bid for the project. A copy of the Request for Proposal along with the site plan of the land identified was also enclosed. The pre-bid conference was organised for 27.6.2007. As per the Request for Proposal documents, the respondents were to make available land measuring 5 acres approximately at Badhakal on lease hold basis, initially for 33 years, extendable for 33 years at the first instance and another 33 years at the next instance. The reserve price was kept at Rs. 6,29,97,000/-. The petitioner also attended the pre-bid conference held on 27.6.2007 and in pursuance. of the said conference, the petitioner was requested to send the financial bid as per procedure laid down in the Request for Proposal document. The reserve price was kept at Rs. 6,29,97,000/-. The petitioner also attended the pre-bid conference held on 27.6.2007 and in pursuance. of the said conference, the petitioner was requested to send the financial bid as per procedure laid down in the Request for Proposal document. It was further stated that the financial bid must reach the office of respondent No. 2 by 11 a.m. on 11.9.2007. Such financial bid was submitted in an envelope-Part I containing power of attorney in favour of the Senior Vice President Development for signing of the application as also the earnest money of Rs. 6,30,000/- in the form of a demand draft dated 10.9.2007. Another envelope-Part II containing the financial bid alongwith the covering letter was also submitted. Both the envelopes containing the documents were kept in outer envelope along with other documents including project report, balance sheet; profit and loss account of the Petitioner for the last 3 years and auditors certificate regarding net worth. Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the financial bid would be opened by the Committee on 9.10.2007 at 4.00 p.m. in the meeting under the Chairpersonship of the Minister of State for Tourism. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was short listed for submission of the financial bid after having made the presentation and having attended the pre-bid conference and after completion of all the formalities provided in the Request for Proposal documents. The petitioner was successful bidder but a letter dated 7.11.2007 was received, whereby the petitioner was intimated that it was decided to keep the offer of the petitioner valid for the time being and that it has been further decided that fresh tenders may be floated for inviting additional offers. It was also communicated that the petitioner may send revised offers in response to the fresh tenders, if it so desires, otherwise its existing bid shall remain valid till the date of its validity or as revalidated by the petitioner later on depending upon the eventuality. In terms of the decision communicated, an advertisement has been inserted on 15.12.2007 inviting EOI for the same project. The petitioner has contended that once the bid of the petitioner is found to be the highest amongst all eligible tenderers, then the respondents cannot seek additional offers. In terms of the decision communicated, an advertisement has been inserted on 15.12.2007 inviting EOI for the same project. The petitioner has contended that once the bid of the petitioner is found to be the highest amongst all eligible tenderers, then the respondents cannot seek additional offers. Before examining the said argument in detail, some of the relevant conditions in the Request for Proposal, are worth to be noticed. The said conditions read as under : "10. The reserve price for land at Tilyar Lake Tourist Complex, Rohtak shall be Rs. 4,40,22,000 (rupees four crores forty lacs twenty two thousand only) and for the land at Food Craft Institute, Faridabad, the Reserve Price shall be Rs. 6,29,97,000 (rupees six crores twenty nine lacs and ninety seven thousand only). The offer sent by the applicant shall indicate the offer stating the maximum amount he would offer to pay over and above the above mentioned reserve price. The reserve price so quoted/accepted shall be payable in the following manner. xx xx xx 12. The applicant shall be required to pay 1% of the reserve price as earnest money in the shape of Demand Draft Payable in favour of the Director, Tourism Department, Haryana at Chandigarh. The demand draft of the earnest money shall be required to be sent alongwith financial bid/offer. xx xx xx 20. All the pre-qualified applicants are required to submit financial bid in accordance with the guidelines set forth in this Request for Proposal. Pre- qualified applicants shall provide information sought herein in the prescribed formats in order to accurately establish and interpret the information provided. The cost of preparation of Financial Bid and related expenses shall be borne by the Pre-qualified applicants themselves. xx xx xx 22. The Financial Bids would be evaluated for completeness and only completed Financial Bid, would be taken up for final evaluation. 23. The Financial Bids of only those Pre-qualified applicants whose Financial Bids are found complete shall be opened. The Project would be awarded to the Pre-qualified s applicant whose Financial Bid is declared as the highest. PART-A xx xx xx 20. Two copies of Request for Financial Bid (Request for Proposal) shall be furnished to the pre-qualified bidder. One copy may be returned alongwith the financial bid duly signed every page as indicated. The Project would be awarded to the Pre-qualified s applicant whose Financial Bid is declared as the highest. PART-A xx xx xx 20. Two copies of Request for Financial Bid (Request for Proposal) shall be furnished to the pre-qualified bidder. One copy may be returned alongwith the financial bid duly signed every page as indicated. Earnest money shall be submitted in separate envelopes along with financial bid in separate sealed cover otherwise the same shall be rejected. 28. No changes to a submitted Financial Bid, shall be allowed under circumstances. 29. The Financial Bid and all related correspondence and documents shall be made in English language only. 30. The Financial Bid for each of the project would be in two parts viz. Part-I, which will comprise of Earnest Money and Power of Attorney, and Part- II, which will be the Financial Bid. The Pre-qualified applicant would provide all the information as required in Request for Proposal. xx xx xx 32. Each of the three envelopes shall bear the name and address of the pre- qualified applicant for its identification and recording the same in the register and also if the Bid documents are to be returned unopened in case it is tendered late or is otherwise not complete. xx xx xx 34. First cover shall be opened in the presence of the Pre-qualified applicants representatives at time and date specified by Tourism Department, Haryana in the Request for Proposal. Second cover containing detailed Financial bid shall be opened immediately after ascertaining the availability of required Earnest Money in the first cover, in the form and manner specified in the Request for proposal." 5. In the written statement, it has been pointed out that only one single financial bid had been received in response to the tender and there was no scope for comparison and competition, therefore, it was decided that the offer of the petitioner be kept valid and fresh tenders may be floated for inviting additional offers. It is pointed out that in response to the EOI published in the newspaper on 9.2.2006, 26 groups/applicants sent their interest in the project. All the 26 groups/applicants were invited for discussion and making a presentation for their project on 12.6.2006 and 13.6.2006. Out of these, applicants appeared before the Committee for interview/presentation. Groups/applicants were short listed, who are called for pre-bid conference held on 26.6.2007. All the 26 groups/applicants were invited for discussion and making a presentation for their project on 12.6.2006 and 13.6.2006. Out of these, applicants appeared before the Committee for interview/presentation. Groups/applicants were short listed, who are called for pre-bid conference held on 26.6.2007. Out of the 8 short-listed applicants, 2 applicants i.e. the petitioner and M/s. Lakshya Bharti Foundation, New Delhi, attended the pre-bid conference, but all the 8 short listed candidates were requested to send their financial bid upto 11.9.2007. Two envelopes were received when the tender box was opened on 11.9.2007 by the sub-committee one was that of the petitioner and another was of M/s. Banarasi Das Chandiwala, New Delhi. Both the said applicants were requested to be present during the meeting of the Committee held on 9.10.2007 for opening of the financial bids. However, only the representative of the petitioner was present. The Committee opened both the envelopes and it was found that the second bidder i.e. M/s. Banarasi Das Chandiwala, New Delhi, sent a letter conveying their difficulties to set up the proposed institute. Thus, there was only one bid left i.e. the bid of petitioner. There was no competition. The respondents have pleaded in the written statement that the Committee decided to invite fresh tenders, while keeping the offer of the petitioner as pending. The minutes of the Committee have been appended with the reply as Annexure R.3. The relevant extracts from the said minutes read as under: "...A Sub Committee of C.E., HTC, CAO, Architect and Joint Director Tourism opened the tender box on 11.9.07 and two envelopes from the following applicants were received :- 1. M/s. Bharat Hotel Ltd., Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi. 2. M/s. Banarasi Das Chandiwala Institute of Hotel Management, New Delhi. Thereafter, both the above mentioned applicants were requested to be present during the meeting of the Committee being held today for opening of the financial bids. Only one applicant M/s. Bharat Hotel Ltd. was present and their representatives were called in the meeting at the time of opening of the financial bids. Their particulars of the representatives present are as under : 1. Shri Vijay K. Verma, Vice President and Company Secretary. 2. Shri Vijay Wanchoo, Senior Vice President. Only one applicant M/s. Bharat Hotel Ltd. was present and their representatives were called in the meeting at the time of opening of the financial bids. Their particulars of the representatives present are as under : 1. Shri Vijay K. Verma, Vice President and Company Secretary. 2. Shri Vijay Wanchoo, Senior Vice President. The committee opened both the envelopes and it was found that the second applicant, namely, M/s. Banarasidas Chandiwala Institute of Hostel Management, New Delhi did not send the financial bid and they have sent simply a letter conveying their difficulty to set up the proposed institute. The second envelope pertaining to M/s. Bharat Hotel Ltd. was opened and the following documents were received. xx xx xx At this stage the representatives of the applicant were requested to wait outside. As per their financial bid, M/s. Bharat Hotel Ltd. offered a reserve price of Rs. 8,08,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Eight Lacs) only as against reserve price fixed by the Department of Rs. 6,26,97/- (Rupees Six Crores Twenty Nine Lacs) only. Other documents sent by the applicant were found in order. The committee considered the matter in detail. Keeping in view the fact that only single financial bid was received which is valid for a period of six months and there was no scope for comparison, it was decided that the present offer may be kept valid for the time being. It was further decided that fresh tender may be floated for inviting additional offers and it may be mentioned clearly that the existing applicant can send revised bid, if he so desires otherwise his existing bid shall remain valid till the date of its validity or as revalidated by the applicant later on depending upon the eventuality. The Request for Proposal document may be sent to the applicants at the time of expression of interest itself so that all the details/requirements are made clear to them." 6. On the basis of the said sequence of events, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that out of 26 groups/applicants, who have responded to EOI, only groups/applicants were short listed. The petitioner was one of the groups, which was short listed and has also attended the pre-bid conference. The other offerer i.e. M/s. Banarasi Das Chandiwala, has not attended the pre-bid conference. As per the procedure, the financial bid was in two parts. The petitioner was one of the groups, which was short listed and has also attended the pre-bid conference. The other offerer i.e. M/s. Banarasi Das Chandiwala, has not attended the pre-bid conference. As per the procedure, the financial bid was in two parts. Part-I was in respect of power of attorney and the earnest money and Part-II was in respect of the financial bid. Both these parts were to be kept in separate envelopes and were then to be kept in an outer envelope. It is contended that when the outer envelope submitted by M/s. Banarasi Das Chandiwala, was opened, it was found that the said bidder has not submitted any financial bid. It was thereafter that the outer envelope containing the financial bid in two parts of the petitioner was opened. Part-I, in respect of the earnest money, was found to be in order and Part-II, containing the financial bid, was opened. Since the offer of the petitioner was the highest and was also found technically feasible, the offer was bound to be accepted and additional offers cannot be invited. It is further contended that it was open to the respondents to take a decision to invite fresh tenders only before opening the financial bid of the petitioner on account of any reason including that of the single tender or that there is no competition. But, once the respondents have opened the financial bids, the adversary in the business can offer better rates than the rates offered by the petitioner just to oust the petitioner from the competition in the additional offers now sought. Therefore, the action inviting fresh tender process is unjustified and illegal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the respondents have an absolute right to annul the tender process at any point of time. The tender process was annulled on account of lack of competition. Therefore, the action of the respondents having been taken in the interest of the State does not warrant interference by this Court. 8. As per the minutes produced, the offer of M/s. Banarsi Das Chandiwala was opened first, which is apparent from the sequence of events mentioned in the minutes. Clause 34 of Part-A of the Request for Proposal is to the effect that first cover shall be opened in the presence of the pre-qualified applicants representative. 8. As per the minutes produced, the offer of M/s. Banarsi Das Chandiwala was opened first, which is apparent from the sequence of events mentioned in the minutes. Clause 34 of Part-A of the Request for Proposal is to the effect that first cover shall be opened in the presence of the pre-qualified applicants representative. The said cover containing the detailed financial bid, shall be opened in the presence of the Pre-qualified applicants representatives at the time and date specified by the Tourism Department and that the Financial bid shall be opened immediately after ascertaining the availability of required earnest money in the first cover in the form and manner specified in the Request for Proposal. It is, thus, contended that since M/s. Banarasi Das Chandiwala has not submitted Part-I of the financial bid in respect of the earnest money and other documents, therefore, the financial bid of the petitioner contained in Part-II could not have been opened. It is contended that once the financial bid has been opened, the market value force will come into play and the petitioner would be out-bided in the additional offer now sought for. 9. Clause 34 of the documents as mentioned above, requires the opening of the financial bid immediately after ascertaining the availability of the required earnest money in the first cover. Once, the earnest money of M/s. Banarsi Das Chandiwala was not received, it would be totally arbitrary to open the financial bid of the petitioner and consequently harm the petitioners financial interest. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents could not point out any Judgment, Rule or Instructions to the effect that in case of sole offer received in pursuance of tender, the same cannot be considered. In the present case, in the EOI 26 applicants/groups responded. 24 of such applicants appeared for their presentation, but only 8 could be short listed. It is the petitioner, who has attended the pre-bid conference and also submitted the bid whereas the pre-bid conference was attended by one Lakshya Bharti Foundation. The offer containing the financial bid was not submitted by M/s. Banarsi Das Chandiwala. Thus, in terms of Clauses 32 and 34 of the documents the respondents could not open Part-II of the financial bids. Such opening of the bid is not fair and reasonable after multi-level scrutiny of documents. The offer containing the financial bid was not submitted by M/s. Banarsi Das Chandiwala. Thus, in terms of Clauses 32 and 34 of the documents the respondents could not open Part-II of the financial bids. Such opening of the bid is not fair and reasonable after multi-level scrutiny of documents. Though the reserve price in respect of the one of the resort was Rs. Rs. 6,29,97,000/-, the petitioner has offered a sum of Rs. 8,08,00,000/- crores, which is much more than the reserve price, but happens to be the sole offer as well. We are of the opinion that though it is for the respondents to reject or cancel any offer, but such rejection or cancellation has to be for good and valid reasons. 11. It was not open to the respondents to open the financial bid of the petitioner as M/s. Banarsi Das Chandiwala has not submitted even the earnest money. In the absence of proof of payment of the earnest money, Part-II of the financial bid of the petitioner could not have been opened. Such opening of the financial bid has affected the rights of the petitioner. Such decision suffers from arbitrariness and lacks bona-fide. Therefore, we are of the opinion that once the financial bid of the petitioner has been opened, the same could not have been rejected on account of the fact that there is no competition. 12. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the decision to invite fresh tenders as decided in the minutes dated 9.10.2007 (Annexure R.3) and consequent advertisement inviting fresh applications is arbitrary, unjust and not sustainable. 13. It may be noticed that on 21.12.2007, when the writ petition came up for motion hearing before this Court, an order was passed that the petitioner will resubmit the tender without prejudice to its rights in the writ petition. It was further directed that the action taken on Annexure P.10 shall be subject to further orders of this Court. 14. In view thereof, no right of third person has been created. Therefore, we allow the present writ petition; quash the impugned communication dated 7.11.2007 (Annexure P.8) & Advertise (Annexure P.10) and direct the respondents to consider the bid of the petitioner, in accordance with law. Petition allowed.