Jasti Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by judgment dated 5.6.09 of a learned Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 5528/08 the unsuccessful petitioner preferred the present appeal. The petitioner is a proprietary concern. The first respondent is a public limited company. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are the officers of the said company. The first respondent published a notice dated 16.2.08 inviting sealed tenders from reputed and experienced contractors for unloading of bamboo/wood from wagons and shifting the same to the respondent's premises. The bid of the tenderers is required to be in two parts - (1) technical bid and (2) price bid, in two separate sealed covers. 2. Five tenderers responded to the notice, including the appellant. The appellant and the 4th respondent are the two of the above five tenderers. 3. As to the proceedings subsequent to receipt of the tenders the learned Judge recorded his findings at para 7 of the judgment as follows:-- 7. The petitioner claims to be a reputed proprietorial firm and submitted its tender in terms of the aforesaid NIT. After opening the tender documents, the concerned authority prepared a comparative statement of the Techno Commercial Bids and forwarded the same for technical scrutiny. The tender committee scrutinized the tenders of all the 5 tenderers and after such, scrutiny, technical recommendation was accorded in favour of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 and was placed for further deliberation. The matter was, thereafter, referred to finance department to consider the financial soundness of the tenderers and in turn it recommended to open the price bid of both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 as per its note dated 13.5.08. The matter was, thereafter, further placed before the Internal Audit department of the Corporation. The Internal Audit department, however, not having found applied the same yardstick as regards the consideration of the related tenders submitted by both the tenderers, they were asked to followed the same vide note dated 10.6.08. After consideration in details by the Internal Audit department, it was noticed that there were some deviation in the tender submitted by the petitioner which may lead to its disqualification and the Internal Audit department opined that the Techno Commercial Bid of both the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were found to be disqualified, but by the same note it also intimated for obtaining necessary legal opinion. In terms of the said note, legal opinion was sought for in respect of acceptability of the tender of the petitioner. The said opinion so furnished disclose that the respondent No. 4 has not fulfilled the NIT conditions and submitted the bid without complying with Clause-9 of the general terms and conditions of the contract. So far the deviation in respect of the petitioner is concerned it was pointed out that in the documents submitted by the petitioner along with the tender it endorsed a stamp of M/s. Shivam Syndicate wherein the petitioner was also a partner and he did not put the required stamp in all the pages. It was opined by the legal expert that the intention of the Bidder appears to be clear, but the deviation was there and taking into consideration of the matter is in its entirety, the deviation is stated to be a minor one. Being minor deviation was appeared in the tender; the legal opinion was given in favour of the petitioner. It is to be noted herein that in view of the deviation noticed in the tender submitted by the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 14.8.08, was issued to the petitioner asking such clarification and in its reply dated 19.8.08, the petitioner has admitted such deviation with certain explanation. Thereafter, the matter was finally placed before the Chief Executive of the Corporation. Referring to the aforesaid anomalies in respect of the tender submitted inasmuch as the tender committee could not arrive in any final decision in view of the conflicting opinion relating to the suitability of the tender submitted by the respondent No. 4 as provided by the Internal Audit department as well as that of the legal expert. Thereafter, the Chief Executive, Nagaon Paper Mill referred the matter to the CHQ vide note dated 30.7.08. 4. Eventually, a decision was taken not to proceed with the tenders of either the petitioner/appellant or the 4th respondent but to issue a notice afresh inviting tenders. 5. Challenging the said decision to invite fresh tenders the instant writ petition came to be filed and by the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition. 6. Mr. 5. Challenging the said decision to invite fresh tenders the instant writ petition came to be filed and by the judgment under appeal a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the said writ petition. 6. Mr. A.K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant relied on three decisions of the Supreme Court in support of his submission that the judgment under appeal is erroneous and contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned three judgments. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel are - (1994) 6 SCC 651 : Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (2006) 11 SCC 548 : BSN Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 67 : Indian Airlines Ltd. v. Prabha D Kanan and: AIR 2008 SC 1300 : State of MP & Ors v. Hazarilal. 7. In (1994) 6 SCC 651 it was a case which dealt with the decision of the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India in selecting the licencee for operation of cellular mobile telephone service in four major cities of India, namely, Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The Department short listed eight of the thirty tenderers who responded to the notice. Two companies, which were excluded from consideration by the departmental authorities, were directed to be considered by the concerned minister. In the light of the said decision of the minister one of the companies, initially excluded by the department, came to be selected. It was the said selection which was the subject matter of decision before the Supreme Court. Coming to: (2006) 11 SCC 548 the facts are as follows - Maharashtra State Electricity Board invited tenders. The appellant and the third respondent before the Supreme Court were among the tenderers. The appellant before the Supreme Court became the successful tenderer. One of the respondents before the Supreme Court challenged the decision of the electricity board in choosing the appellant before the Supreme Court on the ground that the appellant did not satisfy some of the conditions prescribed under the notice inviting tender. Coming to: (2006) 11 SCC 67 the issue before the Supreme Court was the constitutional validity of Regulation 13 of the Indian Airlines (Flying Crew) Service Regulations. Coming to: (2006) 11 SCC 67 the issue before the Supreme Court was the constitutional validity of Regulation 13 of the Indian Airlines (Flying Crew) Service Regulations. In: AIR 2008 SC 1300 the Supreme Court dealt with the issue regarding proportionality of punishment in the background of the following facts - An employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh was convicted for an offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one months simple imprisonment. In the background of such conclusion the employer terminated the service of the employee. The proportionality of such a decision to terminate the employment fell for consideration of the Supreme, Court. 8. None of the above cases, relied upon by the learned, counsel for the appellant, relate to a decision of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel a tender notice issued by the State or its instrumentalities and issue a fresh tender notice. In the circumstances, the reliance on the above mentioned decisions, in our view is wholly misplaced. 9. The decision of the State or its instrumentalities to cancel a tender notice and invite fresh tender, in our view, cannot be interfered with except, on the ground that such a decision was a mala fide decision. In the instant case no specific facts or particulars could be pleaded or established by the appellant of mala fide against any of the respondents. In the circumstances, we do not see any merits in the appeal which call for interference with the judgment under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed at the admission stage. _____________