ORDER 1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No.2 of not publishing the Notice Inviting Tender (for short, NIT) for rate list for supply of veterinary, ayurvedic and allopathic feed supplements, in the newspapers, thereby depriving the petitioner and the interested manufacturers, authorised stockists and distributors from participating in the tender process. 2. According to the petitioner, a proprietory concern, it is fulfilling the eligibility criteria and is possessing all the requisite documents and qualifications required for participating in the tender process for rate contract but it could not submit its tender for want of knowledge of issuance of the NIT, since the same was invited only through on-line process. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent though initially decided and proceeded to publish the NIT but for reasons best known to him, dropped the said process and had taken recourse of on-line invitation of the tenders. In support, the petitioner has placed on record the various correspondences (Annexures P/3 to P/12) between the second respondents [Director, Hubandry] and the third respondent [Deputy Director. Public Relation Directorate (Advertisement)] to show that the NIT was to be published in the daily national newspapers of Hindi and English Language as also in the weekly newspaper Rozgar Patra and various steps were taken for the said purpose. It is also the case of the petitioner that the decision of not publishing the NIT in the daily newspapers and publishing only on-line is not only contrary to the Store Purchase Rules and the practice of the government departments but is also contrary to the recent guidelines (Annexure P/15) issued by the second respondent/department itself, providing that for the tender processed using the e-procurement system a 'brief advertisement' related to the tender shall be published in the newspapers and the detailed notice shall be published only on the e-procurement system. It is also the case of the petitioner that even the 'brief’ of the NIT has also not been published, depriving it from participating in the tender process. 3. The respondents have filed reply of the petition and have stated that by not publishing the NIT in the newspapers, the respondents have not committed any illegality. It is also the case of the petitioner that even the 'brief’ of the NIT has also not been published, depriving it from participating in the tender process. 3. The respondents have filed reply of the petition and have stated that by not publishing the NIT in the newspapers, the respondents have not committed any illegality. It has been stated that from this year, the respondents have decided to carry out the tender process by way of e-procurement system. This system has been adopted with an intention to improve the efficiency, transparency, reduction in time of the tendering, to have more participation and better access, therefore, same cannot be said to be unjustified. The respondents have also stated that the petitioner is not a proprietorship concern, but is a partnership concern and one of its partner Ajay Bhargava has participated in the e-tendering process, claiming to be proprietors of M/s. Anivet Health Care, and therefore it cannot be said that petitioner could not know about the issuance of the e-tender. 4. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply and has denied the respondent's contention that it is not a proprietory concern. The petitioner reiterated that it is partnership concern and has stated that there is no nexus between M/s. Anivet Health Care and the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically denied that Ajay Bhargava is its partner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the petition, return, rejoinder and the annexures. 6. It is not in dispute that for publishing the impugned NIT in the daily national newspapers of Hindi and English language, the second respondent wrote a letter dated 28.6.2011 (Annexure P/3) to third respondent. For want of necessary details in the proposal for publication of the NIT, the third respondent sent a communication dated 4.7.2011 (Annexure P/6) to the second respondent, requiring the details necessary for carrying out the publication of the NIT. In the meanwhile, on 30.6.2011, again a communication was sent by the second respondent to the third respondent for publishing the NIT in the national level English newspapers and weekly newspapers Rozgar Patra. Again noticing the various deficiencies in the proposal of the NIT, the third respondent sent a communication dated 05.07.2011 to the second respondent. In the meanwhile, on 30.6.2011, again a communication was sent by the second respondent to the third respondent for publishing the NIT in the national level English newspapers and weekly newspapers Rozgar Patra. Again noticing the various deficiencies in the proposal of the NIT, the third respondent sent a communication dated 05.07.2011 to the second respondent. Meanwhile, again an amended proposal was sent by the second respondent to the third respondent on 2.7.2011, which was also replied by the communication dated 5.7.201 I-by the third respondent to second respondent pointing out the deficiencies in the proposal. Thereafter, without sending the amended proposal, as was found necessary and as was desired by the third respondent, the second respondent issued on-line NIT (Annexure PI 13). Thus, it is clear that though process for publication of the NIT in the newspapers of national level was initiated, but for no reason that process was bypassed and all of a sudden, on-line tenders were issued deviating from the decision already taken as also from the guidelines issued in respect of tendering process, requiring brief advertisement relating to the NIT to be published in the newspapers, as per Clause 4 of the guidelines (Annexure P/I5). 7. Thus, we find that the second respondent had decided and proceeded for publication of the impugned NIT in the national level newspapers of Hindi and English language and in Rozgar Patra; but, instead of publishing the NIT, had taken recourse of on-line tendering process. No reason has been assigned for deviating from the earlier decision taken to get it published in the newspaper, as per the steps taken for it nor the brief advertisement was published, as required under the guidelines of the second respondent/department. This act on the part of the second respondent has deprived not only the petitioner but also to the various aspirants from taking part in the said NIT. This decision making process smacks unreasonableness and being arbitrary and unreasonable, cannot be allowed to be sustained. It is also seen that there is no rebuttal to the petitioner's rejoinder wherein the petitioner has made a categorical statement that it is a proprietorship concern and Ajay Bhargava is not its partner and Ajay Bhargava has no interest in the petitioner's firm. 8. It is also seen that there is no rebuttal to the petitioner's rejoinder wherein the petitioner has made a categorical statement that it is a proprietorship concern and Ajay Bhargava is not its partner and Ajay Bhargava has no interest in the petitioner's firm. 8. Having regard to the aforesaid peculiar facts of the case, in our considered view, the petitioner has made out a case for quashment of the impugned NIT dated 29.6.2011 in respect of rate list/Med cell/2011 and NIT No.4 rate list/Med cell/2011 for want of wide publicity as having been not published in the newspapers inspite of the fact that it was decided to be published in the newspapers and for which process was already commenced as also for want of non-compliance of guideline clause 4 requiring publication of brief advertisement in case of e-tendering process. 9. In view of the above, we quash the impugned NIT and the process done so far on the basis of it, keeping in view that the same was made subject to the result of this petition vide order dated 4.8.2011. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to take fresh steps for publishing the NIT, in accordance with practice and the prevailing guidelines. Rohit Mangal for petitioner; Ms. Mini Ravindran, Deputy Government Advocate for respondents.