Judgment R.S. Jha, J.;- 1. I.A. No. 13787/2012 for amendment in the petition is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein. Necessary amendment be carried out within seven days. 2. Also heard on the question of admission and interim relief. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the advertisement dated 3.10.2012 issued by the respondent no. 3 Sub Divisional Officer, Gotegaon, District Narsinghpur, proposing to grant rights to dismantle and remove 30 temporary construction constructed on Government land. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the authorities had previously issued a notice inviting tender, pursuant to which the petitioner had applied and his bid of Rs. 7.33 lakhs was the highest. It is submitted that though this fact was confirmed on opening of the bid on 11.9.2012 and pursuant thereto the petitioner had also deposited a sum of Rs. 7.50 lakhs with the respondent, no work order was issued to the petitioner. It is stated that though the petitioner filed a representation before the authorities, the authorities instead of issuing a work order have now published a second tender notice on 3.10.2012 calling for fresh tenders for the same work in which the petitioner was the highest bidder pursuant to the tender notice published previously in September 2012. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the impugned tender proceedings sought to be taken up pursuant to the subsequent tender notice dated 3.10.2012 be quashed. 5. During the course of argument, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second tender proceedings have already been taken up by the authorities and the tenders have been opened on 12.10.2012 but the work order has not been issued till date. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the tender notice. 6. From a perusal of the facts as well as the terms of the tender proceedings, a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-1, it is clear that the power to accept or reject the bid rests with the committee which has been constituted for this purpose. It is also apparent that the petitioner has not filed any document to establish that his bid was accepted by the committee concerned. It is also apparent that the petitioner has not filed any document to establish that his bid was accepted by the committee concerned. In fact, on a specific query been made to this effect, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has neither made any statement nor filed any document to assert that his bid was accepted. 7. In the circumstances, it is clear and undisputed that the bid of the petitioner was not accepted by the committee, even if it was the highest bid, and no order of acceptance of the bid or subsequent work order was ever issued to the petitioner on that count. The Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board and Another vs. G.S. Investments and Another, (2007) 1 SCC 477 (paras 8 & 9), has held that a highest bidder whose bid has not been accepted has no right to object to the subsequent auction/tender proceedings taken up by the authorities as no right vested or otherwise accrues to him only on account of the fact that he is the highest bidder. The same view has been also taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Others vs. Sadhu Ram, (2008) 16 SCC 405 (para-16). 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner, specifically on account of the fact that his bid was never accepted by the authorities and as no writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India can be issued directing the respondent authorities to accept the petitioner's bid and accord the contract to him in the absence of any malafides. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioner being meritless is, accordingly, dismissed.