Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the discretionary equitable jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order of refund of EMD amount dated 5.5.2011 by cancelling the bid of the petitioner for purchase of flat. 2. Though the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of M/s. Ircon International Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, but for the reason best known, the petitioner has impleaded only the Joint General Manager, as a party to this writ petition and has not impleaded the company as a party, though it has its own independent legal entity which is independent of joint General Manager. 3. Though the petitioner has not impleaded M/s.Ircon International Ltd. as a party, but in the pleadings, the respondent No.2 is shown to be a company and a Government undertaking. 4. M/s. Ircon International Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Company") issued tender notice dated 03.03.2011 inviting tender for sale of Flat No.14/195, III Floor, Greenfields Apartment, Mogappair East, Anna Nagar West Extn., Chennai 600 101. 5. The petitioner submitted tender application along with E.M.D. amount of Rs.4,51,000/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty one thousand only). The reserve price of Flat was fixed as Rs.45,14,000/- (Rupees forty five lakhs and fourteen thousand only). 6. The petitioner submitted her tender application on 24.03.2011 by quoting price of Rs.53,11,111/- (Rupees fifty three lakhs eleven thousand one hundred and eleven only). 7. The submission of the petitioner is that as per the terms of the tender document, only incomplete tender form could be rejected and the successful bidder was to be treated as purchaser. 8. According to the terms of the tender, full cost of the flat was to be paid within 60 days of the date of communication of acceptance of bid by the Company. The husband of the petitioner sold ancestral property at lesser price to arrange funds for purchase of the plot. 9. The submission of the petitioner is that after 42 days without assigning any reason, the E.M.D. was returned by the respondent by discharging the tender. 10. It is admitted in the pleading that one of the terms of the tender was that the company could reject any tender without assigning any reason. 11. 9. The submission of the petitioner is that after 42 days without assigning any reason, the E.M.D. was returned by the respondent by discharging the tender. 10. It is admitted in the pleading that one of the terms of the tender was that the company could reject any tender without assigning any reason. 11. The submission of the petitioner is that before cancelling the tender, the respondents were required to follow general procedure for cancellation of contract. 12. The case set up by the petitioner is that the petitioner was the highest bidder and had complied with all the terms and conditions of the tender and the only formality left with the respondent was to confirm the tender by calling upon the petitioner to pay full cost. 13. The submission of the petitioner is that it was not open to the second respondent, to go back from the tender and discharge it as it has resulted in mental torture and monetary loss to the petitioner. 14. The submission of the petitioner is that she has always ready and willing to pay full cost and she had even requested to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of the tender notification. 15. The request of the petitioner for reference of dispute to the arbitration was declined. The petitioner for the reason best known, failed to invoke Sec.11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for reference of dispute, but has chosen to file the present writ petition. 16. The petitioner has also challenged the stand of the respondent in rejecting the tender of the petitioner by treating her to be ineligible for want of income tax return by contending that she furnished xerox copy of PAN card. 17. On the pleading referred to above, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the impugned order of rejecting the tender of the petitioner being totally arbitrary, cannot be sustained in law. 18. The writ petition is totally misconceived. Admittedly, the right was reserved by the respondent to reject any tender without assigning any reason. The tender document also stipulates that full cost of the flat was to be paid within 60 days of communication of acceptance of the bid. Admittedly, no such communication was sent to the petitioner. 18. The writ petition is totally misconceived. Admittedly, the right was reserved by the respondent to reject any tender without assigning any reason. The tender document also stipulates that full cost of the flat was to be paid within 60 days of communication of acceptance of the bid. Admittedly, no such communication was sent to the petitioner. The parties are governed by the terms of the tender which are purely contractual in nature, therefore, writ to enforce contractual obligations is not maintainable. 19. Otherwise also, once the respondent had reserved his right to cancel the bid without assigning any reason, the petitioner cannot question the said decision. 20. The plea of the petitioner to refer the dispute for arbitration also cannot be gone into, and the remedy with the petitioner is to take proceedings under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed, but with no order as to costs. 22. However, it shall not bar the petitioner to avail her alternative remedy in accordance with law, if so advised.