JUDGMENT : Asper Shantanu Kemkar , J.:- Heard on the question of admission. Thispetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against thedecision taken by the respondent in cancelling theTender No. 11000002-HD-12370 floated by it to seek bottling assistance fromprivate bottler in Jhabua District. The petitioner isalso seeking direction to the respondent to complete the formalities of thesaid tender and to accept the petitioner's bid being lowest. 2.Briefly stated, in pursuance to the Notice Inviting Tender seeking bottlingassistance for LPG Cylinders for Jhabua local andsurrounding markets of Meghnagar , Dhar , Ratlam , Badnagarand Khachrod under Indore LPG Regionof HPCL, the petitioner amongst one another submitted its bid, After openingthe technical and the price bids, instead of accepting the petitioner's bid,which according to it was the lowest, the respondent, after making somecorrespondence, issued an order dated 12-1-2012 (Annexure P-17) informing thepetitioner that the tender being unworkable, it has been decided not to furtherprocess the tender. Feeling aggrieved by the said communication dated 12-1-2012 (Annexure P-17), thepetitioner has filed this petition. 3. Shri Vinod Tyagi , learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that after flouting the tender andafter opening of the technical and price bids, the respondent could not havecancelled the tender; more particularly, in the absence of such clause beingthere in the tender document, unlike other tender document, which has beenfiled for ready reference as Annexure P-20. He further argued that aftersubmission of the tender, a right has been accrued in favour of the petitioner and in view of it the cancellation of the tender isimpermissible. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the petitionerplaced reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union ofIndia and others Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporationand another, (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 491. 4.Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and after consideringthe submissions made by him, we are of the view that this petition has no merit . 5.Clause 12 of 4he tender document (Annexure P-4) deals about acceptance of theoffer by the respondent Corporation. Dinesh Engineering Corporationand another, (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 491. 4.Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and after consideringthe submissions made by him, we are of the view that this petition has no merit . 5.Clause 12 of 4he tender document (Annexure P-4) deals about acceptance of theoffer by the respondent Corporation. Clause 12 (c) of it reads thus : - "12.Acceptance of the offer by the Corporation : (c)The Corporation is not hound to accept the lowest offer and reserves the rightto reject any and/or every tender without assigning any reason whatsoeverand/or place order on one or more tenderers and/orcarry out negotiations with any tenderer in themanner considered appropriate by the Corporation. The Corporation also reservesright to reject any unworkable offer." Theaforesaid clause clearly provides that the respondent is not bound to acceptthe lowest offer and the respondent has a right to reject any and/or everylender without assigning any reason whatsoever. It also provides that therespondent/Corporation reserves right to reject any unworkable offer. True, itis that in the another tender document (Annexure P-20) there is an additionalcondition mentioned in the tender document enabling the respondent towithdraw/modify the tender whereas the tender in question is differentlyworded, however having regard to the Clause 12 (c) of the tender condition theright of the respondent to cancel the tender. if found unworkable, isunlettered and, therefore, it cannot be held that the respondent has no rightto cancel the tender and are bound to process it further to the extent ofaccepting the bid and issue work order. 6.So far as the challenge to the impugned decision is concerned, we find that inthe impugned order/decision dated 12-1-2012 (Annexure P-17), the respondent hasassigned the following reasons for cancellation of the lender :- "Westate that the purpose of floating Tender was to make arrangements for privatebottling assistance in Jhabua District of the Stateof Madhya Pradesh to cater to theincreased domestic requirement in the present winter season of 2011-12. Wefurther state that while the matter was under consideration by us the decisionto proceed further with the same required to be reviewed in view of thedevelopments and commissioning of a double Head GD/PT. which was-commissionedat Indore LPG Plant in the month of August, 2011.This commissioning of new facility has resulted into increased productioncapacity of the plant. Wefurther state that while the matter was under consideration by us the decisionto proceed further with the same required to be reviewed in view of thedevelopments and commissioning of a double Head GD/PT. which was-commissionedat Indore LPG Plant in the month of August, 2011.This commissioning of new facility has resulted into increased productioncapacity of the plant. However, the additional bottling capacity of the plant permonth is more or less equal of the present requirement under this tender and isable to meet the demand for LPG for the State of Madhya Pradesh as contemplated under the present Tender. Itis therefore, staled that in view of the subsequent development and. in view ofthe fact that the requirement of LPG private bottling assistance for which thepresent tender is floated does not now remain viable as the demands are alreadybeing met and the tender being unworkable it is decided that no further progresshe initiated under the present Tender. HPCLstales that in view of the above development its earlier decision of obtainingbottling assistance from private bottlers by floating the present tender nolonger survives for the reasons stated above and therefore, it has decided notto further process tender. Weappreciate your association till date and are hopeful that you will associatewith us in future as and when services are required. Weaccordingly, advise you to put your request for the refund of Rs . 1 lakh being the HMD amount, which is lying with us and which shall be refunded back asadvised." 7.Having gone through the aforesaid reasons, we find that after considering therelevance data the policy to make arrangements for private bottling assistancein Jhabua District of the State to cater to theincreased domestic requirement was reviewed, in view of the development andcommissioning of double-head GD/FT, which was commissioned at Indore LPG plant in the month of August, 2011. Onreviewing, it was noticed that the commissioning at Indore LPG plant has resulted into increased production capacity of the plant. It wasfound by the respondent that the additional bottling capacity of the plant wasalmost equal to the requirement under the tender in question. Taking intoconsideration this subsequent development, it was held that it has not nowremained viable and the tender has become unworkable. In the circumstances, theimpugned decision not to further progress in the tender in question was taken,as the requirement was found to be no longer surviving. Taking intoconsideration this subsequent development, it was held that it has not nowremained viable and the tender has become unworkable. In the circumstances, theimpugned decision not to further progress in the tender in question was taken,as the requirement was found to be no longer surviving. 8.The aforesaid decision taken by the respondent for cancelling the tender is a policy decision based upon the facts and figures emerged due tothe subsequent development. In the absence of any arbitrary exercise of powers,such decision cannot be interfered with by the Courts. In the case of Dinesh Engineering Corporation (supra), the Supreme Courthas held that the power to reject any tender offer cannot be exercisedarbitrarily. However, in the present case, as is clear from the impugneddecision, it cannot be said to be an arbitrary decision. Therefore, in theabsence of any arbitrariness and malafide , in ourconsidered opinion, the impugned decision, which has been taken by the respondent cannot be interfered into; more particularly,when such powers are vested under Clause 12 (c) of the tender document itself.Merely because the petitioner's offer was lowest, the petitioner in-the absenceof malafide or arbitrariness on the part of therespondent cannot seek directions to the respondent to accept its bid when apolicy decision has been taken not to further process the lender. 9.In the circumstances, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.