JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. Muskan Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bharat Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 2. For the orders proposed to be passed notice need not be issued to the other respondents. 3. That facts, in short, necessary for the present adjudication are that the Oil India Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'OIL') issued a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter to be referred as 'NIT') on 'one man two vehicle' basis for hiring services of different categories of vehicles as mentioned therein on the Letter of Intent (hereinafter to be referred as 'LOI') at offered rates for four years for operations in Rajasthan and any other surrounding states/areas of its activities. The NIT mentioned that the fixed charge amongst other charges included vehicles for 24 hours with services of drivers for 12 hours everyday. Driver's monthly wages of Rs. 7020/- was inbuilt in such fixed charge including overtime payable to him or them beyond the period of 8 hours upto 12 hours everyday. 4. It was further mentioned that the contracts on the basis of 'one man two vehicle' would be awarded to the successful parties as per priority of the draw of lots against actual requirement of the OIL and the contract would be as per offered rate as per other terms and conditions of the tender. In terms of clause (7) Oil India Limited reserved the right to reject any/all application/bids without assigning any reason whatsoever. 5. The respondent offered his bid in response to the NIT of category 'B'. On 29.9.2011 when the tenders of all contractors were opened, the respondent was selected and placed at Sr. No.1. However, no LOI was issued to him and on making enquiries, he was informed on 19.7.2012 that the entire process had been cancelled and his bid security was offered to be returned. Thereafter, a fresh process was initiated by the OIL. Being aggrieved the respondent approached this Court challenging the impugned actions. 6. In its reply OIL in substance pleaded that in reference to clause (7) that in the exercise of said supervening power, it had cancelled the tender, and that, no illegality or perversity did ensue. It categorically denied the allegation of the respondent that the tender process had been cancelled to favour somebody in whom OIL was interested. The allegation of bias or mala fide was categorically denied. It categorically denied the allegation of the respondent that the tender process had been cancelled to favour somebody in whom OIL was interested. The allegation of bias or mala fide was categorically denied. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order on a consideration of the pleaded facts and terms and conditions of the NIT, interfered with the impugned decision, quashed the orders/communications dated 19.7.2012 and 24.7.2012 assailed and directed the OIL to issue LOI in favour of the respondent for the period mentioned in the tender in question. 7. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that no LOI was issued at the relevant point of time in favour of the respondent, and thus, he had no vested right to be awarded the contract and thus, the interference with the decision of cancellation of his tender is unsustainable. 8. The learned counsel contended that according to OIL having regard to the offered bid of the respondent, payment of salary of the drivers offered with the vehicles by him was not considered to be cost effective. 9. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 5 SCC 182 . 10. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued that the OIL initiated the tender process and the respondent participated therein, and therefore, OIL was duty bound to issue LOI to him and having not done so, it arbitrarily cancelled the entire exercise, and therefore, learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in interfering with the said decision. 11. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the documents on record, we are left unpersuaded by the pleas taken on behalf of the appellant. 12. It is not disputed that the respondent had been selected on a comprehensive evaluation of the tenders of the bidders. Vis-a-vis the plea taken in the course of arguments that the decision for cancellation of process had to be taken as the salary of the drivers accompanying the vehicles offered by the respondent, if paid, could not have been cost effective, suffice it to state that no whisper about the same is discernible in the pleadings of OIL. Vis-a-vis the plea taken in the course of arguments that the decision for cancellation of process had to be taken as the salary of the drivers accompanying the vehicles offered by the respondent, if paid, could not have been cost effective, suffice it to state that no whisper about the same is discernible in the pleadings of OIL. As stated hereinabove apart from denying the allegation of the respondent that the process had been abandoned to favour someone in whom the OIL was interested and asserting its power of cancelling the process at any point of time, no other plea has been offered. 13. Further a bare perusal of the contents of the NIT also does not support this plea on facts, it being ex-facie clear that the bidder was under the scheme contemplated required to offer vehicles alongwith drivers whose monthly wages was also fixed therein. 14. While the legal proposition as laid down in Utter Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad's case (supra) is to the effect that a bidder who has participated in the tender process has no other right but one to equality and fair treatment until his bid is accepted and no contract comes into existence till the acceptance of the highest bid, it is not as if to signify that under all circumstances the OIL as in the present case under the cover of its reserved right as contained in clause (7) of the NIT can cancel the process without any existing, relevant or rational reason or cause. This decision does not advance the case by the appellant so filed. 15. To reiterate, the OIL did not at any point of time in its reply state any reason whatsoever for cancelling the process, except referring to its residuary power to do so. It being a public authority, when a process involving public participation had been initiated, it is too late in a day to contend that as it had reserved its right to reject any/all applications/bids without assigning any reason whatsoever, in exercise of such power, it can unquestionably cancel and/or abandon the process without citing any reason therefor. 16. We have perused the impugned judgment/order and in the facts and circumstances, we are in respectful agreement with the reasonings and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 17. 16. We have perused the impugned judgment/order and in the facts and circumstances, we are in respectful agreement with the reasonings and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 17. However, while upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge interfering with the impugned decision of the cancellation of tender process, we leave it to the appellant OIL to take the consequential decision on the basis thereof. 18. The appeal stands allowed in these terms. No costs.Appeal Allowed. *******