ORDER Heard learned counsels for the petitioners in all the cases, learned counsel for the respondent-Bihar State Power (Holding) Company and learned counsels for the Rural Electrification Corporation and the Central Government. 2. All the four writ applications raise identical questions and they have, accordingly, been heard together and, with the consent of the parties, are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioners have filed the writ applications with a prayer for quashing the tender cancellation notice dated 15.3.2013 published on the website of the respondent- Bihar State Power (Holding) Company by which all the 11 tenders for different districts including the NIT for the districts of Bhojpur, Banka, Nawadah and Purnea have been cancelled for which the petitioners respectively were the lowest bidders. The further prayer made is to quash the order dated 8.3.2013 passed by the respondent- Power (Holding) Company by which it has decided to cancel the tender and float fresh tender in respect of all the districts including the above four districts. The further prayer made subsequently by the petitioners is to quash the fresh NIT dated 30.3.2013 inviting tenders for Part-A of the earlier NIT with respect to all the 11 districts including the four districts aforesaid. 4. The Rural Electrification Department of the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, since then reconstituted as the Bihar State Power (Holding) Company Limited (BSPHCL, in short) published an NIT in different newspapers on 10.7.2012 inviting sealed tenders for rural electrification work which comprised of supply of materials and equipments and construction of 33/11 KV PSS, 33 KV, 11 KV and LT line, 11/0433 KV DSS and BPL service connections for 11 districts of Bihar including the districts of Banka, Bhojpur, Nawadah and Purnea on turnkey basis. In all 26 persons participated in the tender process for 11 districts and filed their tenders including the petitioners. The tender documents laid down the different specification for the work of village electrification on turn key basis in the different districts in the State of Bihar under Rajiv Gandhi Gramin Vidyutikaran Yojana (RGGVY). 5. Para 1.1.2 of the Tender Specification laid down the total estimated cost of the tender, which in the case of Bhojpur was shown as Rs. 19083.20 lakh and further divided the same into Part-A of Rs. 15983.28 and Part-B of Rs. 3145.34 lacs. 5. Para 1.1.2 of the Tender Specification laid down the total estimated cost of the tender, which in the case of Bhojpur was shown as Rs. 19083.20 lakh and further divided the same into Part-A of Rs. 15983.28 and Part-B of Rs. 3145.34 lacs. Similarly, for all the districts the total estimated cost shown was further sub-divided in Part-A and Part-B. 6. Para-1.2.1 of the Tender Specification provided that the work shall be executed strictly as per REC specifications & guidelines. Specification not provided by REC, if any, will have to be got approved by BSEB. 7. It was further provided in para-1.2.6 of the Tender Specification that complete technical data and particulars of the equipments offered should accompany Part-1of the tender. 8. Para-1.3.1 laid down that the payment of work for Part A will be done under RGGVY scheme while for Part-B will be done under the State Plan/BSEB. In para-1.3.2 it was provided that modalities of payment to the tenderer will be as per REC guidelines and no deviation shall be allowed. 9. Para-2.3.2 of the Tender Specification provided that sealed tenders for each district in two parts containing technical and commercial offer Part-I and price offer, Part-II both in separate sealed covers clearly superscribing Part-I or Part-II on the cover was to be stated. It was also clarified that the tenderer can participate in maximum two out of 11 districts for which the NIT has been issued and in case tenderer submits bids for more than two districts the bids will be opened for two districts only. 10. In para-2.3.8 it was laid down that BSEB reserved the right to assess the tenderers capacity and capability to perform the contract and relax the qualifying requirements at any stage. It was stated that the Board reserved its right to accept or reject any of the tenders for any reason and it was not bound to accept the lowest tender. 11. Under the criteria laid down in para-4.0 it was provided that the Bid can be submitted by an individual firm or a joint venture of two or more firms and the bidders were required to meet the minimum eligibility criteria as specified in the said document. 11. Under the criteria laid down in para-4.0 it was provided that the Bid can be submitted by an individual firm or a joint venture of two or more firms and the bidders were required to meet the minimum eligibility criteria as specified in the said document. The completion period of total turnkey project was laid down in para- 7.1 as 18 months from the date of agreement and under para-7.3 it was provided that the time schedule for performing the works specified in the tender specifications shall be the essence of the contract. 12. Para-13.0 related to payment in which it was specified that payment to the contractor for Part-A and Part-B for the performance of the contract will be made by Accounts Officer (RE), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna as per the conditions specified and the final payment will be made on completion of all works and on fulfillment of all liabilities under the contract. It was clearly provided therein that the tenderer is required to submit separate bill for Part-A and Part-B as per the actual work done. Proper itemwise accounting has to be maintained for Part-A as well as Part-B. 13. It was also laid down in para-16.1 that the tenders/bids submitted shall remain open for acceptance by the Purchaser/Owner/Board for a period of one year from the date, the Part-I, i.e., Technical and Commercial Part of tenders are opened during which period the tenderer shall not withdraw his offer or amend, impair or derogate therefrom. 14. It may also be mentioned that under Para 2.1 of the tender specification the quantity in part-A being RGGVY as also quantity in Part-B under State plan/BSEB were clearly segregated giving details under each of the works in each of these parts. 15. At this stage, it may also be useful to notice the estimate cost of the tender for the districts of Banka, Bhojpur, Nawadah and Purnea comprising of the RGGVY component & State Plan component as detailed below:– District Estimate cost Estimate cost of Total estimate RGGVY State Plan cost Amount % of total Amount % of total estimate estimate Banka 186.98 74.40 64.33 25.60 251.31 Bhojpur 159.98 83.52 31.45 16.48 190.83 Nawada 225.43 86.66 34.69 13.33 260.12 Purnea 290.53 75.60 93.73 24.39 384.26 (All amounts in rupees crore) 16. Although the bid opening date in the original NIT notice was given 9-10th August, 2012 but the date was subsequently extended and the last date of submission as also the opening of the technical and commercial part of the bid was admittedly 27.9.2012. The financial bid was thereafter opened on 9.11.2012. All the petitioners were the lowest bidders in their respective districts, the petitioner Bajaj Electricals Limited being the L-1 tenderer in Bhojpur and Purnea districts. It is not in dispute that they were the lowest bidders even in Part-A of the bid relating to REC under the RGGVY component for which funds were to be provided by the Rural Electrification Corporation, a Government of India Undertaking as the Nodal Agency on behalf of the Central Government. For the Banka, Bhojpur and Nawadah districts the respective petitioners were also called for negotiation and after much persuasion they further reduced their rates. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Central Purchase Committee. On 14.1.2013 the Central Purchase Committee, Bihar State Power (Holding) Company successor to the Bihar State Electricity Board approved the tenders for all the 11 districts including the four districts in question. Subsequently, however, the Board of Directors of the Power Holding Company by its resolution dated 7.3.2013 held that in the context of complexity involved in complying with REC’s letter dated 19.2.2013 and the difficulties arising due to non-availability of fund for the State component included in the tender, it was resolved to cancel the tender and float a fresh tender for RGGVY component and it was further resolved that the Managing Director of the distribution company shall be authorized to bring modifications as may deem fit and proper in order to have better participation and competitiveness in the tender process. 17. In the aforesaid letter dated 19.2.2013 of the Rural Electrification Corporation, reference was made to approval of Award Cost for RGGVY Projects (Supplementary) of Patna and Rohtas districts while approving the revised Project Cost based on L-1 of those districts. It was stated that approval is subject to the condition that BSP(H)CL shall place separate awards for both the work, i.e., work to be carried under RGGVY and under the State Plan. 18. It was stated that approval is subject to the condition that BSP(H)CL shall place separate awards for both the work, i.e., work to be carried under RGGVY and under the State Plan. 18. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above stated action of the respondent-Power (Holding) Company approached the respondents and expressed their shock on the cancellation of their tender and expressed their readiness and willingness to execute the work of Part-A of RGGVY component at the rate agreed between them. However, the same not having been accepted, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ applications. 19. After the filing of the writ applications, fresh NIT with respect to all the 11 districts were floated on 26.3.2013 by the Board but in relation to Part-A component of the earlier tender only. It is not in dispute that the fresh NIT is identical to Part-A portion of the earlier NIT and is also under challenge in so far as it concerns the districts in which the petitioners were the L-1 tenderers. 20. Referring to the aforesaid provisions and conditions laid down in the tender document issued by the Board, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the action of the respondent-company is whimsical, arbitrary and they have not acted in a fair and reasonable manner and that the cancellation order as put on the website does not disclose any reason for the cancellation. 21. It is further submitted that even the resolution of the Board of Directors does not disclose any actual reason for cancellation except to vaguely refer to complexity involved in complying with REC’s letter dated 19.2.2013 which is not at all borne out by a perusal of the said letter. It is argued that even the reasons stated in the counter affidavit are not germane to the action taken. It is thus urged that the action of the respondent-Power Holding Company is mala fide in law. 22. Learned counsels for the petitioners were at pains to point out that the substantial part of the work relating to the RGGVY component was to the extent of 86.66 % in Nawadah, 74.40 % for Banka and in between these two for the other two districts of Bhojpur and Purnea 83.52 % and 75.60 %. 22. Learned counsels for the petitioners were at pains to point out that the substantial part of the work relating to the RGGVY component was to the extent of 86.66 % in Nawadah, 74.40 % for Banka and in between these two for the other two districts of Bhojpur and Purnea 83.52 % and 75.60 %. It is also pointed out that the BOQ and other details in the tender documents were separately provided for the RGGVY component and the tender conditions itself provided for separate accounts to be maintained and separate payments to be made for those components. It is thus submitted that even if the funds are not made available from the State exchequer then there is no occasion for the respondent-Board to cancel the entire tender considering the willingness of these petitioners to continue with Part-A RGGVY component tender. 23. Learned counsels also point out that any such decision for retender was required to be taken before the financial bid as all the cards of the petitioners have been disclosed after the financial bid had been opened, followed by negotiation with respect to two of the districts, and thus the re-tender of the identical Part-A causes serious prejudice to the petitioners. 24. It is thus submitted that there being absolutely no change in the fresh tender as compared to Part-A of the earlier NIT, the same should not be permitted and the respondents should be directed to execute the agreement with the petitioners. It is urged that non-disclosure of any just and fair reasons even in the counter affidavit, apart from there being none in the earlier order of cancellation of the tender notice, amounts to colourable exercise of power because the purpose appears to be oblique and not at all clear and does not show why it has been done. It is submitted that no transparency has been followed in the matter and the letter dated 19.2.2013 of the REC has been used as a lame excuse by the respondents to finally cancel the earlier tender and issue fresh tender notice with respect to the same work. 25. It is submitted that no transparency has been followed in the matter and the letter dated 19.2.2013 of the REC has been used as a lame excuse by the respondents to finally cancel the earlier tender and issue fresh tender notice with respect to the same work. 25. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that the action of the respondents has resulted in serious civil consequences for the petitioners as in order to complete the works in question, the petitioners did not participate in different other works in different States as also invested substantially for the same including their valuable time. 26. It is thus contended that the lost opportunity for the petitioners in taking up other work from other State, in no way can be compensated by merely saying that they can participate in the fresh tender process that has been started. 27. Learned counsel also submit that the action of the respondent-company is against the public interest. It is submitted that since the last tender floated, more than 9 months have passed and there has been price increase of different materials and thus it is most likely that the rates quoted by the tenderers will go higher for the same tender. It is also submitted by learned counsel that only with regard to these four districts in which the petitioners were L-1 tenderers, the difference between them and the second lowest tenderers is to the extent of Rs. 350 crores for the entire works and if the average of 80% on Part-A component is taken then the difference will go to about Rs. 280 crores which would be a net loss for the respondents. It is also submitted that even if price increase of 5% from the last tender is taken, the tender amount for these four places being approximately of Rs. 1000/- crores the loss would be of about Rs. 50 crores which is substantial loss to the public exchequer and against the public interest. 28. In support of the aforesaid propositions, learned counsels rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & ors.: (2000) 2 SCC 617 , in para-7 of which it has been laid down as follows:– “7. 28. In support of the aforesaid propositions, learned counsels rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & ors.: (2000) 2 SCC 617 , in para-7 of which it has been laid down as follows:– “7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India: (1979) 3 SCC 489 , Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India: (1981) 2 SCC 568, CCE Vs. Dunlop India Ltd.: (1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75, Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC 651 , Ramniklal N. Bhutta Vs. State of Maharashtra: (1997) 2 SCC 134 and Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd.: (1999) 1 SCC 492 . The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even through it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene.” 29. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Reliance Energy Ltd. & another Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. & ors.: (2007) 8 SCC 1 , in paras 37,38 and 39 of which it has been held as follows:– “37. In Union of India Vs. International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437 the Division Bench of this Court speaking through Pasayat, J. had held: (SCC p.445, paras 14-15) “14. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to matters of governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government, even in contractual matters, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. While the discretion to change the policy in exercise of the executive power, when not trammeled by any statute or rule is wide enough, what is imperative and implicit in terms of Article 14 is that a change in policy must be made fairly and should not give the impression that it was so done arbitrarily or by any ulterior criteria. The wide sweep of Article 14 and the requirement of every State action qualifying for its validity on this touchstone irrespective of the field of activity of the State is an accepted tenet. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. Actions are amenable, in the panorama of judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason, not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. The meaning and true import and concept of arbitrariness is more easily visualized than precisely defined. A question whether the impugned action is arbitrary or not is to be ultimately answered on the facts and circumstances of a given case. A basic and obvious test to apply in such cases is to see whether there is any discernible principle emerging from the impugned action and if so, does it really satisfy the test of reasonableness.” 38. When tenders are invited, the terms and conditions must indicate with legal certainty, norms and benchmarks. This “legal certainty” is an important aspect of the rule of law. If there is vagueness or subjectivity in the said norms it may result in unequal and discriminatory treatment. It may violate doctrine of “level playing field”. 39. In Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Airports Authority of India: (2006) 10 SCC 1 the Division Bench of this Court has held that in matters of judicial review the basic test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. This means that the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and he must give effect to it otherwise it may result in illegality. The principle of “judicial review” cannot be denied even in contractual matters or matters in which the Government exercises its contractual powers, but judicial review is intended to prevent arbitrariness and it must be exercised in larger public interest. Expression of different views and opinions in exercise of contractual powers may be there, however, such difference of opinion must be based on specified norms. Those norms may be legal norms or accounting norms. As long as the norms are clear and properly understood by the decision-maker and the bidders and other stakeholders, uncertainty and thereby breach of the rule of law will not arise. The grounds upon which administrative action is subjected to control by judicial review are classifiable broadly under three heads, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. As long as the norms are clear and properly understood by the decision-maker and the bidders and other stakeholders, uncertainty and thereby breach of the rule of law will not arise. The grounds upon which administrative action is subjected to control by judicial review are classifiable broadly under three heads, namely, illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. In the said judgment it has been held that all errors of law are jurisdictional errors. One of the important principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment is that whenever a norm/benchmark is prescribed in the tender process in order to provide certainty that norm/standard should be clear. As stated above “certainty” is an important aspect of the rule of law. In Reliance Airport Developers the scoring system formed part of the evaluation process. The object of that system was to provide identification of factors, allocation of marks of each of the said factors and giving of marks at different stages. Objectivity was thus provided.” 30. Learned counsel for the respondent Power (Holding) Company, on the other hand, has sought to defend the stand of the respondent-BSPHC by filing a common counter affidavit in all the four cases stating that the decision of the Power Holding Company has been taken for bona fide reasons in the public interest and maintaining absolute transparency. It is further submitted that no right has been created for the petitioners which is sought to be enforced. 31. It is also the stand of the respondent-Company that the tendering authority has right to choose its own method to arrive at a decision for the best bidder and also right to annul the bidding process for bona fide reasons when the process itself ceased to remain workable. It is also the stand that the financial bids of the petitioners were evaluated in their totality. There had been no segregation connected with RGGVY component and those connected with the State plan and in those circumstances, it was not possible to award the work connected with RGGVY scheme alone on the basis of the decision of the L-1 status. It is further urged that in the said circumstances, it was not workable to issue separate LOA for the works connected with RGGVY on the one hand and State Plan on the other. 32. It is further urged that in the said circumstances, it was not workable to issue separate LOA for the works connected with RGGVY on the one hand and State Plan on the other. 32. Learned counsel also makes reference to REC letter dated 19.2.2013 stating that it had raised objection on issuance of a common LOA. It insisted for separate LOA for the work funded by the Government of India and the work to be funded from the State Plan and in such circumstances the Board was compelled to take a decision of cancelling the earlier tender process. The further reason for the decision was that the expected financial contribution could not be provided by the State Government and thus the composite/integrated tenders could not be taken to the logical end. 33. Reference has also been made to certain complaints that had crept up during the consideration of the technical and commercial part of the bids with respect to the work and performance of several agencies, a list of which had been submitted by the REC. It is, however, admitted that ultimately the said complaints did not lead to any action as it was decided by the Board to include those bidders and declare them eligible and their price part was also opened in the second stage. 34. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the BSPHCL further stand has been taken that the financial criteria, i.e., MAAT (Minimum Average Annual Turnover) and LA (Liquid Assets) were based on the total estimated cost and if the tenders were floated for RGGVY part only the criteria would get reduced proportionately as the estimate cost for RGGVY portion is lower between 13.33% and 25.60% for the districts in question. It is thus contended that if the tenders were earlier floated for RGGVY portion only, the financial eligibility would be relaxed rendering more participation of bidders and better competitiveness. 35. It is thus contended that if the tenders were earlier floated for RGGVY portion only, the financial eligibility would be relaxed rendering more participation of bidders and better competitiveness. 35. In their response, it is submitted by learned counsels for the petitioners that the change in the eligibility criteria may not make any difference considering that major portion of the NIT related to RGGVY component as pointed out earlier and moreover there being a provision of joint venture, as many as 3 joint ventures had, in fact, participated in the earlier bidding process and thus the parties had not been kept out merely on account of the fact that the eligibility criteria for both Part-A and Part-B taken together would have been slightly higher. 36. I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsels for the parties. The law on the point is well settled that judicial review is not of the decision itself but of the decision making process and the basic test is to see where there has been any violation in the said process. It is also well settled that even in contractual matters judicial review is permissible so as to prevent arbitrariness by interfering with the power exercised by the governmental and semi-governmental authorities in the larger public interest. 37. In the present matter the admitted position is that a substantive full-fledged scheme for rural electrification under the RGGVY funded by the Central Government through its Nodal Agency, Rural Electrification Corporation (REC), was floated. In the four present districts between three-fourth to five-sixth of the estimated cost of the total works pertained to the Part-A portion funded by the Central Government under the Rural Electrification Scheme floated by it. As a matter of fact, the primary purpose of the tendering process was to ensure the utilization of the funds to be received under the Central Scheme for rural electrification, and the State component was merely an afterthought (and it appears not so well thought out afterthought) of the authorities of the respondent-Board, now the Power Holding Company. It appears that they had not even obtained any commitment from the State Government regarding the funds for the said purposes but they had floated the tender including the funds which they were expecting would be provided by the State Government. It appears that they had not even obtained any commitment from the State Government regarding the funds for the said purposes but they had floated the tender including the funds which they were expecting would be provided by the State Government. However, the Nodal Agency, namely, the REC, was to monitor the central part of the contribution under the RGGVY scheme and in the tender documents itself it was clearly specified that the works shall be carried out separately under the Part-A portion and further that separate accounts were to be maintained for carrying out the works under Part-A portion and Part-B portion and payment for the Part-A portion was also to be made separately. It is also clear from the materials on the record that even at the stage of opening of the financial bids the Part-A and Part-B components were very much in the mind of the Central Purchase Committee when the finalization was being made at its level and separate figures for the bids by the different tenderers were also mentioned, apart from the total amounts. 38. In the aforesaid backdroup, in the opinion of the Court the letter dated 19.2.2013, which is stated by Board of Directors of the Power Holding Company to be the reason for cancelling the previous tender, does not state anything which was not previously known to the Board. It was evident that the accounting had to be kept separate for the funds which were to be provided by the Central Government under the Central Scheme and payment had to be made accordingly and therefore, separate LOA for the same could not have made any difference as it was a mere technicality, and no justifiable reason has been shown by the respondent-Power Holding Company as to how the same could not have been done. Considering the manner in which the work under the tender was specified and kept separate for both Parts A and B and the conditions laid down in the tender documents, separate work orders could have been easily issued for Parts A and B portions. 39. Considering the manner in which the work under the tender was specified and kept separate for both Parts A and B and the conditions laid down in the tender documents, separate work orders could have been easily issued for Parts A and B portions. 39. In fact, when earlier NIT had been floated, considering that the Bihar State Electricity Board had not got any commitment from the State Government for providing any fund, there should have been no difficulty in proceeding with the Part-A portion alone of the tender process, specially when the L-1 tenderers were prepared to proceed only with the Part-A of the contract and had not raised any objection to non-grant of entire tender. Moreover, so far as these four districts are concerned, the petitioners were also lowest tenders in Part-A portion of the tenders. Thus it is not a case where any difference of L-1 position in Part-A of the tender could have taken place and no right of any other party would have been affected or defeated. 40. The submission made in the supplementary counter affidavit that more persons would become eligible if fresh tender is held for Part-A appears to be an afterthought as no such reason is assigned in the decision of the Board of Directors and this Court has been informed that as many as 42 parties participated in the pre-bid and as many as 26 companies ultimately participated by filing their tenders for the 11 districts. There was specific provision for joint participation so as to become eligible and as a matter of fact, the petitioners in CWJC No. 6551/2013 for the district of Nawadah are themselves joint venture between two companies so as to acquire the necessary eligibility to participate in the tender. Thus, the said ground raised subsequently in the supplementary counter affidavit appears to be an afterthought and an excuse which was not at all in the contemplation of the Board of Directors when it annulled the earlier tender process. As a matter of fact, the two reasons shown in the resolution of the Board for cancellation of the earlier tender were the complexity involved in complying with the REC’s letter dated 19.2.2013 and the difficulties arising due to non-availability of fund for the State component included in the tender. 41. As a matter of fact, the two reasons shown in the resolution of the Board for cancellation of the earlier tender were the complexity involved in complying with the REC’s letter dated 19.2.2013 and the difficulties arising due to non-availability of fund for the State component included in the tender. 41. As I have discussed above, there does not appear to be any complexity involved in complying with the letter dated 19.2.2013 and the non-availability of fund for the State component also does not greatly affect the tender, which although repeatedly harped upon by learned counsel for the respondents as a composite tender, as a matter of fact, segregated the entire aspect of Part-A and Part-B portion. Thus, there being absolutely no overlapping between Part-A and Part-B of the tender and the details were also quantified separately at the stage of consideration by the Central Purchase Committee, there would have been absolutely no difficulty for the respondent-Company in proceeding with the earlier tender of Part-A portion only for which the petitioners had given their consent. The difficulties could only have arisen if the petitioners had raised any objection to going ahead only with the Part-A portion or if the petitioners were not the lowest bidders for the Part-A portion taken separately. 42. The said action also does not appear to be in public interest. As an identical tender as the Part-A portion of the previous tender has now been floated after more than eight months of the previous tender, there is every likelihood that the margin of inflation may lead to higher bids. This Court also finds that all the actions taken by the respondents upon opening the financial bids of the petitioners may work serious injustice upon them. The details of the entire bidding process of the tenders of the petitioners are now open before every one and thus the sanctity of entire process is destroyed by going for a fresh bidding on exactly the same terms and conditions without any variation at all, that too without any justifiable reasons for the same. 43. Thus on a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the respondent-Power Holding Company has been unable to justify its action as not being arbitrary and unreasonable. 44. 43. Thus on a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that the respondent-Power Holding Company has been unable to justify its action as not being arbitrary and unreasonable. 44. In the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that the cancellation of the earlier tender process, in so far as it relates to the districts of Banka, Bhojpur, Nawadah and Purnea, is not justified. The decision of the Board of Directors of the Power Holding Company dated 8.3.2013 and consequential orders, in so far as they relate to the said districts is, therefore, quashed and the fresh tender notice, in so far as it relates to these four districts, is also quashed. The respondents are directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. 45. The writ applications are, accordingly, allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.