Judgment K.J. Thaker, J. The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking the following prayers : “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the Tender Notice No. 4 of 2013-14 dated 26.11.2013 issued by respondents as being illegal, unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, unjust mala-fide and violative of Art. 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to proceed further to award the work of construction of Long Canal Syphon between CH.215.21 km to CH. 217.25 km to the petitioner on the rates finally negotiated and as recorded in the letter dated 25.11.2013 sent by the petitioner, in the interest of justice; (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the implementation, operation and execution of Tender Notice No. 4 of 2013-14 dated 26.11.2013 issued by respondents, pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition; (D) Your Lordships be pleased to direct the respondents to proceed further to award the work of construction of Long Canal Syphon between CH. 215.21 km to CH. 217.25 km to the petitioner on the rates finally negotiated and as recorded in the letter dated 25.11.2013 sent by the petitioner, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition; (E) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant and other and further reliefs as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things.” On 24.12.2013, following order was passed by this Court : “We have heard Mr. K.G. Sukhwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the respondents. Rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record. Learned counsel Mr. Sukhwani has urged that the petitioner was given contract for construction of High Bank Canal of 8 Kms. for an amount of Rs.97.98 Crores. The petitioner has started construction of the Canal and after about 10 months, the respondents have decided to make a Canal Syphon in 2 Kms. out of the total 8 Kms. Learned counsel Mr. Sukhwani has urged that the petitioner was given contract for construction of High Bank Canal of 8 Kms. for an amount of Rs.97.98 Crores. The petitioner has started construction of the Canal and after about 10 months, the respondents have decided to make a Canal Syphon in 2 Kms. out of the total 8 Kms. The respondents have withdrawn the work for an amount of Rs.56.16 Crores of 2 Kms. from the petitioner. In our prima facie opinion, if the total tender work of 8 Kms. is for an amount of Rs.97.98 Crores, then for 2 Kms. i.e. 1/4thof the total work, the deduction made by the respondents for an amount of Rs.56.16 Crores is on the higher side. The respondents have withdrawn the work for more than 50% of the tender work which appears to be on the higher side, subject to any plausible explanation that may be given by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the petitioner was ready to work at tender rates for the Canal Syphon on the same terms and conditions to which learned counsel appearing for the respondents objected that the petitioner was asking for escalation in cost w.e.f. 2011 though the escalation of the cost could only be allowed from the date the petitioner is awarded work or if new contract is given to other tenderer. Learned Additional Advocate General has further informed that fresh tenders have been invited for Canal Syphon work of 2 Kms. in which the petitioner can also participate. Since the tenders have been invited and the last date of submission of tender is 10.1.2014, therefore, list this matter on 7.1.2014. On that date, learned Additional Advocate General shall file detailed affidavit explaining as to why more than 50% amount was being deducted from the tender work of the petitioner. In the further affidavit, the respondents shall also explain that whether the respondents are ready to give the same benefit to the petitioner which they will be giving to the new tenderer. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the respondents undertakes that copy of the further affidavit would be served on the learned counsel for the petitioner latest by 31.12.2013. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the respondents undertakes that copy of the further affidavit would be served on the learned counsel for the petitioner latest by 31.12.2013. Learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to file reply to the further affidavit that may be filed by the respondents.” After hearing the counsel for the parties at length and looking to the map and after inquiring from the learned counsel for the petitioner that whether the respondents have withdrawn the work of Rs. 56.16 crores of 2 k.ms canal flow. Mr. K.G. Sukhwani, learned counsel for the petitioner candidly agrees that the deducted amount is not bone of contention. The bone of contention is calling for a fresh tender for the 2 kms. of canal after he has started the work Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the respondents has taken us through the voluminous record. Further, upon instructions of Mr. D.C. Thakkar, Chief Engineer and Mr. V.P. Gupta, Superintendent Engineer, who are present before us, he has submitted that the offer made by the petitioner is to the tune of Rs.147 crore which is on the higher side and hence, it was not accepted in the public interest. Mr. Mehta with Mr. Munshaw has conveyed to this Court that 30% of the work is over by now but the cyphon work requires to be done for which new tender is called for. At the outset, we are aware that the petitioner, who is doing the same work, his offer was not accepted by the authorities and fresh tenders were invited. Mr. Sukhwani, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed further affidavit. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the same are extracted below: “5. I say that from the admitted fact, it reveals that the core of the work under the contract has been withdrawn by the respondent and has not offered the alternative work to the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner has offered the most economical rate to save the public money beside the time for execution of the said work. I say that the respondent has repeatedly canvassed that there is a trend that in recent past, the quoted rates of bids are found to be lower than the estimated rates by about 5%. I say that the respondent has repeatedly canvassed that there is a trend that in recent past, the quoted rates of bids are found to be lower than the estimated rates by about 5%. The petitioner reiterate that there has not been any work that is invited by the respondent which is similar to the work of canal syphon in last one year period and the respondent is comparing the trend with those works which involves, predominantly, earth work and lining. I say that the cost analysis of the present work depicts that the construction of concrete canal syphon costs much higher than the normal canal work besides it requires very high degree of knowledge in construction management and engineering. 6. I say that it is not correct for the respondent to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has admitted to the technical requirement and decision of the respondent for such canal syphon, it is only the execution of construction of such a canal siphon at the tendered rate of the petitioner is agreed to by, with a time frame of 18 months as against that of 24 months prescribed by the respondent.” However, ultimately after taking us through the terms of the contract, when certain aspects were put to Mr. Sukhwani on oral instructions of the Joint Managing Director Mr. Shashin Patel to Mr. Sukhwani, the following consensus has been arrived at : 1. The bidding will take place on the date already notified and the petitioner will take part in it. 2. As far as the additional aspect is concerned, it will be left open to the authorities to decide as to grant of tender to the person, who offers to do all the work which is in public interest at the competitive bids. However, as the petitioner has come before this court and he is already taking part in the bid, earlier tender for 8 kms. was accepted and has already started working upon execution of the tender. It shall be open for the petitioner to apply for the new bid and if he is lowest, it goes without saying that he shall be awarded the same tender. The upset price as per the tender has been fixed at Rs. 151 crores and the petitioner has offered Rs.144 crores even before participating in the tender. He may go on lower side on competitive biding. The upset price as per the tender has been fixed at Rs. 151 crores and the petitioner has offered Rs.144 crores even before participating in the tender. He may go on lower side on competitive biding. However, if separate bids are lower, then it will be open for the respondents to renegotiate between the bidders, who are lowest as well as with the petitioner, who shall be given opportunity to quote the minimum. It is hoped that the authorities concerned would look at the public interest. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged.