JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, A.C.J. (Oral) By the medium of the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 10th April, 2014, issued by the respondent, whereby the entire bidding process stood annulled by the respondent. The respondent, vide notice dated 7th April, 2011, invited bids for the execution of civil works of Dhaulasidh Hydro Electric Project and thereafter, vide tender notice dated 29th April, 2012, invited bids from the pre qualified eligible bidders, in which, only six bidders, including the petitioner, participated. It appears that the process has been delayed due to the fact that the respondent had to obtain clearances/approvals from different authorities. Out of the said six bidders, three bidders could not submit the required documents and ultimately, three bidders, including the petitioner, remained in the fray for allotment of the work in question. 2. From the perusal of the record placed on the file, it is apparent that the impugned order, dated 10th April, 2014, cancelling the entire bidding process, is mainly based on the noting, dated 20th March 2014, read with the noting dated 19th March, 2014 and subsequent notings. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner argued that the respondent has not heard the petitioner before making the impugned order. 3. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent was asked whether the respondent is ready to make order afresh after hearing the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent, after consulting his client in the open Court and seeking instructions, stated that the respondent is ready to make order afresh after hearing the petitioner. His statement is taken on record. 4. In the given circumstances, the impugned order, dated 10th April, 2014, is quashed and the respondent is directed to pass order afresh within a period of six weeks from today, after hearing the petitioner. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly, so also the pending CMPs, if any. Copy dasti.