JUDGMENT The relief which the petitioner seeks is for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the University, which is represented by the second and third respondents, to open a tender "on 27 April 2013" and to restrain the University from issuing another tender. 2. On the basis of the record, more particularly the report which is annexed at Annexure-4 to the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that the petition is thoroughly misconceived since it was on the request of the petitioner that an Inquiry Committee was constituted and the earlier tender was cancelled with a finding that the earnest money was returned. 3. In any event, we see no reason to entertain the petition which seeks a mandamus for the opening of a tender. The petitioner has no vested right even assuming that he was a prospective bidder. There is no substance in the writ petition. 4. In the event that the security money has still not been refunded, as submitted before the Court by the learned counsel, we leave it open to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Finance Officer for refund of the amount. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.