JUDGMENT : AJAY RASTOGI, J. 1. With the consent of the parties the writ petition has been finally disposed of at this stage. 2. The respondents initiated the process of inviting tenders from the experienced firm/Agency for Operation & Management of GBP Hospital Canteen at Agartala Government Medical College & GBP Hospital, Agartala and the prospective bidders were invited to submit their bids in sealed cover subscribing “Expression of Interest for Operation & Management of GBP Hospital canteen” on certain terms and conditions which are enclosed with the tender documents dt.11th August, 2017 and the last date for submission of offer/Tender was on 28th August, 2017 up to 4 PM. 3. Apart from other terms and conditions of the tender document there are certain eligibility conditions under Clause-3 that on selection a successful bidder was required to deposit total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- which will be treated as security deposit for the GBP Hospital canteen and has to enter into an agreement before taking over the charge of the canteen and commencement of canteen work and after issue of the work order to the successful bidder, the canteen should be started within 15 days from the date of issuance of the work order. The relevant conditions of eligibility and tenure of the contract and other conditions relevant for the purpose is reproduced as under: “03. Eligibility:-***** f. On selection, the successful bidder shall be required to deposit totaling an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only which will be treated as security deposit for the GBP Hospital canteen. The successful bidder an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand) Only in the form of Demand draft should be deposited within 7(seven) days of issue of the order date in the name of Medical Superintendent & Head of office, AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala. Adjustments with the EMD amount may be done so that the successful bidder may deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-only, subject to convenience of the bidder. 04. Tenure of the contract other conditions:- a. **** b. The successful bidder will have to enter into an agreement with the authorities of the AGMC & GBP Hospital as per draft agreement before taking over the charge of the canteens and commencement of the canteen work. 04. Tenure of the contract other conditions:- a. **** b. The successful bidder will have to enter into an agreement with the authorities of the AGMC & GBP Hospital as per draft agreement before taking over the charge of the canteens and commencement of the canteen work. c. After issue of the work order top the successful bidder, the canteen should be started within 15 days from the date of issue of the order, in case of failure to execute the work within stipulated time the security deposit shall be forfeited.” 4. The petitioner’s tender being highest was accepted by the authorities and after completion of formalities the petitioner was informed vide communication dt.28th December, 2017 (Annexure-2) that the rates of revenue offered by him for running the canteen at AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala has been accepted for the said service vide E.O.I with a request to start services in the AGMC & GBP Hospital canteen from the morning of 1st January, 2018 positively and further requested to enter into an agreement with the authority of AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala with judicial stamp paper within 7(seven) days from the date of issue of letter and to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards security deposit and additional amount of Rs.50,000/-within seven days in the form of demand draft and indisputably either of the condition was not complied with by the petitioner in terms of the letter of acceptance dt.28th December, 2017(Annexure-2). 5. At the same time the petitioner has his own reservations shown his disinclination to accept the offer to start services in the AGMC & GBP Hospital canteen on the rates of revenue offered by him under his tender/quotation vide letter dt. 2nd January, 2018 (Annexure-3) and after four months he withdrew his communication dt.2nd January, 2018 vide letter dt.12th April, 2018 and approached this court after he was served with the notice for vacating the GBP canteen premises and cleared the outstanding dues from 1st January, 2018 vide communication dt.23rd May, 2018(Annexure-7) which has been impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition. 6. 6. Before to proceed with the submission made by the petitioner, it may be relevant to note that the respondent No.4 was the second highest bidder who had participated in the bidding process along with the petitioner pursuant to expression of interest for AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala dt.11th August, 2017 and after the petitioner has shown his disinclination to start services on the rates of revenue offered by him under his communication dt.2nd January, 2018, it reveals from the original record placed by the Government counsel for perusal that the file was processed in connection with the second highest bidder, respondent No.4 and seeking approval to issue the work order, if agreed to, as appeared in note No.13, dt. 12th January, 2018 and willingness of the respondent No.4 was invited vide letter dt.29th March, 2018 (Annexure-R/2) and the respondent No.4 submitted his willingness on 31st March, 2018 and, accordingly, the work order of Operation & Maintenance of GBP Hospital Canteen was issued to the respondent No.4 on 15th May, 2018 to start services in the GBP Hospital canteen from the morning of 1st June, 2018 on terms and conditions which indisputably was complied with by the respondent No.4, but before it could start services in terms of the work order dt.15th May, 2018 since the petitioner was in possession of the canteen as he was having the tender to run the canteen for the period 2015-18, he was informed vide communication dt.23rd May, 2018 for vacating the GBP Hospital canteen premises and cleared the -outstanding dues, obviously so that the GBP Hospital canteen premises could be handed over to the next bidder (respondent No.4) whose tender was accepted by the authority after the disinclination being shown by the petitioner of running the Hospital canteen. 7. 7. At this stage, the petitioner approached this court by filing of a instant writ petition and submitted at the time of motion that after the rates of the petitioner was approved, an offer was made to him to start services from the morning of 1st January, 2018 vide letter dt.28th December, 2017 and thereafter the agreement was executed and without any further change and circumstances in the intervening period he withdrew his letter of disinclination shown by him at one stage and as he was running the canteen since 2015-2018 may be permitted to run the canteen in the changed circumstances and taking note thereof interim order was passed by this court on 30th May, 2018 and under the protection extended to him in compliance thereof the petitioner has been allowed to run the canteen on the strength of the interim order of this court. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner has withdrawn his earlier letter dt.2nd January, 2018 pursuant to which he has shown his disinclination to work on the terms and conditions agreed to him vide his subsequent communication dt. 12th April, 2018 (Annexure-4) there was no reason for the respondents to open the tender of the respondent No.4 and pass further order dt.15th May, 2018 for handing over possession of the canteen premises under communication dt.23rd May, 2018 which according to the petitioner is in violation of the principle of natural justice and such action could have been taken by the respondents prejudicial to his interest without at least affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and their action is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution. 9. 9. Counsel has tried to persuade that the location of the canteen was shifted at one stage which was not viable on the rates and the terms & conditions which he had agreed upon but on a verbal discussion, the location of the canteen and its viability was restored and immediately thereafter he withdrew his letter of disinclination dt.2nd January, 2018 vide his letter dt.12th April, 2018 and in the given circumstances at least it was expected from the respondents to call upon the petitioner being the L-1 bidder and keeping into consideration the fact that he had been running the canteen since last three years and has provided satisfactory services with no complaint being ever made at least indulgence was expected from respondents to be afforded to him before the respondent No.4, the L-2 bidder was called upon to provide canteen services by the respondents. 10. Although in the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the sustainability of the respondent No.4 that he was not holding the eligibility criteria as mentioned in expression of interest dt. 11th August, 2017 in para-15 of the writ petition, but no submission has been made questioning the eligibility of the respondent No.4 or of his participation as a bidder in reference to expression of interests dt.11th August, 2017. 11. Counsel for the respondents submits that although the petitioner was L-1 in the process which was initiated by the respondents in reference to a tender for expression of interest for GBP Hospital canteen dt.11th August, 2017, but after acceptance of his bid, letter was issued to him on 28th December, 2017 informing him that on acceptance of rate of revenue offered by him for running the canteen at AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala he may start services in hospital canteen from the morning of 1st January,2018 positively at new monthly revenue and also execute the agreement within seven days and on his selection as a successful bidder he had to deposit totaling an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-to be treated as security deposit for the GBP Hospital canteen and the successful bidder also deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-in the form of demand draft within seven days of issue of order dt.28th December, 2017. 12. But the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of acceptance dt.28th December, 2017. 12. But the petitioner failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of acceptance dt.28th December, 2017. On the contrary, on 2nd January, 2018 he informed the authority that he is not inclined to serve on the terms and conditions agreed under tender document to start services in the GBP Hospital canteen and after the disinclination being shown by the petitioner vide communication dt.2nd January, 2018, the file was further processed and the tender of the respondent No.4 who was L-2 (second bidder) was accepted and he was called upon to give his willingness within seven days on receipt of the letter dt.29th March, 2018 (Annexure-R/2), in compliance thereof, he expressed his willingness vide letter dt.31st March, 2018 and thereafter the file was further processed and while acceptance of the tender of the respondent No.4, the work order of Operation & Maintenance of GBP Hospital Canteen was issued to him on 15th May, 2018 and he has complied with all the terms and conditions of the work order dt.15th May, 2018 and this material fact was concealed by the petitioner while filing the present writ petition and after he was served with the notice for vacating the GBP Hospital canteen premises obviously to be handed over to the tenderer whose bid was accepted of respondent No.4 on 23rd of May, 2018, the petitioner approached this court and filed the present petition and working on the strength of interim order passed by this court. But the act of material concealment by the petitioner itself disentitled him to invoke the writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 13. But the act of material concealment by the petitioner itself disentitled him to invoke the writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 13. Counsel for the respondents further submits that once the conditions of work order after disinclination was shown by the petitioner issued to the respondent No.4 vide letter dt.15th May, 2018 has been accepted and as per terms and conditions security money and all other formalities have been complied with by the respondent No.4, no error was committed by the respondents in their decision making process and merely because the petitioner has changed his view and came forward to withdraw his letter of disinclination dt.2nd January, 2018 after almost four months on 12th April, 2018 would not give him a cause of action and once his tender stands rejected after disinclination being shown by the petitioner, there is no right vested with him for withdrawal and restoration of his work order originally issued to him on 28th December, 2017. 14. Counsel for the respondents submits that execution of the agreement even for the sake of submission may not have any justification but still the necessary security deposits and all other conditions under work order if not complied with by the petitioner in terms of work order dt.28th December, 2017, no right is conferred in favour of the petitioner which could be said to be divested for which an opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to him before the matter being further processed in accepting the tender of the respondent No.4 who was the second highest bidder and as long as decision making process is in accordance with law and as per the terms & conditions of Expression of Interest dt.11th August, 2017, there appears no reason for interference u/Art.226 of the Constitution. 15. I have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials on record. It is not disputed that the petitioner was running the GBP Hospital canteen for the three years term of 2015-18. But the new process was initiated pursuant to expression of interest dt. 11th August, 2017 for AGMC & GBP Hospital canteen inviting applications from experienced firm/agency of Operation & Management for GBP Hospital canteen from the prospective bidders. 16. It is not disputed that the petitioner was running the GBP Hospital canteen for the three years term of 2015-18. But the new process was initiated pursuant to expression of interest dt. 11th August, 2017 for AGMC & GBP Hospital canteen inviting applications from experienced firm/agency of Operation & Management for GBP Hospital canteen from the prospective bidders. 16. The petitioner and the respondent No.4 both were the prospective bidders and their bid was technically approved and when the financial bid was opened, the petitioner was the highest bidder and being L-1 his tender was accepted and the rates of revenue offered by the petitioner for running the GBP Hospital canteen, Agartala was approved and was requested to start services in AGMC & GBP Hospital canteen from morning of 1st January, 2018 vide their communication dt.28th December, 2017 and being a successful bidder he was required to deposit totaling an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-which will be treated as a security deposit for the GBP Hospital canteen along with an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-in the form of demand draft to be deposited within seven days of issue of the order in the name of Medical Superintendent & Head of Office, AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala. 17. 17. Indisputably, the petitioner had not complied with the terms and conditions and has failed to deposit the security deposit and the demand draft, which he was under obligation to deposit within seven days of issue of the work order dt.28th December, 2017, on the contrary, sent his letter of disinclination indicating not being possible to run the services of the GBP Hospital canteen under its communication dt.2nd January, 2018 and thereafter was sitting tight over the matter and after the letter dt.2nd January, 2018 of his disinclination being received in the office of the respondents, the file was further processed and after acceptance of bid of the second highest bidder i.e. respondent No.4 he was called upon to submit his willingness, if so desired, vide communication dt.29th March, 2018(Annexure-R/2) and without any loss of time, the respondent No.4 submitted his willingness to run the AGMC & GBP Hospital canteen on 31st March, 2018 and after completion of the formalities, the work order of Operation & Maintenance of GBP Hospital canteen was issued to respondent No.4 on 15th May, 2018 and the terms and conditions of the letter of acceptance dt.15th May, 2018 was complied with by the respondent No.4 including the security deposit totaling an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-and furnishing of a demand draft of Rs.50,000/-within the stipulated period of seven days of issue of work order of Operation and Maintenance of GBP Hospital canteen dt.15th May, 2018 and the petitioner had approached this court after he was served with a letter to vacate the GBP Hospital canteen premises and cleared the outstanding dues under communication dt.23rd May, 2018 with an information to him that the respondent No.4 has been selected for Operation and Maintenance of AGMC & GBP Hospital canteen in reference to the Expression of Interest dt.11th August, 2017. 18. 18. Once the petitioner has not shown his unwillingness after acceptance of his tender being the highest bidder and it reveals from the communication dt.28th December, 2017 (Annexure-2) vide letter dt.2nd January, 2018 his bid stands cancelled and no error was committed by the respondents in initiating the process to examine the next higher bidders who had participated in the tender process initiated pursuant to Expression of Interest for GBP Hospital canteen dt.11th August, 2017 and the respondent No.4 being the second highest bidder, his tender was thereafter accepted and his willingness was called for on 29th March, 2018 which he had accepted and has given his willingness on 31st March, 2018 and complied with terms and conditions of the bid documents and once the bid of the respondent No.4 was accepted by the respondents and the rates in terms of the bid documents on 15th May, 2018 was approved the transaction in terms of the tender which was initiated pursuant to the Expression of Interest dt.11th August, 2017 has completed and rights stands conferred/vested in favour of the respondent No. 4 and such vested right could have been divested only if he has either violated or breached the terms and conditions on which his tender was accepted by the respondents, which is not the case of the petitioner. In the considered view of this court I find no error being committed by the respondents in its decision making process in accepting the bid of the second highest bidder i.e. respondent no.4 and the transaction being completed was not open to examine within the limited scope of judicial review u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 19. In the considered view of this court I find no error being committed by the respondents in its decision making process in accepting the bid of the second highest bidder i.e. respondent no.4 and the transaction being completed was not open to examine within the limited scope of judicial review u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 19. The submission of the petitioner counsel that he was running the canteen for earlier period of three years i.e. 2015-2018 and once he has withdrawn his unwillingness once shown at a later stage needs indulgence of this court is of no substance for the reason that once the petitioner has shown his unwillingness to accept the rates which he himself has tendered at the time of submitting his tender document, if later on re-visiting was not inclined to accept his own rates tendered by him at least his mere earlier working to run the canteen for 2015-18 would not confer any right unless would have complied with the terms and conditions of the tender document in reference to expression of interest dt.11th August, 2017 and, more so, the submission may not hold good for additional reason that in the intervening period file was processed and the tender of second highest bidder i.e. respondent No.4 was accepted and after taking his willingness, his rates were approved and he was called upon to start services to run the GBP Hospital canteen, which later on could not have been overturned merely because the petitioner has given a second thought to recall his unwillingness once shown at a later stage. 20. The further submission of the petitioner’s counsel that before asking the petitioner to vacate the canteen premises and handover the possession under communication dt.23rd May, 2018, an opportunity of hearing was to be afforded is without substance for the reason that once the tender of the second highest bidder i.e. respondent No.4 was accepted, obviously the respondents are under obligation to handover possession of the canteen to be run by the respondent No.4 and that could have been possible only after the premises would have been vacated by the petitioner to be handed over the respondent no. 4 for which no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded. 21. The judgment on which the petitioner’s counsel has put reliance is (2011) 2 SCC 151 : State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vrs. 4 for which no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded. 21. The judgment on which the petitioner’s counsel has put reliance is (2011) 2 SCC 151 : State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vrs. Combined Chemicals Company Private Limited for non execution of the agreement would not frustrate the terms and conditions of the letter of acceptance is of no assistance for him for the reason that apart from execution of the agreement there was certain other conditions like security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-and to deposit additional amount of Rs.50,000/-in the form of demand draft to be deposited within seven days of the letter of acceptance and in instant case of the petitioner letter of acceptance was of dt.28th December, 2017 which indisputably was not complied with by him and there being a breach of the terms and conditions of the tender document mere non-execution of agreement even otherwise may not come to support him. 22. This court would further like to record that the petitioner was running the canteen for the period 2015-18, this fact cannot be ruled out that he was unaware of the site which was located & identified by the Hospital authority to run the canteen and the justification tendered by the petitioner to withdraw his letter of unwillingness at a later stage vide communication dt.12th April, 2018 appears to be an afterthought and when he came across of the fact that a bid of second highest bidder i.e. respondent No.4 has been accepted by the authorities and file is under process to offer him on the rates approved and that too has been accepted and his willingness has been obtained, at this stage when all other possibilities are rulled out in restoring his position to run the canteen in a given circumstance concealing these material facts he approached this court by filing instant writ petition u/Art.226 of the Constitution of India which on the facts on record cannot be rulled out. 23. In the result, the writ petition is without substance and accordingly, dismissed & interim order stands vacated. No costs.