JUDGMENT : MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the decision of the Technical Bid Committee dated 12.08.2017 whereby and whereunder the Committee has declared the Respondent No. 10 to have qualified in the technical bid despite his technical bid being defective and fit to be rejected. It has further been prayed to award the contract in question to the petitioner company since out of the three contractors, while the bid of one of them has been rejected and the bid of the other one is defective, the petitioner is the only surviving contractor whose bid is fit to be accepted. 2. The brief facts of the case according to the petitioner is that pursuant to the notice inviting tender published in the daily Hindi newspaper ‘Prabhat Khabar’ on 07.03.2017 for construction of Jataur Rewari to Bangara road, the petitioner and two other contractors had filed their bids, whereafter the meeting of the Technical Bid Committee was held on 12.08.2017 and the decision of the Technical Bid Committee was circulated to all concerned vide memo dated 12.08.2017 and the technical bids of all the three bidders were accepted. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the technical bid of the respondent no. 10 is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the tender document of the respondent no. 10 was filed along with an affidavit sworn by one Nitu Devi, the authorized representative of the respondent no. 10, however, all the affidavits filed in support of the technical bid were without welfare stamps, hence, the technical bid of the respondent no. 10 was liable to the rejected. It is further submitted that though, the technical bid of all the three tenderers were accepted by the Technical Bid Committee, however, the financial bid of only one tenderer i.e. Vijay Pandey was considered by the Financial Bid Committee. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 9, referring to the counter affidavit, has submitted that initially, the N.I.T. for the work in question was floated, however, nobody turned up, hence, the said N.I.T. was cancelled. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 9, referring to the counter affidavit, has submitted that initially, the N.I.T. for the work in question was floated, however, nobody turned up, hence, the said N.I.T. was cancelled. Thereafter, a fresh N.I.T. was published by the Executive Engineer in the daily Newspaper on 07.03.2017, whereupon three tenderers including the petitioner company had participated and the Technical Bid Committee in its meeting held on 12.08.2017 had declared all the three tenderers to have qualified. Since the tenderer, namely, Vijay Pandey had quoted the lowest rate, his name was recommended for the purposes of opening of financial bid, but in the meeting held on 26.12.2017 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, the tender submitted by the bidder, namely, Vijay Pandey was rejected in light of Clause 4.4 C of the S.B.D. (PMGSY). It is, therefore, submitted that the grievances of the petitioner that after rejection of the financial bid of the contractor, namely, Vijay Pandey, the said tender should have been awarded to the petitioner company, is misplaced inasmuch as the rate quoted by the petitioner was higher than the rate quoted by the said contractor, namely, Vijay Pandey and the financial bid of the petitioner had already been rejected. On account of rejection of the bid of Vijay Pandey, ultimately, the tender had to be cancelled and fresh process of re-tendering for the aforesaid contract in question was initiated and subsequently, a fresh N.I.T. was issued for the said work. In response whereof, only one tenderer, namely, Kunal Construction applied for the same and he was declared qualified, whereafter the work order dated 17.04.2018 was issued for the purposes of undertaking the contract in question. It is, thus, submitted that the present writ petition has become infructuous. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record and I find that the petitioner, in the writ petition, has only prayed for declaring respondent no. 10 to have not qualified in the technical bid, which in view of this Court is a misplaced and misconceived prayer inasmuch as finally, financial bid of the respondent no. 10 had not succeeded. 10 to have not qualified in the technical bid, which in view of this Court is a misplaced and misconceived prayer inasmuch as finally, financial bid of the respondent no. 10 had not succeeded. The other prayer of the petitioner company is to direct the respondents to award the contract in its favour since the financial bid of the second bidder i.e. Vijay Panday has been rejected, is equally not tenable in the eyes of laws. 6. For the reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, as submitted by the respondents in their counter affidavit as also for the reason that the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from the N.I.T. and the standard bidding documents (not annexed to the writ petition though being the most vital document for the purposes of adjudication of the present case) that the respondents were barred from cancelling the tender without assigning any reason and more so for the reason, as demonstrated by the State-respondent that after cancelling of the tender in question, notice inviting re-tender of the work in question has already been issued and one tender, namely, Kunal Construction has been declared qualified and has been issued work order vide letter dated 17.04.2018, but still the petitioner has neither bothered to assail the award of re-tender to the said Kunal construction nor has joined him as party respondent to the present case, the present writ petition is liable to fail, hence, is dismissed. 7. Before parting with the case, it would be relevant to mention that it is a well settled law that so long as the bid has not been accepted, even the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour and the person issuing tender may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby, cancel the tender, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases reported in Laxmikant and Others vs. Satyawan and Others, 1996 (4) SCC 208 , Rajasthan Housing Board and Another vs. G.S. Investments and Others, 2007 (1) SCC 477 and Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others vs. Om Prakash Sharma, 2013 (5) SCC 182 . 8. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.