JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case may be narrated at the outset. The petitioner comprises of two firms registered under the Companies Act, 2013 and they are committed to a Joint Venture by signing a deed of agreement on 03.04.2019. The petitioner responded to the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 04.03.2019 (Annexure-III) floated by the Engineer-in-Chief, Power & Electricity Department, Government of Mizoram (respondent No. 3) inviting sealed tenders in duplicate from electrical contractors possessing license and authorization to undertake installation of 132/33 kV Sub-Station -33 kV lines issued by the Mizoram Licensing Board or any other authority from other States within the country. The nature of the work mentioned in the NIT was for construction of 2 x 6.3 MVA, 132/33 kV Sub-Station at Mamit with Associate 33 kV Single Circuit on Double Tower line from Mamit to Zawlnuam via Zamuang. The last date for submission of the tender was fixed at 10.04.2019 and at the same time, it was the date for opening the tender at 13:00 hours. According to the petitioner, 4 firms including the petitioner firm responded to the NIT. Out of the 4 firms, 2 firms were disqualified and as a result, the petitioner as well as Power Tools and Engineering-K.T.C (Joint Venture), Guwahati were found to be the valid bidders. According to the petitioner, the other firm was the lowest bidder while the petitioner firm was the 2nd lowest. The petitioner was therefore, expecting the tender of the lowest bidder to be accepted. However, surprisingly, the respondent No. 3 on 29.04.2019 (Annexure-X) invited a fresh NIT for the same work fixing 12:00 hours on 21.05.2019 as the last date and time for opening of the tender. According to the petitioner, he was out of station and away at Delhi at the relevant time. He only came back on 15.05.2019 to Aizawl. That upon coming to learn the publication of a fresh tender only on 15.05.2019, the petitioner being aggrieved, initiated steps for filing the present writ petition. The writ petition was finally filed on 20.05.2019. 3. Mr. He only came back on 15.05.2019 to Aizawl. That upon coming to learn the publication of a fresh tender only on 15.05.2019, the petitioner being aggrieved, initiated steps for filing the present writ petition. The writ petition was finally filed on 20.05.2019. 3. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the 2nd lowest bidder, his bid ought to have been considered by the respondent authorities prior to floating a fresh tender. The issuance of a fresh tender on 29.04.2019 is only behind the back of the petitioner as no notice was issued to him. He further submits that the ground for floating the fresh NIT given in the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents stating that it was due to lack of competitiveness also cannot be sustained inasmuch as according to the State respondents themselves, there were clearly two tenderers competing i.e., the petitioner and the Power Tools and Engineering-K.T.C (Joint Venture), Guwahati. It was therefore, incumbent on the part of the State respondents to consider the bid of the petitioner before deciding to float fresh tender. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in National Mining Company Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors reported in 2012 (3) GLJ 533 : 2012 (3) GLT 44. He also relies upon the case of Sorath Builders Vs. Shreejikrupa Buildcon Limited and Another reported in (2009) 11 SCC 9 as well as Parasmoni Das Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors reported in 2003 (2) GLT 514. 4. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand submits that as provided in the NIT dated 04.03.2019, the tender documents were opened on 10.04.2019 and only two tenderers including the petitioner and Power Tools and Engineering-K.T.C (Joint Venture), Guwahati were received as valid bids and on that day, the financial bids of both the firms were looked into. Prior to the opening of the tender documents on 10.04.2019, the respondent No. 3 vide Circular dated 28.01.2019 had constituted a Technical Committee. On receiving the tender documents, the departmental authorities in the Power & Electricity Department prepared a comparative statement of the two bidders. Prior to the opening of the tender documents on 10.04.2019, the respondent No. 3 vide Circular dated 28.01.2019 had constituted a Technical Committee. On receiving the tender documents, the departmental authorities in the Power & Electricity Department prepared a comparative statement of the two bidders. Consequently, a meeting of Technical Committee was convened on 24.04.2019 wherein, apart from the financial bid, the commercial bids as well as the technical bid of the two tenderers were examined. A comparative statement that was prepared was also looked into. Upon examination of the respective bids of the two bidders, it was found that the lowest bidder i.e., Power Tools and Engineering-K.T.C (Joint Venture), Guwahati did not enclose any document as a proof on past experience or ongoing project in execution and construction of 132 kV Sub-Station as required in the tender terms. Therefore, the tender bid of the said firm was found to be commercially unacceptable. As a result, the tender of the petitioner firm remained as the only valid tender. The Technical Committee was of the opinion that as there was only one valid tender remaining, there was lack of competitiveness and to ensure competitiveness, the committee found it advisable to go for fresh tender. It was under such circumstance that the fresh NIT was invited on 29.04.2019. 5. By referring to the Annexure-II of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, the learned Addl. Advocate General submits that the decision to cancel the previous NIT was duly notified to all stake holders including the writ petitioner. Under the circumstances, there is no arbitrariness or illegality in the decision taken by the State respondents to go for fresh tender. In support of his submission, Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General relies upon the Apex Court decision rendered in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Cwe-Soma Consortium reported in (2016) 14 SCC 172 . The learned Addl. Advocate General has also produced the relevant records of the case for perusal of this Court. 6. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the record produced by the learned Addl. Advocate General. 7. The learned Addl. Advocate General has also produced the relevant records of the case for perusal of this Court. 6. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the record produced by the learned Addl. Advocate General. 7. The point to be decided from the projected case of the parties is as to whether the State respondents are justified in issuing a fresh NIT on 29.04.2019 without considering the bid of the petitioner as was submitted pursuant to the NIT dated 04.03.2019. It would appear that ordinarily, having regard to the fact that the writ petitioner being the 2nd lowest tenderer, it will be incumbent upon the respondent authorities to look into the viability of the bid of the petitioner before deciding to call a fresh tender. 8. This Court in the case of Parasmoni Das (Supra) held that considering the fact that the lowest tenderer was rejected, the 2nd lowest tenderer i.e., the petitioner in that case being the 2nd lowest tenderer, ought to have been considered by initiating negotiation. Instead of initiating negotiation, the decision of the authorities to go for a fresh tender was found to be bad and thus interfered with. However, in so far as the present case is concerned, the facts are noticeably different inasmuch as there is no such provision for negotiation in the NIT with any of the tenderers, the lowest or otherwise. Therefore, even if the Court is to be persuaded that the case of the petitioner should be considered first before deciding to go for fresh tender, there being no such provision in the tender documents, there is no scope for such consideration. 9. The Apex Court in Cwe-Soma Consortium (Supra) by referring to the case of Laxmikant and Others Vs. Satyawan and Others reported in (1996) 4 SCC 208 observed that in case of a tender, there is no obligation on the part of the person issuing tender notice to accept any of the tenders or even the lowest tender. After a tender is called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors who have given tenders that there is no competition, the person issuing tender may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby, cancel the tender. After a tender is called for and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors who have given tenders that there is no competition, the person issuing tender may decide not to enter into any contract and thereby, cancel the tender. It is well settled that so long as the bid has not been accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have the auction concluded in his favour. Resultantly, the Apex Court went on to hold that the State derives its power to enter into a contract under Article 298 of the Constitution of India and has the right to decide whether to enter into a contract with a person or not subject only to the requirement of reasonableness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By referring to the case in hand, in view of lack of real competition, the State found it advisable not to proceed with the tender with only one responsive bid available before it. When there was only one tenderer, in order to make the tender more competitive, the Tender Committee decided to cancel the tender and invited a fresh tender and the decision of the appellant did not suffer from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 10. Coming to the present case, although the petitioner has made a specific plea that he was out of station at the relevant time and could not approach this Court earlier and furthermore, no show cause having being given to the petitioner, the entire action of the respondent authorities was behind the back of the petitioner. This submission though attractive as it may seem cannot be accepted inasmuch as the petitioner is a Joint Venture Company and just because one individual is out of station, that would not prevent the Company or firm from looking out for developments in the tender process and to seek appropriate remedy expeditiously. 11. Further, the respondent No. 3 as may be noticed vide office Order dated 29.04.2019 had cancelled the earlier NIT dated 04.03.2019, since there was only one valid tender and therefore lack of competitiveness. The office Order is also clearly marked to all the stake holders including the petitioner. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of this case do not qualify the test or ingredients required for this Court to have a judicial review on the grounds as spelled out in Cwe-Soma Consortium (Supra). The office Order is also clearly marked to all the stake holders including the petitioner. Therefore, the facts and circumstances of this case do not qualify the test or ingredients required for this Court to have a judicial review on the grounds as spelled out in Cwe-Soma Consortium (Supra). Having taken such a view, it will not be necessary to travel into the other authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. This Court is also not unmindful about the fact that pursuant to the fresh NIT issued on 29.04.2019 fixing 21.05.2019 as the last date for submission of the tender, many firms may have responded to the NIT and therefore, seeing the overall balance of convenience, it will also therefore be not advisable to derail the process even on this ground. However, for all the efforts put in by the writ petitioner, it will only be just and proper that the petitioner be allowed to participate in the fresh tender issued vide NIT dated 29.04.2019. 13. In the result, having found no merit in the writ petition, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the writ petitioner, if so advised may submit his tender in response to the NIT dated 29.04.2019 within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. If tender is submitted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall consider the same along with all other tenderers, which may have already been submitted by fixing a fresh and convenient date for opening of the tender documents. 14. No cost.