ORDER The instant Letters Patent Appeal, for short LPA, is filed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2029, for short impugned order, passed in writ petition, WP(C) no., 1040/2020, titled Pawan Kumar v. J and K Tourism Development Corporation Limited and others, seeking its quashment and allowing the writ petition consequently. 2. Let us advert to the facts leading to the filing of instant petition. 3. Appellant! petitioner, in his capacity as a Class A contractor, had responded to the Tender Notice issued vide E-NIT no. 14 of JKTDC/EE/M&W/608-12 dated 24.1.2020 with respect to item no. 1 for renovation and up gradation of existing infrastructure at Chichi Mata JI Samba valued at Rs. 60.15 lacs and emerged as the lowest tenderer having offered a bid of Rs. 42,10,500 for the tendered work. Thereafter, the process initiated in terms of the said E-NIT was cancelled by the respondents as was conveyed to the appellant! petitioner in terms of communication dated 29.5.2020 addressed to him by the Executive Engineer JKTDC (J), respondent no. 2, stating therein that the work could not be finalized and stands cancelled by the higher authority as per the terms and condition No. (4) of the BNIT No. 14 of JKTDC/EE/M&W/608-12 dated 24.01.2020. The respondents, subsequent to the cancellation of process initiated in terms of the E-NIT No. 14 of JKTDC!EE!M&W!608-12 dated 24.01.2020, had issued a fresh E-NIT no. 06 of JKTDC-2020-21 dated 06.06.2020 for the same work. 4. The appellant, feeling aggrieved, had questioned the cancellation of the tender process, where the appellant had emerged the lowest bidder, conveyed in terms of communication of the respondent no. 2, before the writ court in a writ petition WP (C) 1040! 2020 seeking its quashment being illegal. The appellant had also called in question the fresh tendering process, therefore, had also sought quashment of the fresh E-NIT no. 06 of JKTDC-2020-2 1 dated 06.06.2020. 5. The challenge to the cancellation and the fresh tendering was made inter alia on the ground that the same is arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal as no reasons have been recorded by the tendering authority in support of the cancellation. 6. The Learned Single Judge after consideration of the matter did not agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant! petitioner and in terms of impugned order dated 29th June, 2020 dismissed the writ petition. 7. Appellant! 6. The Learned Single Judge after consideration of the matter did not agree with the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant! petitioner and in terms of impugned order dated 29th June, 2020 dismissed the writ petition. 7. Appellant! petitioner, feeling aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge, has filed the instant appeal seeking reversal of the judgment and order and allowing of the writ petition on the ground that the Writ Court failed to appreciate the controversy in its right perspective and has not recorded any reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, went through the material made available, and perused the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents have not spelt out the reasons for cancellation of the tender proc’s, therefore, the same is bad and needs to be quashed. Learned counsel also submitted that the cancellation of the bid process and subsequent issuance of fresh e-NIT dated 6.6.2020 was aimed at depriving the appellant! petitioner from executing the work and allotting the same to their favourite. It was further submitted that in the fresh tender process, the respondents, for extraneous considerations, have paved the way for their favourite to have the contract ad that is why the bid was again quoted at a higher rate than thost oiTet’d by the bidders in the earlier tender process, therefore, the fresh process on that count also is bad and needs to be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the impugned order of the writ court is unreasoned, therefore, deserves to be set-aside. 11. We have considered the submissions made. We are of the view that the impugned order has not only appreciated the controversy in its right perspective but it has supplied the reasons also in support of the conclusion drawn. 12. Needless to mention that the Writ Court, besides recording its satisfaction vis-à-vis the cancellation of the tender process and issuance of fresh e-NIT no. 06 of JKTDC/M&W/EE/800-802 on merits, has also recorded the reasons in support of its conclusion by mentioning unambiguously that condition no. 4 of the e-NIT no. 14 of JKTDC/EE/M&W/608-12 dated 24.01.2020 has been resorted to by the respondents while cancelling the tender process. The judgment, therefore, appears to be reasoned substantiating the cancellation. 13. The condition no. 06 of JKTDC/M&W/EE/800-802 on merits, has also recorded the reasons in support of its conclusion by mentioning unambiguously that condition no. 4 of the e-NIT no. 14 of JKTDC/EE/M&W/608-12 dated 24.01.2020 has been resorted to by the respondents while cancelling the tender process. The judgment, therefore, appears to be reasoned substantiating the cancellation. 13. The condition no. 4 of the e-NIT being relevant is extracted herein below, thus: “4. The bids for the work shall remain valid for a period of 90 days from the date of opening of Bids.” 14. Admittedly, the appellant! petitioner has failed, in his endeavor, to approach the respondents for completing the formalities within the allotted period of 90 days. Therefore, the respondents were well within their authority to cancel the process by taking recourse to the condition no. 4 of the e-NIT. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant was pointedly asked as to whether he has any information about the status of the fresh tender process initiated in terms of impugned tender notice, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the information conveyed to him by the appellant, the bid for an amount of Rs. 43+ lacs offered by one Mr Rajinder Manhas, in response to E-NIT in question, has been approved. 16. Mr F. A. Natnoo, AAG, incidentally available in the court was asked to enquire from the General Manager TDC about the status of the fresh tender notice and furnish the information to the Bench Secretary of this Court. Mr F. A. Natnoo, AAG, has supplied a copy of the communication No.. JKTDC/MD/PS/1 116 dated 22.07.2020, which reveals that the tender process stands concluded and the allotment letter is kept on hold because of the pendency of the present LPA. Copy of the communication is taken on record. Be made part of the file. A copy of the communication be made available to the learned counsel for the appellant also. 17. In view of what has been said hereinbefore we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity attached with the impugned order and the writ court has deliberated upon and dealt with all the aspects effectively. We, therefore, decline interference. A copy of the communication be made available to the learned counsel for the appellant also. 17. In view of what has been said hereinbefore we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity attached with the impugned order and the writ court has deliberated upon and dealt with all the aspects effectively. We, therefore, decline interference. Moreso, the new E-NIT, which is under challenge in the present LPA, has been processed, evaluated and finalized also, therefore, it is not only undesirable but unfeasible too to intervene and upset the arrangement made as that may prejudice the public interests as the work is stalled on a project which is of vital public importance. 18. In view of above, we dismiss the present appeal and uphold the impugned order. However, if the appellant feels that he is affected by any of the inactions of the respondents, he would be at liberty to take recourse to the legal remedy available under law. 19. No order as to costs.