JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The respondents issued, the, apposite tender notice, in, a news paper, and, therethrough they invited quotations, from, the prospective bidders, vis-a-vis, the works, as, mentioned in the tender notice. 2. The writ petitioner participated in the relevant process(s), and, after its technical and financial bids, hence, becoming accepted by the respondents concerned, the respondents declined to award works to it, rather, the respondents issued Annexure P-5, wherethrough they cancelled, the, apposite tender notice. Moreover, the respondents also issued Annexure P-8, wherethrough, the, bid made, by, the petitioner became annulled. Consequently, the writ petitioner being aggrieved therefrom, has sought annulment of impugned Annexures P-4 to P-8. The petitioner also prays for issuance, of, a mandamus against the respondents, for, the works, qua wherewith, it made offers, hence becoming awarded, vis--vis, it. 3. The respondents concerned mete a reply, to, the writ petition, and, therein they contend that the afore cancellation of the petitioner's bid, as made, by it, for the advertised work, does with square aplomb, hence, fall within the powers reserved in clause 28.1, of, the bid document, vis-a-vis the respondent, clause whereof stands reproduced hereinafter:- "28.1 Notwithstanding Clause 27 above, employer reserves the right to accept or reject any bid and to cancel the bidding process and reject all biddings at any time prior to award of contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected bidder or bidders or any obligation to inform the affected bidder or bidders of the ground for the employer's action." 4. A close circumspect reading, of, the afore clause, does bring forth, a, clear account, vis-a-vis, powers' being vested in the authority concerned, to, accept or reject a bid, and, to also cancel the bidding process, besides, to reject all biddings at any time prior, to, the awarding, of, the works concerned. 5. Tritely hereat, the apposite work remains un-awarded, to, the petitioner. Necessarily, when hence makings', of, the challenged Annexures, does, also fall within the afore right and powers, as, become vested in the respondents concerned, thereupon, no subsisting grievance/right becomes vested in the petitioner, to, unless the vires or legality thereof becomes challenged, hence cast any valid onslaught(s) thereagainst(s). However, no averment stands cast in the writ petition, wherethrough, any challenge becomes cast, vis-a-vis, the validity or vires of the afore clause, as, occurs, in the bidding document. However, no averment stands cast in the writ petition, wherethrough, any challenge becomes cast, vis-a-vis, the validity or vires of the afore clause, as, occurs, in the bidding document. Consequently, for want of any challenge, being thrown thereagainst, the impugned annexures, do fall, within the ambit, of, the apposite powers vested therein(s), in, the respondents concerned. Moreover, the effect of the afore want of any valid challenge becoming thrown, to, clause 28.1 is qua, (a) merely for the writ petitioner becoming qualified, for thereafter the awardings of the relevant works, it/he ipso facto, rather not also acquiring any further legitimate expectation, for, the tendered works', being awarded to it, (b) nor, it/he has any valid ground, for, making any espousal before this Court, vis-a-vis, the principle of promissory estoppel, standing attracted, vis-a-vis, it, and, against the respondents, (c) besides, also the petitioner cannot make any espousal before this Court, that, the impugned Annexures rather suffer from any vice, of, any illegality or impropriety, conspicuously given theirs' becoming founded thereon(s), i.e. the clause supra. Significantly hereat, in, the afore background, hence the principle of promissory estoppel becomes subsumed rather therein(s). 6. The afore conspectus also enjoins this Court, to, determine, vis-a-vis, the power of judicial review, being hereat exercisable by this Court, and, against the validity, of, making of impugned Annexures hence by the respondents concerned. In determining the afore conundrum, it is imperative, to, extract the relevant paragraph occurring, in, a verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 2197 of 2020, titled as "the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors. Versus Amr Dev Prabha, wherein it has been postulated that (a) Courts ought not to sit in appeal over decisions of executive authorities (b) the power of judicial review vested in a writ Court, becoming exercisable, only upon, palpable irrationality and procedural impropriety, hence surging forth, in the apposite decision making processes or there being gross impropriety or gross arbitrariness or capriciousness, in, the decision making processes embarked, upon, by the executive. 7. Be that as it may further thereonwards, it is also expostulated therein, that, the power of judicial review, is, not permitted to be invoked merely, for, protecting prior contractual disputes, which otherwise can be settled, through claim for damages rather becoming reared before the Civil Court. 8. 7. Be that as it may further thereonwards, it is also expostulated therein, that, the power of judicial review, is, not permitted to be invoked merely, for, protecting prior contractual disputes, which otherwise can be settled, through claim for damages rather becoming reared before the Civil Court. 8. Bearing in mind the afore expostulations of law, occurring, in, paragraph 41 of " the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd" case supra, and, also the further expostulations borne therein, qua when a prayer for rebidding, is, on account, of, or is grooved in a desire to get, a, better price, thereupon the involvement of Article 14 of the Constitution, would not be made out, whereupon hence (a) when the respondents contend, that, the exercising by them, of, a legitimate power, is, anvilled, upon, the afore clause 28.1, of, the bidding document, bidding document whereof rather remains unchallenged (b)and, further when the afore exercise, has been done, only for ensuring the emanations of a better price, or, for ensuring the emergence, of, a healthy competition (c) resultantly thereupon, a sequel is generated, vis--vis, the impugned Annexures rather not suffering from any aura, of, any invalidity. 9. Moreover, it has also been expostulated, in, a verdict recorded by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in, case titled as State of Jharkhand and others versus M/S Cwe-Soma Consortium rendered in Civil Appeal No. 6125 of 2016, relevant paragraph 12 whereof, is, extracted hereinafter, conspicuously qua there being no indefeasible obligation, upon, the entity or authority concerned rather, issuing a tender notice, to, either accept or cancel the apposite tender, rather upon, the entity or authority concerned, hence issuing the tender notice, upon a keen application of mind, perceiving, vis-a-vis, there occurring no competition, (i) whereupon it or he may proceed, to not, award, the, tendered works to the singular bidder, rather it being empowered hence, to, cancel the tender notice. Since, it has also been expostulated therein, vis-a-vis, up to the tender bid being accepted, the bidder not acquiring any vested right to seek any direction, vis--vis, the tendered works being awarded, to, it, (ii) whereupon hence when the respondents in their reply, on affidavit, aver that the impugned Annexures, were made only, for ensuring, a healthy competition, and, for ensuring emanation(s), of, a higher price, than, the one offered by the writ petitioner, the sole bidder, thereupon the impugned Annexure, do, in the light of the afore expostulations, rather don the mantle of validity, hence concomitantly they also acquire no aura or vice of any illegality. " 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. 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 (vide Laxmikant and Ors v. Satyawan and Ors, (1996) 4 SCC 208 ; Rajasthan Housing Board and Anr. v. G.S Investments and Anr., (2007) 1 SCC 477 and Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikash Parishad and Ors. V. Om Prakash Sharma, (2013) 5 SCC 182 ) ". 10. Reiteratedly, the effect of the afore averment on affidavit, is, qua theirs falling within the ambit, of, the afore apposite rescinding expostulation(s) of law, as, borne, in case, State of Jharkhand case supra, and, obviously when hence hereat this Court becomes though decisions supra, rather fettered to, in the interest of justice, exercise its power, of, judicial review, rather, for, annulling the impugned Annexures, Annexures whereof are otherwise also not suffering from any vice of any illegality or gross impropriety, whereupon(s) resultantly the impugned Annexures, do not, call for any interference. 11. 11. Lastly, since the petitioner is declared to be eligible, his pain and anguish would become mitigated hence upon his participating in the rebidding process, rather contrarily when the works mentioned in the apposite tender notice, upon, being directed to be awarded, only to him, would necessarily beget infringement, of, unchallenged clause 21.8 of the bidding document, and would also render them, to go rather beyond the realm(s) of the power, of, judicial review, vis--vis, tender works, as vested in the writ Court. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed alongwith all pending applications.