JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - The facts involved in the present writ petition are in a narrow compass. A notice inviting tender (Annexure P-1) was issued by respondent No. 4 for the construction of a new 100 bed Civil Hospital at Sandhol, Tehsil Dharampur, District Mandi, H.P., which was published on 06.03.2020, in terms of which, submission of bids was to start from 07.03.2020 and end on 16.03.2020. As only one bidder responded to the said notice inviting tender, i.e. the present petitioner, the process was not taken to its logical conclusion for this reason that only one bidder has participated in the process. 2. This was followed by issuance of another notice inviting tender which was so issued on 25.03.2020 (Annexure P-3). Online submission of bid start date was 29.03.2020 and end date was 03.04.2020. Record demonstrates that on account of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, this notice inviting tender could not be taken to its logical conclusion. 3. Thereafter, another tender was floated by respondent No. 3 dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure P-4), in terms of which, the bids submission start date was 30.04.2020 and bid submission end date was 5th May, 2020. The financial bid was was stated to be opened on 08.05.2020. 4. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said bid, two bidders submitted their bids, i.e. the present petitioner as well as respondent No. 5. Both the bidders were found technically qualified and accordingly, financial bid was also opened on 08.05.2020, in which, the bid of the petitioner was found to be the lowest. As per the petitioner, subsequently it came to know that the respondent-department had taken a decision to cancel said process of notice inviting tender, in which, the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder, and accordingly, vide communication dated 06.06.2020 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner called upon the respondent-department to disclose the reasons for cancellation of tender. 5. Vide Annexure P-6, fresh tender stood issued by the department concerned inviting bids for the construction of Hospital in issue after canceling the earlier tender vide Annexure P-7, dated 02.06.2020. 5. Vide Annexure P-6, fresh tender stood issued by the department concerned inviting bids for the construction of Hospital in issue after canceling the earlier tender vide Annexure P-7, dated 02.06.2020. It is in this background that present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for the following reliefs:- "i) The cancellation order dated 2.6.2020 Annexure P-7 and notice inviting tender Annexure P-6 dated 10.06.2020 may kindly be set aside and quashed and respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed to process the bid of the petitioner submitted against tendering process initiated vide Annexure P-4 and compete the tendering process and award the work contract to the petitioner being the successful lowest bidder. ii) Respondents be directed to produce the entire records pertaining to the case before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. iii) Any other relief as may be deemed just and proper keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner against the Respondents. iv) The Hon'ble Court may please direct initiation of criminal inquiry into the discrepancies in the tendering process and further direct initiation of criminal prosecution against the officials and person having committed the discrepancies." 6. The petition is resisted by the respondents-State primarily on the ground that the tender process in which the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder was not be taken to its logical conclusion for the reason that a complaint was received in the office of respondent No. 3, through respondent No. 2, which complaint was initiated by respondent No. 6 wherein a request was made to cancel the tender and after examination of the complaint by Superintending Engineer, it was found that time for submission of bid was given of only 5 days, whereas as per notification issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, HPPWD, Shimla, officer letter No. 11943-12042, dated 02.07.2018, 14 days time was required to be given for online publication. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the pleadings as well as record of the case. 8. Respondents No. 5 and 6 despite post admission service chose not to appear and accordingly were proceeded against ex parte. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and also gone through the pleadings as well as record of the case. 8. Respondents No. 5 and 6 despite post admission service chose not to appear and accordingly were proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No. 5 is the party which participated in the notice process alongwith the petitioner as already mentioned above and as far as respondent No. 6 is concerned, record demonstrates that this respondent made a representation to the respondent-department for re-tendering the entire issue inter alia on the ground that appropriate time was not granted in floating the tender and norms were not followed in this regard. Respondent No. 6 did not participate in the earlier tender process. 9. The tender process, in which, the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder and which was cancelled by the respondents, was cancelled by them vide corrigendum dated 02.06.2020 (Annexure P-7). 10. Respondent No. 6, M/s Lakhbir Construction Company had filed a writ petition in this Court, i.e. CWP No. 1648 of 2020, titled as M/s Lakhbir Constructions Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, which was disposed of by this Court on 09.06.2020 in the following terms:- "By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) that the tender process for the purpose of constructions of 100 bedded Civil Hospital building at Sandhole, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh & W.S. and S.I. rainwater harvesting tank and septic tank work, vide tender notice dated 30.04.2020 may kindly be held illegal and same may kindly be quashed and setaside. (ii) That the direction may kindly be issued to the respondents to recall the tender in accordance with the norms issued by respondent No.2 vide notification dated 02.07.2018. (iii) That the entire record of the case may kindly be called for". 2. When the petition was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, submits that at this stage, petitioner shall be satisfied in case directions are issued to respondent No.3, i.e. Chief Engineer (HZ), H.P.P.W.D., Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh to decide the representation, which has been made by the petitioner to the said respondent, copy of which is appended with the present petition as Annexure P5. 3.Taking into consideration the innocuous prayer, which has been so made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this petition is disposed of, with the direction that necessary orders on Annexure P5, shall positively be passed by respondent No.3 on or before 15.06.2020. 4. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is dis-satisfied with the orders which may be passed by respondent No.3 in this regard, then he shall be at liberty to have such legal recourse against the same as may be available in law. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General is directed to apprise respondent No.3 of the order so passed by the Court, during the course of the day itself, so that the order can be complied with in letter and spirit by 15.06.2020. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of." 11. Be that as it may, a perusal of corrigendum dated 02.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) does not discloses that the cancellation of the tender was on account of some complaint made by M/s Lakhbir Construction Company as this is not spelled out in the corrigendum. In other words, it is not mentioned in the corrigendum that cancellation of the tender was on account of any complaint filed by M/s Lakhbir Construction Company. This demonstrates that the reasoning which has been given by the respondent-State in para 1(d) of the preliminary submissions of the reply is not borne out from the contents of Corrigendum dated 02.06.2020 (Annexure P-7), vide which, the tender was set at naught. Even if it is assumed that before the issuance of the corrigendum, any action was taken or was proposed to be taken on the complaint so filed by M/s Lakhbir Construction Company, the same is not reflected in the corrigendum per se nor as learned Counsel for the petitioner informs the Court, the petitioner was at any stage informed by respondents-department of any complaint filed by M/s Lakhbir Constructions Company. 12. 12. Accordingly, as this Court is not satisfied that the reasons which have been given in the Corrigendum dated 02.06.2020 (Annexure P-7), were cogent to set at naught the tender process initiated by the respondent-authority, in which, the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder, the obvious conclusion which flows from the same is that the cancellation of the tender, in which, the petitioner was the lowest bidder, is nothing but an arbitrary act of the respondent-department and an act which amounts to colourable exercise of power. In fact, the explanation which has been given by the respondent-authority for setting aside the tender process even in the reply also does not holds water. I say so for the reason that assuming that there was a conditon of requirement of 14 days time for online tender and the respondent-department in its wisdom did not adhere to the same and invited online publication within a gap of 5 days, then it is to be presumed that the respondent-department took a conscious decision not to adhere to the said condition. Not only this, alongwith rejoinder, the petitioner has appended Annexure P-14, a copy of the re-tendering working manual of HPPWD, perusal of which demonstrates that in the case of re-tendering of a work in issue, there is no such necessity of 14 days period as is spelled out in the response of the State. In addition, it is pertinent to mention that it is not the case of the respondent-department that the petitioner was either technically not qualified for being allotted the job in issue or that he was not found to be the lowest bidder. Further, the seriousness of the party, on whose complaint the process in issue was set at naught, can be gauged from the fact that said party neither participated in either of the tenders which stood floated by the authority nor it has assisted this Court in the adjudication of the present lis, as despite being impleaded as party-respondent and despite being served, it chose not to appear before the Court. 13. 13. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, this writ petition is allowed and notice inviting tender dated 10.06.2020 (Annexure P-6) as well as Corrigendum dated 02.06.2020 (Annexure P-7), are ordered to be quashed and set aside and the respondent-department is directed to allot the work in issue in favour of the petitioner in terms of notice inviting tender dated 30.04.2020 (Annexure P-4), withing a period of four weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.