JUDGMENT U Durga Prasad Rao, J. - The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to declare the action of 2nd respondent in cancelling the tender notification No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 for 'Selection of service provider for drop-back of postnatal women from Government health facility to home across Andhra Pradesh' as illegal, arbitrary and direct the 2nd respondent to award the said tender to the petitioner it being L1 qualified bidder and consequently quash the subsequent RFP tender No.13.5A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 29.10.2020 issued by 2nd respondent for the same purpose as illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law and for such other orders. 2. The petitioner's case briefly is thus: (a) The petitioner is a limited company incorporated in March 2002 and it offers facility services like cleaning etc. to various Government and private institutions. (b) The 2nd respondent floated online tender No.2.1/APMSIC/2020-21 dated 27.05.2020 inviting bids for 'Selection of service provider for drop-back of postnatal women from Government health facility to home across Andhra Pradesh' and the petitioner company participated in the said bidding process by verifying all the conditions of the tender notification. On 18.06.2020, pursuant to the clarification requested by the bidders, the 2nd respondent issued Amendment No.1 to the above tender notification; while so, on 30.06.2020 the 3rd respondent informed all the bidders that any clarification regarding the remarks of Preliminary Technical Evaluation Report be sent to 2nd respondent before 3.00 P.M. on 01.07.2020. In the same notice, the details of the qualification criteria and tender documents were evaluated and provided. It was mentioned inter alia as follows: a. M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Provisionally not qualified due to price bid disclosed in technical bids as per Tender Clause 6.15.2 (iii) at Page No.23 and Tender Clause 6.3.C at Page No.20; b. GVK EMRI - Provisionally not qualified due to non-submission of EPF certificate on the name of M/s. GVK EMRI; and c. BVG India Limited - Provisionally Qualified. Pursuant to the above notice dated 30.06.2020, the petitioner company sent a letter to 3rd respondent on 03.07.2020 raising objections regarding the request of the respondents to the bidders to send their clarifications against the Preliminary Technical Evaluation Report. Pursuant to the above notice dated 30.06.2020, the petitioner company sent a letter to 3rd respondent on 03.07.2020 raising objections regarding the request of the respondents to the bidders to send their clarifications against the Preliminary Technical Evaluation Report. The main objection of the petitioner is that when M/s. GVK EMRI and M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd were not provisionally qualified in the Preliminary Technical Evaluation Report, how they along with other bidders were requested by the Department to send their compliance and clarifications before 01.07.2020. Thus the petitioner's main contention is that the Department can ask clarification of the information from the qualified bidders, but not the above two bidders. However, the objection letter dated 03.07.2020 was summarily ignored and the 2nd respondent opened the financial bid of the petitioner Company and GVK EMRI, wherein GVK EMRI stood L1 despite not having qualified in the technical bid. (c) While so, the 2nd respondent on its own cancelled the first tender dated 27.05.2020 and on 17.08.2020 floated another tender No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 for the same purpose. So far as the second notification dated 17.08.2020 is concerned, the 2nd respondent issued Amendment No.1 dated 18.08.2020 stating that the pre-bid meeting shall be conducted on 21.08.2020 at 11.00 A.M. at the office of APMSIDC, Mangalagiri, Guntur. Subsequently on 28.08.2020, 2nd respondent issued Amendment No.2 to the tender notification No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 in pursuance of the clarifications requested by the bidders during the pre-bid meeting held on 21.08.2020. Vide a note dated 02.09.2020, the 3rd respondent informed all the bidders that any clarification regarding the remarks of the Preliminary Technical Evaluation Report be sent to the respondent before 3.00 P.M. on 03.09.2020. In the same note, the details of the qualification criteria and tender documents as submitted online were evaluated and provided. Pursuant to the said note dated 02.09.2020 of 3rd respondent seeking clarification, the petitioner company on 03.09.2020 wrote a letter to 3rd respondent stating inter alia that they had submitted "Form I List & Eligibility Criteria of Staff" with the details of the staff-driver. Pursuant to the said note dated 02.09.2020 of 3rd respondent seeking clarification, the petitioner company on 03.09.2020 wrote a letter to 3rd respondent stating inter alia that they had submitted "Form I List & Eligibility Criteria of Staff" with the details of the staff-driver. (d) Thereafter, pursuant to the opening of financial bid on 02.09.2020, the petitioner company sent a letter to 3rd respondent on 04.09.2020 regarding the price bid submitted by them stating inter alia that presently Ambulance services are exempted from GST and the petitioner would like to mention that price bid submitted by it does not include GST and in future if at all the GST becomes applicable on this service, the petitioner would absorb the same in their quoted price. (e) On 08.09.2020, the Managing Director of 2nd respondent sent a letter No.41 9APMSIDC/EQU/Dropback services2020-21 to the petitioner company inter alia seeking clarification regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the GST in the price quoted by the petitioner. In the said letter, he further stated as if as per the letter addressed by M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. the Sr. DME (C&W), Jodhpur, Indian Railways issued Debarment and termination proceedings of the contract of the petitioner and sought for the clarification from the petitioner in that regard. (f) Pursuant to the clarification sought by 2nd respondent, the petitioner sent letter dated 10.09.2020 to the respondents providing clarification regarding the GST and Debarment and termination of contract as follows: "Hence, we would like to state that the complaint raised by M/s. V soft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is falsifying the facts with an intention to mislead the Department for their own benefits, being L2 in financial bid." (g) The further case of the petitioner is that instead of debarring and disqualifying M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. from the tender process 2nd respondent went ahead and renegotiated the terms with M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and much to the shock and surprise of the petitioner company, on 21.10.2020 the Managing Director of 2nd respondent vide his letter No.419APMSIDC/EQU/Dropback services 2020-21 sent an unsigned letter stating as follows: "In response to the reference 2nd and 3rd cited, it is to inform that, L2 bidder M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has offered final price at Rs.890/- per trip all inclusive with SUV (Mahindra Bolero Basic model/Tata Sumo). Hence it is requested for your willingness to match the above price." (h) To the above letter, the petitioner on 26.10.2020 sent another clarificatory letter to the 2nd respondent stating inter alia as follows: (1) There should be no post tender negotiations except in exceptional cases and that too with L1 bidder only; (2) Counter offer, if any, should be at L1s rate only and it cannot be the other way, which your present letter for negotiation, as mentioned in reference 8, portrays. (3) Department can approach the next ranked bidder ONLY IF the selected bidder fails to comply with the requirements specified in the tender document." (i) While the matter stood thus, 2nd respondent again cancelled the tender No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 and on 29.10.2020 issued a fresh tender No.13.5A/APMSIDC/2020-21 for the same purpose as that of previous one. Even after floating of the 3rd tender, the unsigned letter dated 31.10.2020 was sent by the Managing Director of the respondent to the petitioner stating as if M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has clarified that their quotation of Rs.1050/- per trip was including GST @ 18% and Rs.890/- is excluding GST per trip and therefore, the petitioner may inform its willingness to match the price of Rs.890/- per trip excluding GST before 02.11.2020 by 1.00 P.M. as otherwise it would be construed that the petitioner was not willing to match Rs.890/- excluding GST per trip and a decision would be taken accordingly. Surprised by the aforesaid letter, the petitioner on 02.11.2020 sent a letter to the Managing Director of the respondent raising objection that it was an unsigned letter by the authorised signatory and that a detailed clarification was already given in the previous letter. The petitioner also brought to the notice of 2nd respondent about the guidelines issued by the CVC. Finally the petitioner requested in its letter the offer given by M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. may be ignored as it does not fit to the guidelines issued by the CVC as it was misleading the Department and delaying project and causing injustice to the petitioner. However, there was no avail. The 2nd respondent unjustly proceeded with the 3rd tender notification dated 29.10.2020 to favour M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It was only with that oblique intention 2nd tender notification dated 06.08.2020 was cancelled. However, there was no avail. The 2nd respondent unjustly proceeded with the 3rd tender notification dated 29.10.2020 to favour M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. It was only with that oblique intention 2nd tender notification dated 06.08.2020 was cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that 2nd respondent made negotiations with L2 after opening of the financial bid and forced the petitioner to match with the fresh bid of L2 i.e., M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Such post bid negotiations with L2 is against law. M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. in a deliberate attempt to sabotage the awarding of the tender to the petitioner, stated that their quoted amount Rs.1050/- per trip including GST @ 18% and Rs.890/- is excluding GST per trip. The GST is not applicable as on the date and therefore, M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. unnecessarily and purposefully created a controversy by falsely stating that the bid amount quoted by it included GST @ 18% and misled the Department by contradicting his own bid and making it conditional. Its attempt was only to somehow become a successful bidder. The petitioner's bid was a competitive bid and its bid was lower by Rs.46/- per trip compared to L2 bidder and lower by Rs.517/- per trip when compared with L3 bidder. Therefore, on that count also L1-petitioner's bid ought to have been accepted in the public interest. However, the decision of the respondents in cancelling the second tender No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 is against the public interest and is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition. 3. The petitioner filed additional affidavit dated 06.11.2020 stating that despite the filing of writ petition the respondents 2 & 3 are proceeding with the tender notification dated 29.10.2020. The tender was published on 02.11.2020 and only four days time was given till 06.11.2020 for submission of the tender, though in respect of first and second tender notifications, sufficient time i.e., 21 days and 16 days respectively was given. In unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner had to participate in the tender notification dated 29.10.2020 under protest and without prejudice. When the petitioner tried with the online filing system of 2nd respondent, it was not fructified. The petitioner immediately informed on e-mail and telephonically to 2nd respondent and its officers, but it was in vain. However, as an abundant precaution the petitioner video graphed the same. When the petitioner tried with the online filing system of 2nd respondent, it was not fructified. The petitioner immediately informed on e-mail and telephonically to 2nd respondent and its officers, but it was in vain. However, as an abundant precaution the petitioner video graphed the same. Thus, the petitioner was illegally excluded from the participation in the tender notification dated 29.10.2020. 4. The respondents 2 & 3 filed counter opposing the writ petition by inter alia contending thus: (a) Explaining the circumstances under which the tender notification No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 was quashed and 3rd tender notification No.13.5A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 29.10.2020 was floated, it is submitted by the respondents that 3rd tender issued by 2nd respondent is "REVERSE TENDER". The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.79, Finance (HR.V-TFR) Department, dated 25.08.2020 and ordered that the adoption of reverse tendering procedure shall be mandatory in respect of procurement of Goods, Services, and works and shall come into force with immediate effect. Accordingly, 2nd respondent adopted the reverse tendering procedure and issued the reverse tender notification dated 29.10.2020. (b) The petitioner was also informed by 2nd respondent that the tender dated 29.10.2020 with a tender ID 357023 was on e-procurement platform with REVERSE TENDER option and the last date for submission of bids was 06.11.2020 at 3.00 P.M. It was further made clear that the participants of tender No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 with a tender ID No.346860 on e-procurement platform can use the same EMD for present tender i.e., reverse tender dated 29.10.2020 and requested all interested bidders to participate in the above reverse tender. The copy of the said e-mail dated 03.11.2020 is filed along with counter. However, despite such intimation the petitioner did not participate in the above reverse tender notification dated 29.10.2020 within the stipulated time i.e., 06.11.2020. The petitioner on the other hand approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing various facts. The petitioner after filing writ petition wrote a letter to 2nd respondent on 06.11.2020 which would show that the petitioner had no interest to participate in the reverse tender dated 29.10.2020. The petitioner demanded to award the 2nd tender dated 06.08.2020 in his favour by cancelling the 3rd tender. The petitioner after filing writ petition wrote a letter to 2nd respondent on 06.11.2020 which would show that the petitioner had no interest to participate in the reverse tender dated 29.10.2020. The petitioner demanded to award the 2nd tender dated 06.08.2020 in his favour by cancelling the 3rd tender. It is pertinent to note that in the writ petition the petitioner did not make even a single averment against the reverse tender procedure and did not challenge the same and thus, on that ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Enumerating the advantages of the reverse tender process over the general tender process, it is mentioned as follows: Reverse tendering process on e-procurement portal as follows: a) APMSIDC will schedule reverse tendering process on the e-Procurement portal. Qualified technical bidders will also be communicated through e-mail the date and time for the conduct of reverse tendering process. b) Online reverse tendering process i) The online Reverse tendering process will be run on the total amount. ii) Only the technically qualified bidders will be permitted to participate in the reverse tendering. iii) The 'opening price' i.e., start up price for Reverse tendering will be the lowest (L1) price quoted by the Bidders amongst all technically qualified bidders. iv) Bidders can modify the total price, based on the minimum bid decrement or the multiples thereof, to displace a standing lowest bid and become "L1", and this will continue as an iterative process. The total price, will be used to determine the total cost of the bid. v) For the purpose of Reverse tendering, the minimum bid decrement will be INR 25.00. vi) Reverse tendering duration: The duration of the reverse tendering is 3 Hours. All bidders are required to submit their online bids during this period. vii) In case, if any bidder decides to lower the price in the last fifteen (15) minutes of the reverse tendering duration, then the duration of the reverse tender will be extended for additional 15 minutes (Bid Received time + 15 minutes) to enable other bidders to participate further. Such extensions will continue as long as there is no bid received in the last 15 minutes. viii) After the completion of reverse tendering, the system will calculate the total price of the bid. Such extensions will continue as long as there is no bid received in the last 15 minutes. viii) After the completion of reverse tendering, the system will calculate the total price of the bid. Since the reverse tender process adopted by 2nd respondent is free from arbitrariness, discrimination, malafides or bias, this Hon'ble Court may not interfere with the said process. The writ petition is not maintainable without challenging the reverse tendering procedure adopted by the Government. The second tender was cancelled due to the administrative reason i.e., to implement the reverse tender procedure in view of the G.O.Ms.79 and there are no malafides in cancellation of the second tender. Above all, as per clause 6.18 of tender notification dated 06.08.2020, the 2nd respondent is empowered to reserve right to accept or reject any bid and to annul the bidding process and reject all the bids at any time prior to award of the contract. As per clause 3.9, APMSIDC reserves the right to reject the bids without assigning any reason whatsoever. Further, APMSIDC reserves the right to seek clarification from any bidder as per clause 6.17. In view of it, the petitioner cannot challenge the cancellation of the 2nd tender notification dated 06.08.2020. The petitioner has no vested right to question the cancellation of the tender notification dated 06.08.2020 or in adopting the reverse tender procedure vide notification dated 29.10.2020. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel Sri Sandeep Ladda on behalf of Sri Nanduri Sriram, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri Chittem Venkat Reddy, Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 & 3, and learned Government Pleader for Medical Health & Family Welfare representing the respondents 1 & 4. 6. Vehemently challenging the cancellation of tender No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 without confirming the same in favour of petitioner and issuing notification RPF Tender No.13.5A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 29.10.2020, learned counsel for petitioner Sri Sandeep Ladda would argue that in the first tender No.2.1/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 27.05.2020 the petitioner participated along with others and cleared the technical bid, but however, the respondent 2 & 3 cancelled the same obviously because M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was not provisionally qualified and then issued 2nd notification dated 06.08.2020, wherein the petitioner not only participated but also stood as L1. With regard to the applicability of the GST to the subject contract, the petitioner made it clear that the services mentioned in the tender fall under exemption from the GST and as such GST is not applicable as on date. The petitioner in fact sent a letter dated 04.09.2020 to the 3rd respondent stating that the Ambulance services are exempted from GST and the price bid submitted by the petitioner therefore does not include GST and in future, if at all GST becomes applicable on this service, the petitioner would absorb the same in their quoted price. In spite of the said clarification, still the 2nd respondent sent a letter dated 08.09.2020 to the petitioner by creating some confusion with regard to the GST and asked the petitioner to clarify whether the quoted amount is including GST or excluding GST. Learned counsel strenuously argued that to this letter also, the petitioner gave a reply dated 10.09.2020 stating that the service mentioned in the tender fall under exemption list of GST and hence, GST is not applicable as on date. It was further clarified that the bid of the petitioner constitute basic price of Rs.1004/- per trip per vehicle plus GST @ Rs.0.00 (as it is not applicable as on the date of bid submission). He further made it clear that the inclusion or exclusion of GST would not make any affect on the basic price. In view of the said clarification, learned counsel argued, the respondents ought to have confirmed the bid of the petitioner being L1. However, respondent sent unsigned letter dated 21.10.2020 stating as if the L2 bidder-M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has offered final price at Rs.890/- per trip and requested the petitioner to give its willingness to match the above price. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the post tender negotiations with L2 bidder is against the guidelines of the CVC and therefore, the petitioner on 26.10.2020 sent a clarification that such post tender negotiation should not be undertaken except with L1 bidder that too in exceptional cases and the Department can approach the next ranked bidder only if the selected bidder fails to comply with the requirements specified in the tender document. Learned counsel argued that when the matter stood, at that stage, instead of awarding the contract pursuant to the tender notification dated 06.08.2020, the respondents 2 & 3 cancelled the said notification and issued third notification dated 29.10.2020, for the same purpose. He argued that such an act of the respondents 2 & 3 is against all canons of law. Learned counsel further argued that the cause shown by the respondents for floating the 3rd tender is only a lame excuse as the said G.O.Ms.No.79 can be followed only for future tenders but not to the tenders which were already floated. Thus, in any event, the cancellation of 2nd tender dated 06.08.2020 and floating of the 3rd tender dated 29.10.2020 are devoid of principles of law. He would further submit that the petitioner tried to participate in the 3rd tender, however, in view of the fact that only four days time was given upto 06.11.2020 and as the portal did not open he could not participate in the same. Learned counsel relied upon the decision Nashirwar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 1 SCC 29 , Haffkine Bio-Pharmaceutical Corporation Limited v. Nirlac Chemicals Through its Manager, (2018) 12 SCC 790 , Abacus Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector-Sabarkantha,2014 SCCOnlineGujarat 1689. He thus prayed to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, Sri Chittem Venkat Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 would mainly argue that merely because a person participates in tender bid and stood as L1 will not give him any right to seek for contract is the trite law. He would further argue that in 1st tender notification dated 27.05.2020 and also in the 2nd tender notification dated 06.08.2020, the respondent authorities made it clear that they reserve the right to accept or reject any bid and to annul the bidding process at any time prior to award of the contract. Referring to clause 6.18 under the heading TIA's right to accept/reject any proposal or all proposals, he argued that such a right was reserved by the respondent authorities and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that since he stood as L1 in the second tender notification dated 06.08.2020 the contract should invariably be extended in his favour. Referring to clause 6.18 under the heading TIA's right to accept/reject any proposal or all proposals, he argued that such a right was reserved by the respondent authorities and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that since he stood as L1 in the second tender notification dated 06.08.2020 the contract should invariably be extended in his favour. Citing reason for cancellation of the 2nd notification dated 06.08.2020, learned counsel argued that the Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.79, Finance (HR.V-TFR) Department, dated 25.08.2020, whereunder the Government ordered that adoption of reverse tendering process shall be mandatory in respect of procurement of the goods, services and works with a value of Rs.1.00 Cr. and above. It is further ordered that the said order shall come into force with immediate effect and applicable to all departments, Public Sector undertakings, Societies, Universities, local bodies and all other institutions of Government of A.P. Learned counsel would argue that in view of the direction in the said G.O., the 2nd notification dated 06.08.2020 was cancelled and 3rd notification dated 29.10.2020 was issued following the reverse tendering process which is considered to be more transparent and profitable. The petitioner has not challenged the 3rd notification as illegal or void, but only contends that he should have been granted contract pursuant to the 2nd notification and thereby setting aside the 3rd notification. Such a prayer is not permissible under law and therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed. Relying upon the decision in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. The State of Karnataka, (2012) AIR SC 2915 = MANU/SC/0662/2012, learned counsel argued that unless the tender process is tainted by unfairness, arbitrariness and malafides, generally the constitutional Court will not entertain judicial review. 8. Sometime after the matter was reserved for orders, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 that in the 3rd tender notification dated 29.10.2020 no bidder became qualified and therefore, the same was cancelled and a fresh tender No.1.17/APSMIDC/2021-22 was floated on 07.04.2021. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Medical Health & Family Welfare representing the respondents 1 & 4 adopted the above arguments of the Standing Counsel. 10. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 11. 9. Learned Government Pleader for Medical Health & Family Welfare representing the respondents 1 & 4 adopted the above arguments of the Standing Counsel. 10. The point for consideration is whether there are merits in the writ petition to allow? 11. Point: The substance of the argument on behalf of the petitioner is that though in the 2nd tender vide No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 the petitioner stood as L1, the respondents 2 & 3 arbitrarily cancelled the tender with a view to accommodate M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and floated the 3rd tender notification dated 29.10.2020. In the process, after financial bid was over, they obtained the revised price from the aforesaid M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and enquired the petitioner whether it can match with the price of former. On the other hand, denying the allegations the contention of the respondents 2 & 3 is that the 2nd tender was to be cancelled primarily for the reason that the Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.79 directing all the departments of the Government to adopt the reverse tendering process and in cancellation of the 2nd tender no bias or arbitrariness crept in. 12. The scope and extent of judicial review on the administrative acts of the State and its instrumentalities is no more res integra. (i) In R = MANU/SC/0257/1993, the Apex Court observed that in contractual sphere, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution, of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This impose the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair play in action. Due observation of this obligation as a part of good administration, raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities. (ii) In Sterling Computers Limited v. M & N Publications Limited, (1996) AIR SC 51 = MANU/SC/0439/1993, it was observed that the procedure adopted by the authorities which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, while awarding the contracts in respect of properties belonging to the State can be tested in the light of Article 14 of the Constitution is the settled law by the various judgments of the Supreme Court. It was further held that there was nothing paradoxical in imposing legal limits on the authorities by Courts even in contractual matters because the whole conception of unfettered discretion is inappropriate to a public authority who is expected to act for public good. It was also observed that by way of judicial review the Court is not expected to act as a Court of appeal while examining an administrative decision and to record a finding whether such decision would have been taken otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iii) In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1996) AIR SC 11 = MANU/SC/0002/1996 the Apex Court considering its earlier decisions deduced the following principles: "The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does no sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested buy the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." (iv) In Jasmshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, (2004) 3 SCC 214 = MANU/SC/0033/2004, the Apex Court observed thus: "16. The position of law is settled that the State and its authorities including instrumentalities of States have to be just, fair and reasonable in all their activities including those in the field of contracts. The position of law is settled that the State and its authorities including instrumentalities of States have to be just, fair and reasonable in all their activities including those in the field of contracts. Even while playing the role of a landlord or a tenant, the State and its authorities remain so and cannot be heard or seen causing displeasure or discomfort to Article 14 of the Constitution of India." (v) In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2006) 14 Scale 224 = MANU/SC/0090/2007, the Apex Court while observing that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides and its purpose is to check whether the choice or decision is made lawfully and not to check whether the choice or decision is sound, has ultimately held thus: "Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.' ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226." (vi) In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. The State of Karnataka (4 supra) the Apex Court has deduced principle similar to those set out in Tata Cellular's case (7 supra) and held that if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, interference by the Courts is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. However, if the process adopted or decision made by the authorities is mala fide or intended to favour someone or arbitrary and irrational that the decision taken by it could not have been taken by a reasonable authority acting reasonably and with relevant law, the interference will be inevitable. (vii) In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 818 = MANU/SC/1003/2016, the Apex Court has expounded that the decision making process in accepting or rejecting the bid should not be interfered with. (vii) In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 818 = MANU/SC/1003/2016, the Apex Court has expounded that the decision making process in accepting or rejecting the bid should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision making process is arbitrary or irrational or perverse to an extent that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached such a decision. It was also cautioned that the Constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decisions and ought not to substitute their view for that of administrative authority. 13. With the above jurisprudence, the case on hand has to be examined. Admittedly, the respondents 2 & 3 floated the 1st tender No.2.1/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 27.05.2020 inviting bids for 'Service provider for drop-back of postnatal women from Government health facility to home across Andhra Pradesh'. The petitioner and some others also submitted their tender bids and the said tender notification was cancelled by the respondent authorities and floated the 2nd tender No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 on 17.08.2020. It should be noted that since the petitioner has not challenged the cancellation of the first tender and participated in the 2nd tender dated 06.08.2020, the cancellation of 1st tender dated 27.05.2020 is not an issue in the present writ petition. 14. The 2nd tender No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 06.08.2020 is concerned, admittedly the petitioner submitted its bid. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner stood as L1, whereas M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. stood as L2 and though as per CVC guidelines post tender negotiations with the bidders other than L1 that too in emergent situations is prohibited, still the respondent authorities made negotiations with M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. after financial bid and obtained a price and addressed letter to the petitioner on 21.10.2020 whether the petitioner could match the final price of Rs.890/- per trip offered by M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner in its letter dated 26.10.2020 strongly opposed such a course adopted by the respondent authorities and requested them to confirm the contract in favour of the petitioner being L1. However, given a goby to its request, the respondents floated the 3rd tender notification No.13.5A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 29.10.2020 thus depriving the valuable opportunity to the petitioner to obtain the contract. However, given a goby to its request, the respondents floated the 3rd tender notification No.13.5A/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 29.10.2020 thus depriving the valuable opportunity to the petitioner to obtain the contract. Whereas the contention of the respondents 2 & 3 is that they have a right to cancel the tender process at any stage and the reason for cancellation of the tender was mainly because of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.79 by the Government and therefore, there was no arbitrariness or malice intention behind it. 15. In the above context, I perused the copies of the manual styled as "Request for Proposal (RFP) for Selection of Service Provider for Drop-Back of Postnatal Women from Government Health Facility to Home across Andhra Pradesh" relating to tender No.2.1/APMSIDC/2020-21 dated 27.05.2020 i.e., the first tender and also similar manual relating to 2nd tender No.6.1A/APMSIDC/2020- 21 dated 06.08.2020 filed by the petitioner along with material papers. This manual contains the details about the tender process. Clause 6.18 is germane for our discussion. It reads thus: "6.18 TIA's Right to accept/reject any proposal or all proposals The TIA reserves the right to accept or reject any bid and to annul the Bidding process and reject all Bids 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 bidders or bidders of the grounds for the TIA's action." 16. Thus, the above clause pellucidly tells that the tender inviting authority reserved its right to accept or reject any bid and most importantly annul the bidding process and reject all the bids at any time prior to award of contract and to inform the affected bidders or bidders of the grounds for the TIAs action. The petitioner has not disputed about the reservation of such a right by the respondent authorities. In my considered view, this power is an uninhibited one and can be exercised by the respondent authorities to annul the bidding process at any time prior to the award of contract without assigning any reason. As observed in Afcons Infrastructure Limited case (10 supra), the owner or the employer of the project having authorized the tender document, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and interpret its document. As observed in Afcons Infrastructure Limited case (10 supra), the owner or the employer of the project having authorized the tender document, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and interpret its document. The Courts generally must defer to such understanding and appreciation of tender documents unless there is a malafide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. So, unless it is established that cancellation of the 2nd tender notification dated 06.08.2020 is fraught with some malafides, this Court cannot, under the judicial review power, question the authority of the respondents 2 & 3 in cancellation of the 2nd notification. It should be reminded that as per the respondents, the said tender was cancelled mainly in view of the G.O.Ms.No.79 issued by the Government. Here the main contention of the petitioner is that post financial bid evaluation the respondent authorities have negotiated with M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against the CVC guidelines and obtained a price and pitted against the petitioner so as to accommodate the said concern. In my considered view, the said argument would have been a formidable one to consider the case of the petitioner, had respondent authorities omitted the petitioner and awarded the contract to M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. That is not the case here and rather the entire bid process was cancelled and a fresh notification dated 29.10.2020 was issued. By this act of the respondents, we cannot presume that the fresh notification was issued only to favour M/s. Vsoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. or some other agency. Therefore, this contention of the petitioner will not cut across the validity of fresh tender process adopted by the respondents. In other words, I do not find any malafides in the aforesaid action of the respondents as alleged by the petitioner. That apart, a perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.79, Finance (HR.V-TFR) Department, dated 25.08.2020 shows that the Government ordered that the adoption of reverse tendering procedure shall be mandatory in respect of procurement of the goods, services and works with a value of Rs.1.00 Cr. and above as per the guidelines to be issued by the Finance Department. That apart, a perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.79, Finance (HR.V-TFR) Department, dated 25.08.2020 shows that the Government ordered that the adoption of reverse tendering procedure shall be mandatory in respect of procurement of the goods, services and works with a value of Rs.1.00 Cr. and above as per the guidelines to be issued by the Finance Department. The Government has made it further clear that its orders shall come into force with immediate effect and are applicable to all the Departments, Public Sector undertakings, Societies, Universities, local bodies and all other institutions of the Government of A.P. Thus it is needless to emphasise that the said G.O. applies to respondent No.2 also it being the instrumentality of the State. It is argued that the said G.O. may at best operate prospectively and not to the tenders which were already floated. This argument has no much teeth. Since the contract has not been concluded in the subject tender, it is for the respondent authorities to cancel the same and go for reverse tender process by obliging the G.O.Ms.No.79. Thus, on a conspectus of facts and law, I do find any merit in the case of the petitioner to warrant judicial review in the matter. The decisions cited by the petitioner will not improve his case. It is also contended by the petitioner that though he tried to participate in the 3rd tender notification dated 29.10.2020, the portal was not opened and therefore, he was deprived of his right to participate in the said tender. That issue is wholly outside the purview of this writ having regard to the prayer involved in this matter. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.