JUDGMENT The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in executing the work by the 2nd and 3rd respondent is against the G.O.Ms.No.171 M.A. dated 01.5.2004 and without opening the financial bid of petitioner towards the tender notification in proceedings Rc.No.1469/2020/S4(II), dated 12.01.2021 for transportation of Teak timber (Final Harvesting) I 1967 TP Kovvada RF-II, Kotrupalli Beat of P.R.Gudem section of Kannapuram Range, West Godavari District is illegal and arbitrary. order of the 3rd respondent issued in Rc.No.60/2020/A1 dated 12.5.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to permit the petitioner to conduct the business. 2. As per the averments in the affidavit, the 2nd respondent i.e. Divisional Forest Officer, Logging Division, Jangareddygudem, West Godavari District has issued tender notification in Rc.No.1469/2020/S4(II), dated 12.01.2021 for transportation of teak timber (final harvesting) I 1967 TP Kovvada RF-II, Kotrupalli Beat of P.R.Gudem section of Kannapuram Range and pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner alone participated in the above tender for an amount of Rs.8,88,323/-. 3rd respondent herein who is the District Forest Officer, Eluru Division, West Godavari District without considering the tender of the petitioner and without canceling and without finalizing the same, he kept the tender notification pending. To know the status of the tender, the petitioner approached the 2nd and 3rd respondents requesting to finalize the tender and award the contract for commencing the work, as per the guidelines of e- procurement tender. When the petitioner approached and requested the 2nd and 3rd respondent to open the bid and award contract to the petitioner, but surprisingly the 2nd and 3rd respondent executed above tender work with third parties and kept the tender application of the petitioner in hold without deciding the tender or without rejecting application which is illegal and against G.O.Ms.No.20 dated 06.7.2004. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are undertaking the work through their benamis for getting profits and misusing the procedure of e- procurement tenders. In view of the said circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation to the 1st respondent on 05.02.2021 narrating the irregularities in tender procedure by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. As there is no action from them, the present writ petition is filed. 3. In view of the said circumstances, the petitioner has made a representation to the 1st respondent on 05.02.2021 narrating the irregularities in tender procedure by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. As there is no action from them, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Considering the submissions made by the petitioner, this Court has passed the following interim order: …..Having considered the submissions of both the counsel in the opinion of this Court, this is a fit case to grant interim direction to the respondents. Accordingly, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to execute the work with anybody for the works which were mentioned in the tender notification dated 12.01.2021, till finalization of the tender process”. 4. After notice, the 3rd respondent has filed counter wherein it was categorically stated that e-procurement notice was notified inviting e- tenders in Eluru Division, Eluru for executing the DET works for extraction and transportation of Teak timber in 1967 T.P.Kovvada RF- II, Kotrupalli Beat of P.R.Gudem Section of Kannapuram Range during the year 2020-21. According to the said notification, the tender has to be opened on 28.01.2021. But, due to the implementation of model code of conduct for panchayat elections i.e. on 23.01.2021, they could not able to process the tender. And the above said works are to be carried out in Rural Mandal, a report was submitted to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Rajahmundry through their letter dated 26.01.2021 requesting to issue necessary permission to take up the said work through department itself. In fact as per G.O.Ms.No.2 EFS&T (For.III) department dated 07.01.2004, opening of tenders was scheduled on 28.01.2021 and in view of model code of conduct, the same could not be opened. Hence requested the 3rd respondent, who is head of the Forest Department, to permit them to carry out the works through department itself. Continuation to the same, a report was also submitted to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajahmundry vide letter dated 30.01.2021 stating that extraction and transportation of teak timber will have to commence departmentally from 02.02.2021 to save delay, as the e-tenders floated could not be opened for finalization due to prevailing model code of conduct of panchayat elections and requested to make it convenient to attend for physical inspection to verify the 100 tree existing at 1967 Kotrupally Teak Plantation. In this connection, the Chief Conservator of Forest, Rajahmundry inspected the teak plantation on 03.02.2021 and instructed to go ahead with harvesting operations as reported departmentally as the estimates are within the competency of 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the works were commenced departmentally, since 03.02.2021. Basing on the nature of urgency, by engaging local labour from the remote villages of Gogumilli, Gedapalli, Chintapalli in the Kotrupalli area. Because the works have to be completed before the financial year 2020 itself. In view of the above, e-tenders floated for the above said work was cancelled and the earnest money deposits were remitted/refunded on 15.02.2021 through online. In fact, the writ petition filed by the petitioner came up for admission on 15.02.2021 but before intimating about the interim orders, the tenders were cancelled on 15.02.2021 at 11.35am and the EMD amounts were also remitted back to the tenderers. As per condition no.21 of the tender notification, the Department reserves right to accept or reject any tender or all tenders without assigning any reasons thereof. 5. In support of the above averments, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the notification was issued on 12.01.2021 and last day for submission of tenders was 28.01.2021 at 4pm and prize bids will be opened on 29.01.2021. Pursuant to the notification, the petitioner alone has submitted a tender with a fond hope that he will get the tender in his favour. But, surprisingly without opening the tender bids, without finalizing the tenders, the respondents have proceeded with work by engaging private persons and to help their kith and kin, they have completed the work which is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government. When the petitioner has submitted a tender, he has every right to get the tender and the respondents cannot with hold the tender without assigning any reasons. 6. Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that in fact the tender notification was issued on 12.01.2021 and supposed to file tender bids up to 28.01.2021, even before the said date, the implementation of model code of conduct for panchayat elections was commenced at 23.01.2021. By virtue of the same, they could not open the technical bids. Hence in view of the urgency, they requested the Chief Conservator of Forests, who is the head of the forest, explaining the factual position. By virtue of the same, they could not open the technical bids. Hence in view of the urgency, they requested the Chief Conservator of Forests, who is the head of the forest, explaining the factual position. After inspecting the teak plantation by the Chief Conservator of Forest on 03.02.2021, he has accorded permission as per Rules. To support the said contention, learned Government Pleader submits that the department can execute the works in the following methods. i. Departmental method. ii. Piece work contract method. iii. Lumpsum contract method. iv. Scheduled contract method. v. Nomination method vi. Tender system. In view of the above, the department can execute various departmental works in the above stated six methods. Infact the department intends to undertake the work through tender process. But by virtue of model code of conduct from 23.01.2021, the department has executed the work as per departmental method. In fact as stated by the petitioner, the petitioner is not the only tenderer, two others have also filed tenders and the said tenders were cancelled and their EMD’s were remitted back on 15.02.2021 itself. As per clause-21 of the said tender conditions categorically states that the tender inviting authority has right to accept or reject any bid or cancel the bidding process and reject all the bids at any time prior to awarding contract. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court repeatedly held that 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 Government. However, if the process adopted or decision made by the authorities is malafide 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 and the same was reported in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. The State of Karnataka, AIR 2012 SC 2915 . In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 818 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the decision making process in accepting or rejecting the bid should not be interfered with. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC 818 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held 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. 8. Considering the above two judgments, it is not in dispute in the instant case that the tenders were floated by the authorities and subsequently for reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit they could not able to finalize the same and in view of the urgency and to complete the work on or before the closure of the financial year of 2021 they have executed the work through department. Infact the petitioner has not filed any substantial evidence along with the writ petition showing that the work was executed through a third party, except making a wild allegation in the affidavit. Even according to the Rules relied on by the Department, it is clear that the department also can undertake or execute the works apart from tender process. In view of the same, the respondents have got concurrence from the Chief Conservator of Forest and the same was executed through department. 9. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.