JUDGMENT : In the instant appeal, the appellant has prayed for the following reliefs : i) Set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 05.01.2021 in W.P.No.148505/2020 and dismiss the writ petition in W.P.No.148505/2020 filed by respondent No.3, in the interest of justice and equity. ii) Issue such other order or direction that is deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Respondent No.2 issued a tender notification on 21st July 2020, inviting application for tender document for procurement of Man Power Agency for Band Peon for Bagalakote District under ‘e’ procurement system. Respondent No.3petitioner/Gemeni Security Force and Allied Services was successful bidder and it was opened on 31.07.2020. Respondent No.3petitioner was held to be qualified in financial bid and was adjudged as L1. When things stood thus, respondent No.2 had cancelled ‘e’ tender and had issued a fresh tender on the ground that petitioner had not provided services as per RPF with reference to earlier tender. This was communicated by the Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Land Records, through internal communication dated 24.09.2020 as per Annexure-D. In furtherence thereof, respondents have taken a decision to cancel earlier tender notification dated 21.07.2020 and called for fresh tender. Thus, Respondent No.3, feeling aggrieved by the decision at Annexure-D, presented Writ Petition No.148505/2020 (GMTEN). It was allowed on 05.01.2021. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant who is one of the bidder and participant in the subsequent tender notification. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 (for short ‘Act, 1999’) read with Clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification dated 20th April 2020, there is no infirmity in rejection of the Respondent No.3petitioner’s tender bid vide Annexure-D dated 24.09.2020. It is further submitted that in terms of conditions stated in the earlier work order dated 20th February 2019 which was issued in favour of Respondent No.3petitioner vide Condition Nos.3 and 4 would support the impugned communication at Annexure-D. 4. It is further submitted that reading of Section 14 of Act, 1999, he has pointed out that changes in the scope of procurement is one of the issue that has been taken into consideration by the official respondent in rejecting the respondent No.3petitioner’s bid. It is further submitted that reading of Section 14 of Act, 1999, he has pointed out that changes in the scope of procurement is one of the issue that has been taken into consideration by the official respondent in rejecting the respondent No.3petitioner’s bid. Further, it is submitted that official respondent/prescribed authority who has floated the tender notification is empowered to cancel the order in terms of clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification dated 20.07.2020. Thus, the learned single Judge has not appreciated Section 14 of the Act, 1999 and clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification and the fact that Respondent No.3petitioner’s conduct in respect of previous tender read with condition Nos.3 and 4 in the work order dated 20th February 2019, the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.01.2021 passed in writ petition is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State reiterated the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and stressed on Section 14 read with Clause 19.3 and 19.6 in the tender notification dated 20.07.2020. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for third respondent supported the order of the learned single Judge dated 05.01.2021 stating that in the tender notification, there are no conditions in respect of any violation of previous condition by a bidder who participated in the future tender notification is disqualified for future tender process. It is also submitted that Annexure-D is only an internal communication between two officers. In other words, the third respondent has not been made known under what circumstances his bid was rejected. In all fairness, before rejection of 3rd Respondent-petitioner’s tender, an opportunity of hearing should have been provided. In the present case not even notice is issued to him. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. 8. Undisputed facts are that respondent No.3petitioner had the benefit of work order pursuant to the earlier tender notification dated 12.12.2018 and work order was issued on 20th February 2019. Thereafter, for the new tender notification, he had participated and he was a successful bidder and it was accepted by the competent authority. When the new tender was under process, there was an internal communication between two officers on 24.09.2020 (Annexure-D). Thereafter, for the new tender notification, he had participated and he was a successful bidder and it was accepted by the competent authority. When the new tender was under process, there was an internal communication between two officers on 24.09.2020 (Annexure-D). The Commissioner has taken certain alleged violation of conditions by the respondent No.3petitioner in respect of earlier tender notification for the purpose of rejection of acceptance of L1 bid and to re-tender the process. Such a decision and consequent re-tender is behind the back of Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 has not participated in the re-tender notification obviously for the reasons that he is already debarred in respect of notification dated 20th July 2020. 9. Question for consideration is: “Whether rejection of third respondent’s bid is in terms of Section 14 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 read with Clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification dated 20.07.2020 or not?” 10. Extract of Section 14 of the Act of 1999 and Clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification dated 20.07.2020 reads as under: “14. General rejection of tenders.(1) The Tender Accepting Authority may at any time before passing an order of acceptance under Section 13 reject all the tenders on the ground of changes in the cope of procurement, failure of anticipated financial resource, accidents, calamities or any other ground as may be prescribed which would render the procurement unnecessary or impossible and report the same to the Procurement Entity. (2) The Procurement Entity shall thereafter communicate the fact of the rejection under this section to all the Tenderers and also cause the same to be published in the Karnataka Public Procurement Portal. Clause 19.3 and 19.6: 19.3 The DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER’S OFFICE, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, GOVT. OF KARNATAKA reserves the right to reject any bid, which is not deposited according to the instruction, stipulated above. 19.6 Acceptance of Tenders: a) The Deputy Commissioner does not bind itself to accept the L1 or any tender; neither will any reason be assigned for the rejection of any tender or part tender. b) Disregard of Tender Conditions: The Deputy Commissioner reserves itself the right to reject any tender, which does not conform to any of the conditions of this tender document at any point of time without giving any reason. 11. b) Disregard of Tender Conditions: The Deputy Commissioner reserves itself the right to reject any tender, which does not conform to any of the conditions of this tender document at any point of time without giving any reason. 11. On perusal of Annexure-D dated 24.09.2020 read with tender notification dated 20th July 2020, there is no clause imposed in the tender notification that if a bidder has committed any illegality or violated any conditions in the previous tender notification while executing work order, he is debarred or barred from participating in the tender notification. Therefore, the official respondents and appellants cannot take shelter under Section 14 of the Act of 1999 read with Clause 19.3 and 19.6 in the tender notification dated 20th July 2020. The appellant’s and State counsel’s contention that authority is empowered to cancel the tender with reference to Section 14 of the Act, 1999, Clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification dated 20.07.2020 cannot be accepted for the reasons that internal communication between two officers is very specific that the third respondent has failed to fulfill the conditions imposed in the earlier work order pursuant to the earlier tender notification. In fact, in the earlier work order, Clause 16 reads as under : 12. Both appellant and State counsel have not appraised this Court for alleged violation of conditions imposed in the work order in favour of the Respondent No.3 pursuant to the tender notification dated 22.12.2018 has been taken or not. Therefore, the exercise of power by the prescribed authority while rejecting the bid of respondent No.3petitioner is arbitrary exercise of power. No doubt, power is vested under Section 14 of the Act, 1999 read with Clause 19.3 and 19.6 of the tender notification dated 20.07.2020. At the same time, reasons assigned in Annexure-D dated 24.09.2020 for cancelling the e-tender and the exercise of the power vested with the prescribed authority in the present matter amounts to arbitrary action. Firstly, respondent No.3petitioner was not communicated the aforesaid decision and no opportunity of hearing was provided. Secondly, the aforesaid decision is erroneous as it is contrary to the terms and conditions stated in tender notification dated 20.07.2020. 13. In view of these facts and circumstances, the appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge dated 5th January 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.148505/2020 (GMTEN). Secondly, the aforesaid decision is erroneous as it is contrary to the terms and conditions stated in tender notification dated 20.07.2020. 13. In view of these facts and circumstances, the appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge dated 5th January 2021 passed in Writ Petition No.148505/2020 (GMTEN). 14. Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Heard on I.A.No.5/2021 for setting aside the work order. Further proceedings pursuant to the re-tender notification are set aside. The competent authority is hereby directed to give effect to the tender notification dated 20th July 2020, at the earliest. In view of disposal of the writ appeal, all other pending I.As stand dismissed.