JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2164/2022 and WP(C) No. 2693/2022 as well as Mr. P. K. Bhattacharjee, the petitioner-in-person in WP(C) No.2448/2022. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department, Assam and Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 in WP(C) No.2164/2022. 2. All the three writ petitions relate to the same tender proceedings and as such this Court proposes to dispose of the three writ petitions by this common judgment. 3. The National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (for short, NABARD), by a sanction letter dated 15.02.2021, had sanctioned the loan for providing loan assistance under the Rural Infrastructure Development Fund (RIDF)-XXVI. The said sanction of the loan was in respect to 23 minor irrigation projects in 15 districts of Assam. In terms with the said sanction letter, the total outlay for the projects in question was Rs.3,500.00 lakh and the loan from NABARD was for Rs.3,325.00 lakh and the State Government was to contribute Rs.175.00 lakh. The period of completion of the projects was 31.03.2024. In the said sanction letter dated 15.02.2021, the conditions of the sanction were duly mentioned. Relevant for the purpose of the instant case is Clause.2 (iii) (b) which is quoted herein below: “(iii) If the State Government fails to initiate the implementation of the projects by issue of necessary work order, etc., within a period of 18 months (1 year 6 months) from the date of the sanction letter, the sanction of the project for RIDF assistance shall lapse.” 4. To the said sanction letter, the name of the projects in question was enclosed by way of a separate sheet. For the purpose of the instant case, the projects at Sl. No.9 & 10 which relate to Solar Powered MDTWS at Pakhimoria and Khagorijan area and Solar Power MDTWS scheme at Juria are relevant. 5. Pursuant to the said sanction letter dated 15.02.2021, the Joint Director, Finance (E.A.) Department vide the communication dated 26.02.2021 accepted the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. In the said communication, a request was also made to release the 1st installment only after specific recommendation from the Finance Department. 6. 5. Pursuant to the said sanction letter dated 15.02.2021, the Joint Director, Finance (E.A.) Department vide the communication dated 26.02.2021 accepted the terms and conditions of the sanction letter. In the said communication, a request was also made to release the 1st installment only after specific recommendation from the Finance Department. 6. In pursuance of the above, a notice inviting tender dated 10.07.2021 was issued by the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon on behalf of the Governor of Assam for works of “Solar Powered MDTWS at Pakhimoria and Khagarijan Area under Nagaon Division (Irrigation) and Solar Power MDTWS at Juria under Kalliabor and INTD; Kollong Division (Irrigation) under RIDF-XXVI (NABARD) for the year 2020-21” amounting to Rs.148.00 lakh (approx.) in 5 packages. The said was an online tender and it was mentioned that the details may be seen in the website http://assamtenders.gov.in. 7. For the purpose of the writ petitions in question, the package Nos. 4 & 5, are relevant as the dispute in question has arisen therein. In respect to package No. 4 which pertains to Solar Power MDTW Scheme at Juria (Point No. 1), the value of the work was stated as Rs.29.57 lakh and for package No. 5 which is Solar Power MDTW Scheme at Juria (Point No. 2), the value of the work was of Rs.29.57 lakh. In respect to both the works, the period for completion of the work was 3 (three) months each. The Division in question was Kaliabor & Intd. Kollong Division (Irrigation) Nagaon. 8. Before further proceeding with the matter it is also relevant to take note of the bid documents and the Clauses therein. Clause 3 relates to eligibility of the bidder, Clause 4 is as regards qualification of the bidder. From a perusal of the said bid documents, it would show that it was a two bid system which consisted of a technical bid and a financial bid as would be apparent from the Clause 12 of the bid documents. Clause 15 relates to bid validity, which being relevant, is quoted herein below: “15. Bid Validity I. Bids shall remain valid for period not less than 90 days after the deadline date for bid submission (Bid Submission End Date). II. In exceptional circumstances, prior to expiry of the original time limit, the Employer may request that the bidders may extend the period of validity for a specified additional period. Bid Validity I. Bids shall remain valid for period not less than 90 days after the deadline date for bid submission (Bid Submission End Date). II. In exceptional circumstances, prior to expiry of the original time limit, the Employer may request that the bidders may extend the period of validity for a specified additional period. The request and the bidder’s responses shall be made through email. A bidder may refuse the request without forfeiting his bid security. A bidder agreeing to the request will not be required or permitted to modify his bid hereinafter, but will be required to extend the validity of his bid security for a period of the extension. No claim on interest on EMD/Security Deposit/Additional Security (wherever applicable) will be entertained at any point.” 9. From a perusal of the said Clause, it would be apparent that the bid shall remain valid for a period not less than 90 days after the deadline date for bid submission. However, in exceptional circumstances, prior to expiry of the original time limit, the Employer may request that the bidders may extend the period of validity for a specified additional period. It was further mentioned that the request and the bidder’s responses shall be made through email and the bidder has an option to refuse the request without forfeiting his bid security. It was further mentioned that the bidder agreeing to the request will not be required or permitted to modify his bid, but will be required to extend the validity of his bid security for the period of the extension. 10. Clause 16 relates to Bid Security. Clause 26 relates to Examination of Bids and Determination of Responsiveness. It is relevant herein to mention that in terms with Clause 26 (I), the employer will determine at the stage of detailed evaluation of “Technical bids” whether each bid, i.e. (a) meets the eligibility criteria, (b) has been properly signed; (c) is accompanied by the required securities and (d) substantially responsive to the requirement of the Bidding documents. During the detailed evaluation of the Financial Bid, the responsiveness of bids will be further determined with respect to the remaining bid conditions, i.e., priced Bill of Quantities, Technical Specifications. In terms with Sub-clause II, a substantially responsive Financial Bid is one which conforms to all the terms, conditions and specifications of the Bidding documents without material deviation or reservation. During the detailed evaluation of the Financial Bid, the responsiveness of bids will be further determined with respect to the remaining bid conditions, i.e., priced Bill of Quantities, Technical Specifications. In terms with Sub-clause II, a substantially responsive Financial Bid is one which conforms to all the terms, conditions and specifications of the Bidding documents without material deviation or reservation. It is further stipulated that a material deviation is one (a) which affects in any substantial way the scope, quality or performance of the works; (b) which limits in any substantial way, in consistent with the bidding documents, the Employer’s rights or the bidder’s obligations under the contract; or (c) whose rectification would affect unfairly the competitive position of other Bidders presenting substantially responsive Bids. In terms with sub-clause (III) of Clause 26, if a Financial Bid is not substantially responsive, it will be rejected by the Employer, and may not subsequently be made responsive by correction or withdrawal of non-conforming deviation or reservation. 11. Clause 28 deals with Evaluation and Comparison of Financial Bids. While sub-clause (i) of Clause 28 stipulated that the Employer will evaluate and compare only the Bids determined to be substantially responsive and as per sub-clause (ii) the Employer will determine for each Bid the evaluated bid price by adjusting the Bid price by making correction for arithmetic errors. However, sub-clause (v) of Clause 28 empowers the departments the right to fix the lowest workable rate that may be allowed for awarding work/contract. It has been mentioned that the decision of the Department/Employer whatsoever in that regard shall be final and binding upon each bidder. This sub-clause is of vital significance as would be seen on a perusal of the fact which this Court shall deal at later stage. 12. Clause 29 relates to the Award Criteria. Sub-clause (I) of Clause 29 stipulated that the award of contract is subject to approval from the appropriate Authority. Sub-clause (II) of Clause 29 stipulated that the Employer will award the contract to the bidder whose Bid has been determined as substantially responsive. Sub-clause (IV) of Clause 29 stipulated that if the quoted bid value is beyond 5% below, the estimated amount shall not be considered for award. 13. Clause 30 relates to the Employer’s Right to accept any Bid and to reject any of all Bids. Sub-clause (IV) of Clause 29 stipulated that if the quoted bid value is beyond 5% below, the estimated amount shall not be considered for award. 13. Clause 30 relates to the Employer’s Right to accept any Bid and to reject any of all Bids. In this regard sub-clause (I), (II) & (III), being relevant for the purpose of deciding the instant dispute is quoted herein below: “I. The Employer reserves the right to accept or reject any Bid, and to cancel the Bidding process and reject all Bids, at any time prior to the award of Contract. II. The acceptance and rejection of the tenders/bids is left entirely to the discretion of the Employer viz Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon/Tender Committee as applicable. III. Employer reserves the right to split any package and to allot the work among other successful bidder of the package at the lowest accepted rate of the package without intimating the L1 Bidder.” 14. It would be seen from the above quoted sub-clauses that the Employer reserved the right to accept or reject any Bid, and to cancel the Bidding process and reject all Bids, at any time prior to the award of Contract. In terms with sub-clause (II), the acceptance and rejection of the tenders/bids is left entirely to the discretion of the Employer viz Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon/Tender Committee as applicable. In terms with sub-clause (III) which is also of vital significance, the Employer reserved the right to split any package and to allot the work amongst other successful bidders of the package at the lowest accepted rate of the package without intimating the L1 Bidder. 15. Clause 31 relates to Notification of Award and Signing of Agreement. Sub-clauses (I to IV) of Clause 31, being relevant is quoted herein below:- “I. The Bidder whose Bid has been accepted will be notified of the award by the Employer. II. The notification of award will constitute the formation of the Contract, subject only to the furnishing of a performance security in accordance with provision. III. The Agreement will incorporate all Agreement between the Employer and the successful Bidder. The successful bidders will furnish performance security and sign the agreement within 7 (seven) days following the notification of award (letter of acceptance). IV. III. The Agreement will incorporate all Agreement between the Employer and the successful Bidder. The successful bidders will furnish performance security and sign the agreement within 7 (seven) days following the notification of award (letter of acceptance). IV. Upon the furnishing by the successful Bidder of the performance security, the Employer will promptly notify/inform the other bidders that their Bids have been unsuccessful.” 16. From the reading of the above quoted Sub-clauses of Clause 31, it would be seen that the bidder whose Bid has been accepted will be notified of the award by the Employer and in terms with sub-clause (II), the notification of award will constitute the formation of the Contract, subject only to the furnishing of a performance security in accordance with the provision. Therefore, it would be seen that the right would vest upon the bidder in respect to the contract in question upon being notified of the award by the Employer. 17. A reading of Clause 29 with Clause 31 would show that award of the contract is subject to the approval of the appropriate Authority and upon the said approval; the Employer would notify the bidder that his bid has been accepted and this notification of the award would constitute the formation of the contract, subject however to the furnishing of the performance guarantee in accordance with Clause 32 of the said bid documents. In the said bid documents there are certain special conditions mentioned with the heading H. Special Conditions. Relevant herein to mention that the work as per clause (b), i.e. work will have to be started within 15 days from the date of issue of the formal work order and will have to be completed with all respect within the scheduled time. Further a perusal of Clause (c), (d) and (e) would show that the contractor, after receiving the letter of acceptance from the Authority, shall submit the work programme which the concerned Executive Engineer shall forward to the Superintending Engineer for onward transmission to the Chief engineer. The approved work programme shall be a part of the contract agreement. There are various other conditions mentioned in the tender documents but for the purpose of the instant proceedings, the same would not be however relevant. 18. The approved work programme shall be a part of the contract agreement. There are various other conditions mentioned in the tender documents but for the purpose of the instant proceedings, the same would not be however relevant. 18. Now reverting to the facts, it would be seen that after issuance of the said tender, the Minister, GDD, UDD and Irrigation issued a communication to the Principal Secretary, Commissioner and Secretary, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation stating inter-alia that in view of the reorganization of Irrigation Department various information was to be provided without any further delay. Amongst the many, it was also stated in the said communication that a report be provided for all projects in which administrative approval is accorded and in which tender have been floated but work order is not awarded. Further to that, it was also mentioned that all these need to be kept in abeyance. 19. Pursuant to that, the record indicates that an Office Order was issued on 19.07.2021 thereby keeping the NIT in question in abeyance. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel of the Irrigation Department placed on record the notification dated 03.08.2021 whereby the Governor of Assam was pleased to reorganize and rename the existing Sub-Divisions, Divisions and Circles of Irrigation Department (excluding 6th Scheduled area) by merging the Civil, Electrical and Mechanical wings and to create a new Cell by the name of “Central Monitoring Cell” within the Department by merging into the Cell all the four zones and two Command Area Development Authorities along with other offices/officers (excluding 6th Scheduled areas) that do not fit in the reorganized structures as per the arrangement mentioned therein with effect from the date of the said notification. From the said notification it would be apparent that the Kaliabor Integrated Kollong Electrical Division became Raha Batadrava Division. 20. It appears from the record that the NIT which was kept in abeyance vide order dated 19.07.2021 was reopened on 09.08.2021 on the basis of a letter dated 07.08.2021. Thereafter on 09.08.2021 at 1:00 PM, the Technical evaluation of the tender dated 10.07.2021 was carried out by the tender committee. It appears from the record that in respect to Package No. 4, there were 7 tenderers of which two tenderers were found to be technically not qualified. Thereafter on 09.08.2021 at 1:00 PM, the Technical evaluation of the tender dated 10.07.2021 was carried out by the tender committee. It appears from the record that in respect to Package No. 4, there were 7 tenderers of which two tenderers were found to be technically not qualified. In respect to package No. 5, there were also 7 tenderers and one tenderer was found to be technically not responsive. 21. It further appears that the Chief Engineer (MI) Irrigation had issued a letter dated 12.08.2021 bearing No.DBMI/T/168/Pt.-IX/2021/22 thereby directing the Superintending Engineer to cancel the tender as it was not a working season. It is, however, relevant herein to mention that neither in the File bearing No.SEI/CIR-14/2017-20 opened on 01.06.2017 nor in the File bearing No.SEI/T-27/Pt-I/2022-23 there is any mention about the said communication of the Chief Engineer till the note dated 08.03.2022. It is also relevant to take note of that in the File so opened in respect to Package Nos. 1 to 5 pertaining to the NIT dated 10.07.2021, there is also no mention about the said communication dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer. 22. Be that as it may, it appears from the records that the concerned Superintending Engineer decided the financial bid in respect to both the package Nos. 4 & 5 and allotted the work to one Media Unlimited. In respect to Package No.4, the rate quoted by the tenderers at Sl. No.1, 2 & 3 were rejected as those rates were beyond the permissible lowest rate to be quoted, i.e. below minus 5 % as per the Clause 29 (IV) of the bid documents. The rate quoted by the tenderers at Sl. No.4 & 5 which were identical, found to be the lowest was accepted. However, the Superintending Engineer without assigning any reason and in spite of the fact that there were two lowest bidders, chose to allot the work to Media Unlimited. In respect to Package No. 5 wherein there were six technically responsive bidders, the tenderers at Sl. No.1, 2 & 3 were rejected as the rates were beyond the permissible lowest rate to be quoted, i.e. below minus 5 % as per Clause 29 (IV). The rates quoted by the tenderers at Sl. No. 4, 5 & 6 were identical and were found to be minus 5% and hence, it was accepted. No.1, 2 & 3 were rejected as the rates were beyond the permissible lowest rate to be quoted, i.e. below minus 5 % as per Clause 29 (IV). The rates quoted by the tenderers at Sl. No. 4, 5 & 6 were identical and were found to be minus 5% and hence, it was accepted. However, strangely enough, the Superintending Engineer without disclosing any reason had allotted the work to Media Unlimited. In further appears that the Superintending Engineer also did not take into consideration Clause 26 & 28 of the Bid documents, which have already been discussed hereinabove. At this stage it may be relevant herein to mention that the petitioner in WP(C) No.2164/2022 and 2693/2022 is the proprietor of a proprietorship firm in the name of Media Unlimited. The said decision was taken on 31.08.2021 by the then Superintending Engineer and from the note-sheet of the File No. SEI/CS-04/ET-1/2021-22 it was mentioned herein under:- “Please issue preliminary w/order as instructed on BOQ Summary details for package Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 after functioning of the concerning divisions as per re-organisation of the department and observing other formalities.” 23. Thereafter it further reveals from the record that on 10.09.2021, a writ petition was filed jointly by the respondent Nos.5 to 8 which was registered as WP(C) No.2164/2022 seeking cancellation of the notice inviting tender dated 10.07.2021, for issuance of a fresh tender. It further reveals from the record that another writ petition was also filed by one Ribul Kr. Choudhury, being WP(C) No.4607/2021 wherein a challenge was made to the communication dated 31.08.2021 on the ground that in spite of the order dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer, MI Assam Chandmari to cancel the e-tender dated 10.07.2021 and concerned respondents issued the communication dated 31.08.2021. It further appears on record that vide order dated 14.09.2021, this Court restrained the respondent No.4, i.e. the Executive Engineer, Kaliabar & Intd. Kollong Division (Irrigation) Nagaon not to offer work to any other bidder in terms with the NIT dated 10.07.2021, if in the meanwhile the said respondent No.4 has not offered the work to any bidder. 24. It further appears on record that vide order dated 14.09.2021, this Court restrained the respondent No.4, i.e. the Executive Engineer, Kaliabar & Intd. Kollong Division (Irrigation) Nagaon not to offer work to any other bidder in terms with the NIT dated 10.07.2021, if in the meanwhile the said respondent No.4 has not offered the work to any bidder. 24. The challenge to the notice inviting tender dated 10.07.2021 was pending till 31.01.2022 when this Court, on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Irrigation Department, intimated this Court that a decision has been taken by the Irrigation Department that the notice inviting tender bearing NIT No.SEI/T-27/ET-I/2021-22/1 dated 10.07.2021 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon had already been abandoned, and as such, all for the actions taken by the respondent No.3 in pursuance of the said notice inviting tender is also abundant. The learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department further submitted that the work in respect to the Solar Powered MDTWS at Pakhimoria and Khagorijan area under Nagaon Division and Solar Power MDTWS scheme at Juria under Kaliabar and Intd. Kollong Division (Irrigation) under the RIDF-XXVI (NABARD) for the year 2020-21 shall be awarded by inviting fresh tender. Consequently, in view of the said stand being taken by the Irrigation Department, nothing remained in respect to challenge the NIT in question for which the writ petition was disposed of. The interim order so passed was also vacated. 25. Surprisingly enough, although this Court did not cancel the NIT dated 10.07.2021 but had only closed the writ petition on the ground that the Irrigation Department had abandoned the said NIT dated 10.07.2021, the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon issued a paper publication in the newspaper dated 10.03.2022 stating inter-alia that the NIT bearing No.SEI/T-27/ET-I/2021-22/1 dated 10.07.2021 issued by the then Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon through online mode has been cancelled pursuant to this Court’s order dated 31.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4609/2021. It also appears that a notice for cancellation was also issued with the same content on 09.03.2022. It is under such circumstances the writ petition being WP(C)No.2164/2022 was filed challenging the notice of cancellation dated 09.03.2022 as well as the paper publication on 10.03.2022. It also appears that a notice for cancellation was also issued with the same content on 09.03.2022. It is under such circumstances the writ petition being WP(C)No.2164/2022 was filed challenging the notice of cancellation dated 09.03.2022 as well as the paper publication on 10.03.2022. Further to that, the petitioner had also challenged the communication issued by the Chief Engineer dated 12.08.2021 whereby the NIT dated 10.07.2021 was directed to be cancelled as it was not a working season. Further to that, in the said writ petition, a prayer was also made to direct the respondent Authorities to allot package Nos.4 & 5 tender works to the petitioner as per the office order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 4. The said writ petition was filed on 21.03.2022 and this Court vide an order dated 28.03.2022 issued notice making it returnable on 04.04.2022 and the official respondents were directed to produce the records on the basis of which they had cancelled the tender vide communication dated 12.08.2021. 26. Thereafter, while the said writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.2164/2022 was pending, the same petitioner filed another writ petition on 04.04.2022. In the subsequent writ petition, the petitioner challenged the notice inviting tender dated 23.03.2022 and for a similar direction to the respondent Authorities to allot the package Nos.4 & 5 tender works to the petitioner as per the office order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.4. the said writ petition was registered and numbered as WP(C) No.2693/2022. 27. At this stage, it may also be relevant herein to mention that on the very date, i.e. on 04.04.2022, an Interlocutory Application was filed in WP(C) No.2164/2022 seeking stay of the NIT No.SEI/T-27/Pt-I/2021-22/1091 dated 23.03.2022. The said Interlocutory Application was registered and numbered as I.A.(C) No.1090/2022. 28. Before further proceeding, it is also relevant to mention about another writ petition filed by one Mr. Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee who has challenged the tender notice No.SEI/T-27/Pt.-I/2021-22/1091 dated 23.03.2022 as well has also sought for a direction to show cause why specific charge under Section 166 and 167 of the IPC should not be imposed upon the respondent No. 3 for the offence that he had committed by inviting the tender dated 23.03.2022 vide NIT No. SEI/T-27/Pt.-I/2021-22/1091. 29. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of that the said Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee was a tenderer in package No.5. 29. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of that the said Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee was a tenderer in package No.5. He was also found to be the lowest bidder along with Media Unlimited and one Sri Ankur Baruah but the concerned Superintending Engineer in its BOQ Summary details did neither allot the contract to him nor split the tender with him but allotted the contract to Media Unlimited. This Court fails to understand the motive behind Mr. Parash Kumar Bhattacharjee, the petitioner-in-person in WP(C) No.2448/2022 in filing the said writ petition except to help and aid the petitioner in WP(C) No.2164/2022 and WP(C) No.2693/2022 or his personal animosity against the respondent No.3. On this ground itself, the writ petition being WP(C) No.2448/2022, is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as a writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is not to ventilate grievances of personal animosity with officers of the department. The petitioner-in-person in WP(C) No.2448/2022, if so aggrieved, ought to have initiated a proceeding available to him under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, but not by way of a writ petition. On that count alone, the writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.2448/2022 is liable to be dismissed. 30. Let this Court take now into consideration the issues which have been arisen in WP(C) No.2164/2022 and WP(C) No.2693/2022. The petitioner herein in the two writ petitions as already stated above has challenged the office order No.54 dated 09.03.2022 which was published on 10.03.2022 in the Assam Tribune whereby the NIT dated 10.07.2021 was cancelled as well as to set aside and quash the letter vide Memo No.DDMT/T/168/Pt-IX/2021-22 dated 12.08.2021. Further the notice inviting tender bearing NIT No.SEI/T-27/Pt-I/2021-22/1091 dated 23.03.2022 was challenged. Additionally, in both the writ petitions, the petitioner has sought for a direction from this Court upon the Respondent Authority to allot the package Nos.4 & 5 tender works to the petitioner as per the office order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the respondent No.4. 31. At this stage, it may be also relevant to take note of that, vide an order dated 04.04.2022, this Court had stayed the notice inviting tender dated 23.03.2022 and fixed 21.04.2022 by which date the respondents were directed to file their affidavit and also produce the record without fail. 31. At this stage, it may be also relevant to take note of that, vide an order dated 04.04.2022, this Court had stayed the notice inviting tender dated 23.03.2022 and fixed 21.04.2022 by which date the respondents were directed to file their affidavit and also produce the record without fail. It also appears from the order dated 25.04.2022 passed in WP(C) No.2693/2022 that this Court had till the returnable date directed the respondent Authority in the Irrigation Department not to proceed in respect to package Nos.4 & 5 published in the NIT dated 23.03.2022. 32. The respondent No.4, on 26.04.2022, filed an affidavit-in-opposition in WP(C) No.2164/2022. It was stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the time fixed for completion of the work pursuant to the tender notice dated 10.07.2021 was 3 (three) months. However, on account of the case being WP(C) No.4609/2021 filed before the Court wherein this Court vide an interim order dated 14.09.2021 directed the respondents not to offer the work pursuant to the NIT dated 10.07.2021 to any other bidder, nothing could be done in respect to the said tender. It was mentioned that as per Clause 15 (I) of the bid documents, bids were supposed to remain valid for a period of 90 days from the last date of online submission of bids and accordingly the validity of the bid offered by the participants including the petitioner got expired on 01.11.2021. Further to that, it was mentioned that the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam by issuing the letter dated 12.08.2021 had directed the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (I), Nagaon to cancel the e-tender offered on 10.07.2021 as it was not the working season. It was further mentioned that the works in question relate to boring and installation of tube wells and are not generally done during the rainy reason. Further to that, it was mentioned that this Court vide an order dated 31.01.2022 had disposed of the writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.4609/2021 and also vacated the interim order passed on 14.09.2021. Therefore, on account of the direction of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam vide his letter dated 12.08.2021 to cancel the tender notice dated 10.07.2021 and validity of the bid had also expired, the Office of the respondent No.4 cancelled the NIT dated 10.07.2021. Therefore, on account of the direction of the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam vide his letter dated 12.08.2021 to cancel the tender notice dated 10.07.2021 and validity of the bid had also expired, the Office of the respondent No.4 cancelled the NIT dated 10.07.2021. It was mentioned that on account of the pendency of WP(C) No.4609/2021, it was not possible for the Office of the respondent No.4 to issue the formal cancellation order which was issued on 09.03.2021 and published in the Assam Tribune on 10.03.2022. The allegation that the letter dated 12.08.2021 is a manufactured one and the said letter was never communicated to the respondent No.4 was stated to be mere allegation without any basis. It was further stated that the allegation of arbitrariness and malafide in issuing the Office Order dated 09.03.2022, cancelling the tender notice dated 10.07.2021 are also without any basis and without any documentary or evidentiary backing. In paragraph No.8 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the deponent of the said affidavit-in-opposition joined as the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon on 31.08.2021. After taking charge from his predecessor and upon perusal of records, the deponent came to know about the letter dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam by which a direction was issued for cancellation of the NIT dated 10.07.2021 as it was not the working season. Further to that, referring to the letter No.Min(As) UDD/34/2021/44 issued by the Departmental Minister, Irrigation dated 13.07.2021, the then Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon ought not to have proceeded with the tender process pursuant to the NIT dated 10.07.2021 and finalize the tender process on 31.08.2021 without prior approval from the higher authority as massive restructuring and reorganizing of the Department was under process for which the order was issued to keep all the tender process in abeyance. It was stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the then Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon ignored the letter dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam for cancellation of the NIT dated 10.07.2021. It was stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the then Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon ignored the letter dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam for cancellation of the NIT dated 10.07.2021. It was further mentioned that the technical evaluation summary was uploaded on 23.08.2021, which was subsequent to the issuance of the letter dated 12.08.2021 by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam for cancellation of the said NIT dated 10.07.2021 and also subsequent to the order dated 13.07.2021 issued by the departmental minister for keeping in abeyance all tender processes wherein no work order has been issued. It was alleged in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the then Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon had proceeded with the tender process in spite of having sufficient knowledge of the order dated 13.07.2021 issued by the departmental minister and the letter dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam and had also proceeded further with the tender process, without consulting the higher authority. 33. In the I.A.(C) No.1090/2022, the respondent No.4 filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been mentioned that the Office Memorandum issued vide No.IGN(W).98/2021/42 dated 24.06.2021 was not applicable to the present case as the work in respect to which the tender notice dated 23.03.2022 has been issued are not to be executed on “Turn Key” basis. In the said affidavit-in-opposition the details as regard sanction of the loan by NABRD and the acceptance of the same by the State Government have been duly mentioned. It was further mentioned that as the sanction so accorded vide the sanction letter dated 15.02.2021 would expire in the month of August, 2022, the authority in order to complete the implementation of the projects, within the time so as to avoid lapse of funds, segregated the works of the five packages into two groups so as to ensure early completion by fixing 60 days time for completion of the work. It was also kept in mind that the implementation of the projects would be completed before the month of June after which the normal rainy season starts in Assam. Further to that, it was mentioned that as the value of none of the groups is more than Rs.25 lakh, it was not necessary for the office of the deponent to go for e-tendering. Further to that, it was mentioned that as the value of none of the groups is more than Rs.25 lakh, it was not necessary for the office of the deponent to go for e-tendering. It was stated that the Office of the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon had no dedicated broadband internet connection necessary for resorting to e-tendering process and attempting the same on the basis of internet capacity of individual mobile phones would make the process of e-tendering cumbersome and time consuming. It is under such circumstances, the tender was floated manually. Further to that, it was mentioned that no arbitrariness or malafide can be alleged or attributed as the decision to segregate the packages and floating the tender manually was intended only for the purpose of urgent implementation of the projects. Further to that it has been mentioned that the prayer of the applicant if allowed would be legally sustainable in view of the law settled by the Supreme Court in various cases, as the work in respect to which the impugned tender notice was issued are Agricultural Infrastructure Development Projects involving public interest which cannot be stalled by issuing a stay order without going into the details of the case. 34. It is also pertinent herein to mention that on 15.06.2022, an additional affidavit was filed by one Rajib Gogoi who was holding the post of the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon. In paragraph No.3 of the said additional affidavit, it was mentioned that the deponent in the affidavit already filed had responded to the averments made in the Interlocutory Application, wherein the deponent had explained the facts leading to cancellation of the tender notice dated 10.07.2021. It was further mentioned that on a subsequent reading of the order dated 04.04.2022, passed by this Court in the Interlocutory Application staying the tender notice dated 23.03.2022 as an interim measure, the deponent realized that he should have been cautious in using the words in the notice dated 09.03.2022 published in the Assam Tribune on 10.03.2022 cancelling the tender notice dated 10.07.2021. On the basis thereof, the deponent unconditionally apologized before the Court by submitting that it was a bonafide mistake on his part and he had no intention to mislead anyone. It was also mentioned that the deponent assures the Court that in future he would be careful in dealing with Court matters. On the basis thereof, the deponent unconditionally apologized before the Court by submitting that it was a bonafide mistake on his part and he had no intention to mislead anyone. It was also mentioned that the deponent assures the Court that in future he would be careful in dealing with Court matters. In paragraph No.4 of the said additional affidavit, the deponent stated that the manual tender process was resorted to instead of the e-tendering process on account of time constraint It was also mentioned that another reason for opting manual tender process was that of not having a dedicated internet connection in the Office of the deponent necessary for managing an e-tender process. The decision taken to divide the packages, each in two groups in the subsequent tender notice dated 23.03.2022 was also because of the reason of time constraint so as to ensure earliest completion of works by using larger manpower. It was submitted that adopting the manual tender process over the e-tender process and dividing the packages in two groups was with a bonafide reason and without any arbitrariness and malafide against anyone. Further to that, it was submitted that if this Court deems it appropriate to direct the authority to go for e-tender, the deponent will comply that order in its letter and spirit. 35. The record shows that the petitioner has not filed reply to the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.4. On 20.06.2022, the writ petitions herein came up before this Court for consideration. This Court took notice of the fact that the service upon the respondent Nos.5 to 8 were not complete. Considering the above, the petitioner was directed to effect service upon the respondent Nos.5 to 8 by way of dasti routed through the Registry of this Court and filed affidavit after effecting service upon the aforesaid respondents intimating the respondents that the matter would be further taken up for consideration on 24.06.2022. 36. On 18.07.2022, Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and submitted that he would like to file affidavit in the matter on or before 22.07.2022. This Court accordingly fixed the matter on 26.07.2022. 36. On 18.07.2022, Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 to 8 and submitted that he would like to file affidavit in the matter on or before 22.07.2022. This Court accordingly fixed the matter on 26.07.2022. On 26.07.2022, when the matter was taken up for consideration, this Court, after hearing the matter at length, directed the Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department to place on record any materials to the effect as to whether there has been any decision taken, pursuant to the reorganization of the Divisions, regarding the cancellation of tender in the instant case or any other case. The learned Standing Counsel was also required to take instructions as to whether in pursuance of the reorganization there has been any other cancellation of tender in the State of Assam wherein the work orders were not issued and this Court thereafter fixed the matter on 28.07.2022. 37. Mr. F. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the office order dated 31.08.2021 in Package Nos.4 & 5, the petitioner was under an expectation that he would be awarded the contract for the said works. However, the petitioner was surprised to come across the publication of the notice in the Assam Tribune dated 10.03.2022 wherein it has been mentioned that the NIT bearing No.SEI/T-27/ET-I/2021-22/1 dated 10.07.2021 was cancelled in pursuance of this Court’s order on 31.01.2022 against the WP(C) No.4609/2021. The learned counsel further submitted that immediately thereafter, the petitioner made enquiry through his counsel and had also procured the order dated 31.01.2022 passed in WP(C) No.4609/2021. The petitioner further made an enquiry after coming to learn about the stand of the Irrigation Department that the tender process in respect to the NIT dated 10.07.2021 was abandoned. On making such enquiry, the petitioner came to learn that vide the letter dated 12.08.2021, issued by the respondent No.3, addressed to the respondent No. 4, there was a direction to cancel the e-tender on the ground that it was not a working season. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said reason so mentioned in the communication dated 12.08.2021, was on the face of it not tenable in law and as such the cancellation of the e-tender was arbitrary and done with a malafide intention to deprive the petitioner from his lawful right. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said reason so mentioned in the communication dated 12.08.2021, was on the face of it not tenable in law and as such the cancellation of the e-tender was arbitrary and done with a malafide intention to deprive the petitioner from his lawful right. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had made further enquiry and would come to learn that the letter dated 12.08.2021 was never communicated to the respondent No.4 and this aspect of the matter would be clear from the fact that the Peon Book, Receipt Book and other records nowhere show that the said letter was sent to the respondent No.4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that immediately after coming to learn about the notice inviting tender dated 23.03.2022, the petitioner filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A.(C) No.1090/2022 in WP(C) No.2164/2022 seeking stay of the NIT dated 23.03.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the very same date, he had filed a writ petition challenging the said tender process initiated on the basis of the NIT dated 23.03.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that WP(C) No.2164/2022 was filed on 21.03.2022 and copies were served to the respondents on the same date and in order to circumvent the proceedings in WP(C) No.2164/2022, the NIT dated 23.03.2022 was issued which the applicant came to learn only on 01.04.2022. He submitted that as per the Office Memorandum No. IGN(W).98/2021/42 dated 24.06.2021 issued by the Principal Secretary, Irrigation to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department, the works (Civil + Electrical + Mechanical) of a particular project would be awarded to a single contractor on Turn Key basis. It was further contended that if the value of the NIT is Rs.25 lakh or more it was required to be processed in the online mode, i.e. through e-tender. Drawing the attention of this Court to the tender notice dated 23.03.2022, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a perusal thereof would show that each of the 5 packages were split to bring it under Rs.25 lakh and thereby floated an offline tender which clearly shows the malafide intention of the authority in the tender process. 38. On the other hand, Mr. 38. On the other hand, Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Standing Counsel of the Irrigation Department relying upon the contents of the affidavit-in-opposition submitted that from the sanction letter dated 15.02.2021, it would be seen that NABARD had sanctioned the loan imposing certain conditions. One of such conditions was that the State Government has to initiate the implementation of the projects by issuance of necessary work orders etc. within a period of 18 months, i.e. 1 year 6 months from the date of sanction letter. The learned Standing Counsel of the Irrigation Department submitted that the period of 1 year 6 months would elapse on 15th of August, 2022, and as such, public interest demands that there should not be any interference to the tender notice in question; more so, when the tender notice in question relates to an agricultural infrastructure project. In that regard, the learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/S NG Projects Ltd. vs. M/s Vinod Kumar Jain and Others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 127 . The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the then Superintending Engineer did not take into consideration the communication issued by the departmental minister dated 13.07.2021 and the communication dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer whereby there was a direction to cancel the e-tender. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that in pursuance of the direction of this Court on 26.07.2022, he had been informed by the Department that similar letters were also issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Assam to the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Invt.div(I), Sipajhar for cancellation of the e-tender floated on the ground that it was not a working season. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation on 22.10.2021 had even cancelled a letter of acceptance in respect to the work of construction of Solar Powered MDTW1/I/Scheme at Rangia LAC under RIDF XXVI (NABARD) by the communication dated 22.10.2021 in spite of the fact that a letter of acceptance was issued. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the reorganization and renaming of various existing Sub-Divisions, Divisions, Circles of the Irrigation Department vide notification dated 3rd of August, 2021 that it had become expedient that the notice inviting tender dated 10.07.2021 was required to be cancelled. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the reorganization and renaming of various existing Sub-Divisions, Divisions, Circles of the Irrigation Department vide notification dated 3rd of August, 2021 that it had become expedient that the notice inviting tender dated 10.07.2021 was required to be cancelled. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the Kaliabor and Integrated Kollong Electrical Division with Head Quarter at Nagaon which was the original Division in respect to which the notice inviting tender dated 10.07.2021 was issued after the reorganization on 3rd of August, 2021 have been renamed as Raha Batadrava Division with Head Quarter at Batadrava and consequently, the Sub-Divisions also have changed to Raha Sub-Division and Batadrava Sub-Division. Further to that, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the cancellation of the tender process and the bifurcation of the packages is absolutely an administrative decision of the Irrigation Department of the Government of Assam, and therefore, the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to interfere in such matters unless malafide or arbitrariness was writ large on the fact of it. In that regard, the learned Standing Counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and Another, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 . The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that it is not known why the petitioner has filed the writ petition inasmuch as no right of the petitioner has been affected. It is submitted that merely because of the fact that the petitioner was the lowest bidder, that would not give him a locus standi to challenge the cancellation of the tender or challenge the issuance of a fresh tender. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that a perusal of the records would clearly show that on 09.08.2021, the then Superintending Engineer informed all concerned that the tender process which was kept in abeyance would be proceeded with. On the very day, the tender committee had made the technical evaluation on 09.08.2021 was uploaded on 23.08.2021. In the meanwhile, the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation had issued the communication dated 12.08.2021, directing the Superintending Engineer in question to cancel the e-tender dated 10.07.2021. On the very day, the tender committee had made the technical evaluation on 09.08.2021 was uploaded on 23.08.2021. In the meanwhile, the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation had issued the communication dated 12.08.2021, directing the Superintending Engineer in question to cancel the e-tender dated 10.07.2021. Thereafter, on the very day on which he was demitting office, i.e. on 31.08.2021, the said Superintending Engineer in respect to Package No.4 rejected three tenderers who were otherwise technically responsive as per Clause 29 (IV) of the bid documents. The then Superintending Engineer further found two tenderers having quoted the identical rates but surprisingly without assigning any reason whatsoever shows to allot the contract to the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that in respect to Package No.5, the then Superintending Engineer rejected three tenderers who were otherwise technically responsive as per Clause 29 (IV) of the bid documents. Further to that, the then Superintending Engineer found out that there were three tenderers who had quoted the equal rate but more surprisingly without assigning any reason whatsoever accepted the rate of the petitioner. Similarly the then Superintending Engineer also approved the allotment to the petitioner in respect to package No.4. Further drawing the attention of this Court to the Office Note of the tender file which has already been quoted herein above, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the then Superintending Engineer further directed issuance of the preliminary work order. The then Superintending Engineer thereafter demitted office and in the afternoon when the new Superintending Engineer came in to assume charge he found that on 12.08.2021, a communication was issued by the Chief Engineer to cancel the e-tender dated 10.07.2021. Referring to Clause 29 (I) and 31 (I) & (III), the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the award of the contract is subject to approval from the appropriate authority and the award of the contract has to be notified to the bidders which shall constitute the formation of the contract. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, neither there was any approval taken from the appropriate authority nor the petitioner was intimated about the award by the Employer. The learned Standing Counsel, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, neither there was any approval taken from the appropriate authority nor the petitioner was intimated about the award by the Employer. Consequently, the petitioner, therefore, did not have any vested right to challenge the cancellation notice as well as for inviting fresh tender; more so, when Clause 30 (I) empowers to cancel bidding process at any time prior to the award of the contract. In that regard the learned Standing Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs. CWE-SOMA CONSORTIUM, reported in (2016) 14 SCC 172 . The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the reason for bifurcation of the packages have already been assigned in the affidavit-in-opposition. The Office Memorandum on the basis of which the entire case of the petitioner stands, i.e. Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2021 is not at all applicable in the instant case inasmuch as the contract to be allotted are not on Turn Key basis. 39. Mr. P. Mahanta, the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8 submitted that the petitioner did not have locus standi to challenge the cancellation of the tender as well as for issuance of the fresh tender inasmuch as merely becoming the lowest bidder no vested right is conferred upon the petitioner to challenge the cancellation of the tender as well as the issuance of a fresh tender. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner even was not the lowest bidder alone and there were other lowest bidders and the BOQ Summary enclosed by the petitioner on the face of it was illegal for which no vested right had accrued upon the petitioner. In that regard the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Maa Binda Express Carrier and Another vs. North-East Frontier Railway and Others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 760 . 40. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. From the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties, the following two issues arises for determination: (i) Does the petitioner have any enforceable right to challenge the cancellation of the tender as well as the floating of a fresh tender in the facts of the instant case? From the submission made by the learned counsels for the parties, the following two issues arises for determination: (i) Does the petitioner have any enforceable right to challenge the cancellation of the tender as well as the floating of a fresh tender in the facts of the instant case? (ii) Whether the cancellation of the tender as well as the issuance of fresh tender was reasonable and in accordance with the relevant law? 41. The claim of the petitioner to challenge the cancellation of the tender and the issuance of fresh tender is on the basis that the petitioner in the BOQ Summary of the financial bid prepared by the then Superintending Engineer held that the petitioner was to be allotted package Nos.4 & 5 in respect to the NIT dated 10.07.2021. The BOQ Summary of the financial bid is a part of the record and a perusal thereof surprises this Court in the manner in which the then Superintending Engineer took the decision inasmuch as in respect to package Nos.4 & 5, three tenderers who were technically responsive were rejected on the ground of Clause 29 (IV) of the bid document. Surprisingly there were two bidders including the petitioner who had quoted the identical lowest acceptance rate but without any reason assigned whatsoever, the then Superintending Engineer allotted the work order to the petitioner. Again on a perusal of the BOQ Summary for the Package No.5 pertaining to the financial bid, three technically responsive bidders were rejected on the ground of Clause 29 (IV) of the bidding documents and more surprisingly, the remaining three technically responsive tenderers though have quoted the identical acceptable lowest rate, the then Superintending Engineer took a decision to allot the contract to the petitioner. No reasons however have been assigned why the petitioner has been chosen, therefore, the question arises on the basis of the said Summary of the BOQ pertaining to the financial bid, does the petitioner has any enforceable right though on the face of it the financial bid was decided by the then Superintending Engineer in the most arbitrary and unreasonable manner. The answer to the said query has to be in the negative inasmuch as the said decision of the then Superintending Engineer was on the face of it illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational. 42. The answer to the said query has to be in the negative inasmuch as the said decision of the then Superintending Engineer was on the face of it illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and irrational. 42. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of Clause 29 (I) and Clause 31 (I), (II) & (III) which have already been quoted herein above. Clause 29 (I) clearly stipulated that the award of contract is subject to approval from the appropriate Authority and Clause 31 (I) stipulated that the bidder whose bid has been accepted would be notified of the award by the Employer and subclause (II) of Clause 31 mandates that the notification of the award would constitute the formation of the contract subject only to furnishing of performance security in accordance with the provisions. In the instance case, it would be seen that there was no approval taken from the appropriate authority. The petitioner was also not notified of the award by the Employer, i.e. the then Superintending Engineer or by the respondent authorities. Therefore, on the face of it there was no award of contract in favour of the petitioner. Considering that the decision of the then Superintending Engineer to allot the contract work of package Nos.4 & 5 to the petitioner as mentioned in the Summary of the BOQ financial bid which on the face of it arbitrary and unreasonable, this Court is of the opinion that the decision so taken by the then Superintending Engineer would not confer any enforceable right upon the petitioner on the basis of the decision of the then Superintending Engineer on 31.08.2021. It may not also be irrelevant to take note of that the then Superintending Engineer took the decision in the forenoon on 31.08.2021 just before demitting his office which also shows the manner in which the decision was taken by the then Superintending Engineer. Such haste decisions taken, do not inspire the confidence of this Court. 43. It is also relevant herein to take note of that though the petitioner was not alone the lowest acceptable bidder but there were others also as would be seen from the Summary of the BOQ of the financial bid dated 31.08.2021. In that perspective can it be said that the petitioner had a vested right being the lowest bidder? 43. It is also relevant herein to take note of that though the petitioner was not alone the lowest acceptable bidder but there were others also as would be seen from the Summary of the BOQ of the financial bid dated 31.08.2021. In that perspective can it be said that the petitioner had a vested right being the lowest bidder? The answer to the same can be found in various judgments of the Supreme Court. In Laxmikant and Others Vs. Satyawan and Others, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 208 , the Supreme Court in paragraph No.4 observed taking into account the various conditions mentioned in the conformation letter that even if the public auction had been completed and the respondent was the highest bidder, no right had accrued to him till the conformation letter has been issued. The conditions mentioned in the said judgment, i.e. Condition Nos.5, 6, & 7 are paramateria to Clause 29(I), 30(I), 30(II) and 30(III) of the present tender conditions. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan Housing Board and Another vs. G. S. Investments and Another, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 477 , the Supreme Court while relying upon the judgment in the case of Laxmikant and Others (Supra) observed in paragraph No.9 that it is a well settled legal position that the respondent in the said case did not acquire any right to claim that the action be concluded in his favour and the High Court clearly erred in entertaining the writ petition as well as issuing a direction for consideration of his representation but also issuing a further direction to issue a demand note of the balance amount. Further to that, in another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CWE-SOMA CONSORTIUM (supra), the Supreme Court at paragraph No.13 observed that in the case of a tender there is no obligation on the part of the person issuing tender notice to accept any of the tenderers or even the lowest tenderer. It was further observed that after a tender is called and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors that there was no competition, the person issuing the tender may decide not to enter into any contract thereby cancel the tender. It was further observed that after a tender is called and on seeing the rates or the status of the contractors that there was no competition, the person issuing the tender may decide not to enter into any contract thereby cancel the tender. It was observed that it is a well settled principle of law that so long the bid had not been accepted, the highest bidder acquires no vested right to have been the auction concluded in his favour. In view of the above judgment and taking into account that there was no approval of the appropriate authority and there was no notification of the award to the bidder, the tender dated 10.07.2021, in respect to package Nos.4 & 5, could not have been said to have been concluded in favour of the petitioner. This very aspect would also show that the relief so sought for by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent, Irrigation Department to award package Nos.4 & 5 to the petitioner cannot also be granted by this Court inasmuch as it is the decision of the appropriate authority to first approve the award and thereafter to notify through the Employer which admittedly have not been done. Therefore, the said relief in the opinion of this Court cannot be granted. 44. In the backdrop of the above therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner did not acquire any enforceable right on the basis of the decision of the then Superintending Engineer dated 31.08.2021 for the purpose of challenging the cancellation of the tender dated 10.07.2021 as well as floating/inviting the Notice Inviting Tender dated 23.03.2022. 45. The next issue for determination is as to whether the cancellation of the tender and the issuance of the fresh tender was reasonable and in accordance with the provision of law. The facts above mentioned would disclose that on 10.07.2021, the NIT in question was issued. Thereafter on 13.07.2021 the departmental minister issued a communication relating to reorganization of the Divisions, Sub-Divisions etc. In the said communication, it was mentioned that in respect to tenders where no work order has been issued, the same should be kept in abeyance. It seems on the basis of the said that the then Superintending Engineer had kept the tender process in respect to NIT dated 10.07.2021 in abeyance. In the said communication, it was mentioned that in respect to tenders where no work order has been issued, the same should be kept in abeyance. It seems on the basis of the said that the then Superintending Engineer had kept the tender process in respect to NIT dated 10.07.2021 in abeyance. It further appears that on 3rd of August, 2021, a notification was issued whereby the Governor of Assam was pleased to reorganize and rename the existing Sub-Divisions, Divisions and Circles of Irrigation Department by merging the Civil, Electrical and Mechanical wings and to create a new Cell by the name of Central Monitoring Cell within the Department by merging into the Cell of all the four zones and two Command Area development Authorities along with other office/officers. In terms with the said notification, it would also be seen that the Kaliabor and Integrated Kollong Electrical Division with Head Quarter at Nagaon which was the Division in question for issuance of the NIT dated 10.07.2021 was renamed as Raha Batadrava Division with Head Quarter at Batadrava and the Sub-Divisions in question became Raha Sub-Division and Batadrava Sub-Division. It further appears from the records that pursuant to the notification dated 03.08.2021, the then Superintending Engineer took a decision on 07.08.2021 to proceed with the process in respect to the NIT dated 10.07.2021. On the basis thereof, on 09.08.2021, the technical bid was taken up for consideration by the tender committee. However, relevant to note that the Superintending Engineer did not take into consideration that the Divisions and Sub-Divisions were changed/renamed after the notification dated 03.08.2021. 46. The facts further shows that on 12.08.2021, the Chief Engineer had written a letter to the Superintending Engineer in question to cancel the tender process on the ground that it was not the working season. Though the petitioner submitted that the said communication dated 12.08.2021 was never received by the then Superintending Engineer on the basis of the enquiry but the present Superintending Engineer who has sworn an affidavit categorically mentioned in his affidavit-in-opposition that in the afternoon on 31.08.2021 when he joined office, he found from the records the communication dated 13.07.2021 of the departmental minister, as well the communication dated 12.08.2021 issued by the Chief Engineer. It further appears that the writ petitions filed challenging the decision of the then Superintending Engineer dated 31.08.2021. It further appears that the writ petitions filed challenging the decision of the then Superintending Engineer dated 31.08.2021. One of such writ petitions was WP(C) No.4609/2021 and the other writ petition was WP(C) No.4607/2021. In both the writ petitions, the stand of the petitioners therein were that there was a communication issued by the Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department dated 12.08.2021 which directed the cancellation of the e-tender by the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon. There is also no affidavit-in-reply filed denying to the contentions of the said statement made by the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent No.4. Under such circumstances, it has to be taken into account that there was a letter issued by the Chief Engineer on 12.08.2021 directing the Superintending Engineer not to proceed with the tender on the ground that it was not the working season. The question as to whether the said ground assigned by the Chief Engineer was proper or not cannot be a subject matter of judicial review inasmuch as this Court does not have the expertise to decide as to whether the execution of the contract could have been done in that season or not. Pertinent herein however to mention that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.4, it was clearly mentioned that the execution of the contract in question relates to boring and installing of tube wells, the same are not generally done during the rainy season. It is also relevant to take note of that, the said Chief Engineer had also issued similar communication to the Executive Engineer, Mangaldai Invt.div (I), Sipajhar on the same date. Therefore, on the face, it cannot be said that the decision of the Chief Engineer in question amounts to malafide exercise of power in order to disentitle the petitioner in respect to the contract in question. 47. It further appears that on 23.08.2021, the technical evaluation of the tenderers were uploaded and on 31.08.2021 as already mentioned herein above, the Superintending Engineer took a decision to award the package Nos. 4 & 5 to the petitioner in a manner which is unreasonable and arbitrary as already observed herein above. This decision of 31.08.2021 was put to challenge in WP(C) No.4607/2021 and WP(C) No.4609/2021. 4 & 5 to the petitioner in a manner which is unreasonable and arbitrary as already observed herein above. This decision of 31.08.2021 was put to challenge in WP(C) No.4607/2021 and WP(C) No.4609/2021. This Court vide interim orders directed the respondent No.4, the Executive Engineer, Kaliabar and Integrated Kollong Division (irrigation), Nagaon not to offer work to any other bidder in terms with the NIT dated 10.07.2021 if in the meanwhile the said respondent had not offered the work to any bidder. The said writ petition being WP(C) No.4609/2021 came up for consideration before this Court on 31.01.2022. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Irrigation Department submitted before this Court that the department has abandoned the NIT dated 10.07.2021 and would be issuing fresh tender. Consequently, this Court, therefore, closed the writ petition as the NIT in question was abandoned and also vacated the interim order. In pursuance of that on 08.03.2022, the present Superintending Engineer in question put a note in the File No.SEI/CIR-14/2017-20 stating inter-alia that, earlier due to the pendency of the Court case it was not possible to issue formal cancellation order for NIT dated 10.07.2021 though the bid validity has already expired and as after the passing of this Court’s order dated 31.01.2022 there was no hurdle to comply with the Chief Engineer (Minor Irrigation) order dated 12.08.2021, it was decided to cancel the earlier NIT dated 10.07.2021. It was further put in the said note that it was also decided to issue a fresh tender for the said work. Subsequent thereto on 09.03.2022, the notice of cancellation was issued by the present Superintending Engineer and on 10.03.2022 in the Assam Tribune, the said notice of cancellation was published. At this stage it may also be relevant herein to mention that in the notice of cancellation dated 09.03.2022, the Superintending Engineer had erroneously mentioned that the NIT dated 10.07.2021 was cancelled in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 31.01.2022. The present Superintending Engineer having realized his mistake also had filed an additional affidavit before this Court apologizing for the mistake so committed by him and this Court duly accepts the said apology with a direction that in future, the said Superintending Engineer shall be careful. The record further reveals that on 21.03.2022, the writ petition being WP(C) No.2164/2022 was filed and on 23.03.2022, fresh tender inviting tender was issued. The record further reveals that on 21.03.2022, the writ petition being WP(C) No.2164/2022 was filed and on 23.03.2022, fresh tender inviting tender was issued. A perusal of the said notice inviting tender dated 23.03.2022 would show that it is an offline tender and the five packages were split thereby each package had two portions. The reasons why the offline tender was resorted to and as to why the packages were split comes within the ambit of administrative decision of the tendering authority on the exigency of the situation and unless any malafide or arbitrariness can be shown on the face of it, the same cannot be made a subject matter of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relevant to mention that it is a well settled principle of law that courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution must give fair play in the joints to the government in the matters of contract unless a clear cut case of arbitrariness or malafide or bias or irrationality is made out. Paragraph No. 19 of the Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union of India and Another, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 489 , being relevant is quoted herein below:- “19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty-bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges’ robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give “fair play in the joints” to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.” 48. If this Court takes into consideration the allegations made in the said writ petitions and the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would show that on the basis of which the cancellation of tender dated 10.07.2021 and issuance of fresh tender have been assailed, is on the ground that a right had accrued upon the petitioner on the basis of orders dated 31.08.2021 by the then Superintending Engineer; on the ground that there an Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2021 issued by the Principal Secretary, (Irrigation) to the Government of Assam, Irrigation Department, Dispur, Guwahati which stipulated that the works (Civil + Electrical + Mechanical) of a particular project would be awarded to a single contractor on Turn Key basis and that the bifurcation of each of the package was on account of the malafide intention of the present Superintending Engineer so that the said packages could be carried out by way of offline tender. As regard the first contention, this Court has already decided herein above that the petitioner did not have any enforceable right on the basis of the orders dated 31.08.2021. As regard the Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2021, the same shall apply only in respect to projects which were on turn Key basis and the same cannot apply in respect to the NIT in question inasmuch as the packages in question were not on Turn Key basis. As regard the Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2021, the same shall apply only in respect to projects which were on turn Key basis and the same cannot apply in respect to the NIT in question inasmuch as the packages in question were not on Turn Key basis. The third ground so taken that the bifurcating of the packages was with the malafide intention not to go for online bid but to go for offline tender, in the opinion of this Court, is totally misconceived on the ground that such contentions could have been raised by a person who had no knowledge about the issuance for fresh tender dated 23.03.2022. But in the instant case, the petitioner had due knowledge in respect to the fresh tender and as such cannot agitate the said point. Be that as it may, fairness and transparency are hallmarks of State Actions, this Court taking into consideration the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the stand of the Respondent No 4 in his additional affidavit to the effect that if this court directs, the Respondent No 4 would go for online fresh tender, and also taking into consideration that the work order have to be issued on or before 15.08.2022 and there is not ample time for going for online tender at this stage, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice, fair play and transparency would be served if the documents which was required to be uploaded in case of online bid, is sent to the bidders in their respective email addresses. 49. This Court therefore disposes of the writ petition with the following directions and order: 1. The writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.2448/2022 is dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioner is not a person aggrieved. It is, however, made clear that if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the concerned Superintending Engineer, he would have the liberty to file appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if law so permits. 2. The writ petitions being WP(C) No.2164/2022 as well as WP(C) No.2693/2022 are dismissed. 3. It is, however, made clear that if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the concerned Superintending Engineer, he would have the liberty to file appropriate proceedings under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if law so permits. 2. The writ petitions being WP(C) No.2164/2022 as well as WP(C) No.2693/2022 are dismissed. 3. As this Court vide the order dated 04.04.2022 in I.A. (C) No.1090/2022 and further vide another order dated 25.04.2022 in WP(C) No.2693/2022 had stayed the notice inviting tender dated 23.03.2022, this Court for the interest of justice, directs the tendering Authority, i.e. the Superintending Engineer, Nagaon Circle (Irrigation), Nagaon to issue a corrigendum to the notice inviting tender dated 23.03.2022 thereby extending the period of submission of the tender to 08.08.2022. The said corrigendum shall be issued and published not later than 01.08.2022. The tendering Authority is further directed to mention in the corrigendum the tender opening date as well as the other details as it deems necessary. (4) Taking into consideration that earlier tender in question was by way of online mode and now the same has been made offline and at present due to time constraint it cannot be made online, this Court further directs that in the corrigendum to be issued, the tendering Authority shall request the bidders who have already submitted their bids earlier as well as the prospective bidders to submit their email addresses to the tendering Authority on or before the close of submission of tender date and time. (5) The tendering Authority shall send to the email addresses of the respective bidders who have submitted their email addresses, the documents which would have otherwise been uploaded, if the tender in question was by way of an online bid. The said formality is required to be complied with apart from the mode prescribed in the tender documents in respect to the NIT dated 23.03.2022. 50. The records so produced before the Court is returned to the learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department.