JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs: a. That impugned order dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by the respondent no. 3 may kindly be quashed and set aside. b. That impugned order dated 15.06.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by the respondent no. 2 may kindly be quashed and set aside. c. That the clause 28.1 of the Standard Bidding Document for Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana for the construction and maintenance of the abovementioned work may kindly be set aside being unreasonable and ultra vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. d. That the whole process should be investigated by the independent agency so that the culprit can be punished in order to maintain the transparency in the tender process. e. That the respondents may be directed to issue Letter of Acceptance in favour of the petitioner. f. That the respondents may be directed to award contract in favour of the petitioner as recommended by the evaluation committee (Annexure P-2). 2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the instant petition are as under:- (i) The bids for the work T01-Basal Puli to Nangal Salangri via Dera Baba Rudru Pkg. No. HP-12-184 from 0/000 to 7/100, T04-Link Road Teuri to Dhamandri via Badoli Dathwara Road Pkg No HP- 12-186 from 0/000 to 9/300, T02-Link Road Dhamandri to Ambehra Pkg. No. HP-12-185 from 0/000 to 8/300 under PMGSY-III (Job Length- 24.700 Km), at the first first instance, were invited by the Superintending Engineer/respondent No. 3, vide office letter No. 9909-20 dated 30.10.2023. However the same were cancelled by respondent No. 3 vide office memorandum No. 12314-373 dated 04.01.2024 before opening of technical bids with the reason that Standard Bidding Document of CTB roads was revised by the PMGSY Wing of the respondent-Department vide e-mail reference dated04.01.2024 & 05.01.2024. (ii) Thereafter, the bids for the said work were re- invited by respondent No. 3 vide office letter No. 13276-83 dated 22.01.2024 after making necessary correction in Standard Bidding Document and its approval from the competent authority, which were scheduled to be opened technically on 10.02.2024. However, the date of opening of bids technically was rescheduled to 16.02.2024 at 11:30 (AM) by respondent No. 3 vide corrigendum 13495-13574 dated 05.02.2024, 13936-14015 dated 09.02.2024 and 14096-175 dated 12.02.2024. However, the date of opening of bids technically was rescheduled to 16.02.2024 at 11:30 (AM) by respondent No. 3 vide corrigendum 13495-13574 dated 05.02.2024, 13936-14015 dated 09.02.2024 and 14096-175 dated 12.02.2024. In response to the invitation for bids, total 3 numbers of bidders submitted their bids. The petitioner was one of the bidders in the above mentioned tender process. (iii) Accordingly, the technical bids of the work in question were opened on 16.02.2024 by the bid opening committee constituted by respondent No.3 and the petitioner along with two other bidders participated in the bidding process. The technical evaluation of part-I of the bid was done in the office of respondent No. 3 on 28.03.2024 and summary of evaluation was uploaded on the website. In the technical evaluation process, the bid submitted by the petitioner and one other bidder, namely, M/S S.S. Construction were found responsive, whereas bid of 3rd bidder M/s. Satish Aggarwal and Company was found to be non-responsive. Thereafter the tender case was submitted by the office of respondent No.3 to the office of respondent No.2 for opening of Part-II of the bid i.e. financial bid. However, in the meanwhile, a complaint was received from one of the non-responsive bidders i.e. M/s Satish Aggarwal and Co. and in para 4 thereof, categoric allegations were made in the entire bid evaluation process and the entire process was alleged to be contrary to the approved SBD and PMGSY guidelines issued by the National Rural Roads Development Agency (NRRDA). (iv) The aforesaid complaint was taken into consideration and comments qua the same were sought by respondent No. 2 from respondent No. 3 in this regard. (v) During the process of opening of Part-II of the bid (financial bid) & examination of the matter, it was found that there were certain irregularities in tendering process. Accordingly office of respondent No.2 constituted a committee to examine the matter and accordingly meeting of evaluation committee was held on dated 14.06.2024 in the office of respondent No. 2, in which it was pointed out that the technical bid evaluation committee constituted for the tender in question was in deviation/contrary to para 5.3 of the PMGSY guidelines issued vide GOI circular No. P-17025/33/2011/P-III/NRRDA dated07.05.2013. Although, complaint dated 08.05.2024 had been withdrawn vide letters dated 17.05.2024 and 28.05.2024, but the issue/points brought to notice were considered. As M/s Satish Aggarwal and Co. Although, complaint dated 08.05.2024 had been withdrawn vide letters dated 17.05.2024 and 28.05.2024, but the issue/points brought to notice were considered. As M/s Satish Aggarwal and Co. was termed to be non-responsive and there bid security was already refunded to them, it was not possible to include the non-responsive bidder again in tendering process and since there was an inadvertent deviation from the guidelines as mentioned above, thus the respondents were left with no other option, but to cancel the entire tender process. vi) Respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 vide office letter No. 1899-1900 dated 15.06.2024 to cancel the tender and re-tender the work as per clause 28.1 of ITB of bidding document which reads as under :- Notwithstanding Clause 27, 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 the Contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected Bidder or bidders or any obligation to inform the affected Bidder or bidders of the grounds for the Employer's action to maintain transparency, fairness and equity in public procurement. (vii) Accordingly, respondent No. 3 cancelled the tender in question vide office order No. 2023-26 dated 15.06.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.6.2024, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the reliefs, quoted hereinabove. 4. It is well settled law that wherever a contract is to be awarded or a license is sought to be given, it is obligatory on the part of the public authority to adopt a transparent and fair method. It serves two purposes, namely, participation of all eligible competitors and giving a fair opportunity to them and also generating maximum revenue. 5. The award of government contracts through public auction/tender is to ensure transparency in the public procurement, to maximize economy and efficiency in execution of the public works at minimum price and bring about efficiency in the execution of such work. It also helps to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and ensure elimination of irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authorities concerned. 6. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. It also helps to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and ensure elimination of irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by the authorities concerned. 6. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Deepak Kaushal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Chauhan, Advocate, that the impugned order dated 15.6.2024 passed by respondent No.3 and the directions issued by the Chief Engineer (Hamirpur Zone)/respondent No.2 vide letter dated 15.6.2024 are contrary to the report of the evaluation committee, wherein respondent No.2 being a bid accepting authority had already accepted recommendations of the evaluation committee, which is evident from clause 8 of the bid evaluation committee part-II. Respondent No.2 conveniently concealed this fact and directed respondent No.3 to cancel the tender. 7. However, there is no merit in such contention given the fact that the Chief Engineer, who ordered cancellation of the tender was not the same officer who had accepted the evaluation report of the evaluation committee. 8. It is next contended that the “entire game has been contemplated by the local MLA in consonance with respondents No. 2 and 3”, which is evident from the impugned order. 9. He would further vehemently argue that the officials are acting under the political influence of the politicians, local MLA, like respondent No.4, who is influencing and overpowering the entire tender process. 10. These allegations of the petitioner have been denied by the respondents as being without any basis and devoid of merit especially when the same are without furnishing the particulars. 11. It is more than settled that while dealing with aspect of mala fides, the court has to ensure that there must be specific pleadings regarding malafides and mere use of expression as mala fides under political pressure or corrupt practice is not enough. Details must be furnished and material facts have to be set out specifying the particular persons against whom the allegations are made so that such person may have an opportunity of controverting such allegations. In the absence of specific allegations and pleadings, it would not be open to this Court to make any observations with regard to mala fides. 12. Details must be furnished and material facts have to be set out specifying the particular persons against whom the allegations are made so that such person may have an opportunity of controverting such allegations. In the absence of specific allegations and pleadings, it would not be open to this Court to make any observations with regard to mala fides. 12. In addition to the above, in case the respondents, who are acting at the dictates of the local MLA, as alleged, and were biased against the petitioner, then we really fail to understand how two additional works have been granted to the petitioner during the pendency of the instant writ petition. 13. Lastly, it was argued that the allegations made in the complaint of M/s Satish Aggarwal and Company are not required to be looked into since the complaint already stood withdrawn. 14. In the instant case, no doubt M/s Satish Aggarwal has withdrawn its compliant, but that by itself could not have been a ground for the respondents to have shut their eyes to the allegations levelled in the complaint, more particularly, when these allegations are serious in nature and are otherwise required to be probed given the fact that the then Superintending Engineer, who was on the verge of the retirement, has already been served with a memo regarding irregularities committed in the award of the tender. 15. Apart from above, it also needs to be noticed that how and in what fashion technical bid of M/s Satish Aggarwal had been arbitrarily rejected. The technical bid of M/s Satish Aggarwal was held to be non responsive after according following reasons:- Letter of acceptance (LoA) for two number jobs have been already issued to this firm. 15. Apart from above, it also needs to be noticed that how and in what fashion technical bid of M/s Satish Aggarwal had been arbitrarily rejected. The technical bid of M/s Satish Aggarwal was held to be non responsive after according following reasons:- Letter of acceptance (LoA) for two number jobs have been already issued to this firm. The committee is of the view that being a PMGSY job the work has to be completed in an efficient way and time bound manner, hence it will not be in the interest of the department to consider the firm for this job and it may be considered non responsive.” 16 The aforesaid reasons, to say the least, could not have been accorded by the respondents to hold the bid of M/s Satish Aggarwal & Company, to be non-responsive, more particularly, when the said firm had already informed the respondents by its representation dated 8.5.2024 that clause 4.3(c)(d) of the ITB does not put any bar on the firm to participate in the bidding process and that the turnover of the civil engineering works of M/s Satish Aggarwal & Company in the financial ear 2022-23 was Rs. 235.48 crores and possess sufficient machinery, key personnel and are capable to execute the work at 10 -15 sites. 17 The work in question is of 20 crores and we really do not see any logic in the conclusion that M/s. Satish Aggarwal & Company, who is having turnover of Rs. 235 crores would not be in a position to execute the work (job) in question and could have thus been declared non-responsive. 18 In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere with the action of the respondent in cancelling the tender and re- inviting the same afresh. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.