JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs: 1) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued to quash and set-aside arbitrary cancellation of tender process vide impugned office order dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P-4) and fresh tender for the same work vide impunged NIT dated 31.01.2025 published on 01.02.2025 (Annexure P-5) may also be quashed and set-aside. (II) That a writ in nature of madamus may kindly be issued to the Respondents to restored the tender process initiated vide tender notice dated 16.07.2024 for "C/o BO Quarters at Wasni under Forest Division Rajgarh Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P." bearing (Tender-ID: 2024_HPIPH_90417_1) and further to take the same to its logical end. 2. The instant petition came up for hearing on 14.2.2025 and the learned Vacation Judge passed the following order:- CWP No.2236 of 2025 Heard. Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. As prayed for by Learned Additional Advocate General, the reply be filed within four weeks. CMP No.2108 of 2025 Heard. Notice in aforesaid terms. 2. Instant application has been filed for interim directions, for restraining the Respondents, from proceeding further with the Fresh Notice Inviting E-Tender dated 30.01.2025 [Annexure P-5]. 3. As prayed for by Learned Additional Advocate General, the reply be filed within four weeks. CMP No.2108 of 2025 Heard. Notice in aforesaid terms. 2. Instant application has been filed for interim directions, for restraining the Respondents, from proceeding further with the Fresh Notice Inviting E-Tender dated 30.01.2025 [Annexure P-5]. 3. Upon considering the material on record this Court is of the considered view, that the claim for seeking Fresh Notice Inviting E-Tender [NIET] dated 30.01.2025 [Annexure P-5], cannot be acceded to, for the reason, that firstly, in terms of Notice Inviting E-Tender, the Respondents invited Online bids w.e.f. 30.01.2025 [05:00 PM] up to 07.02.2025 [9:00 AM] and admittedly, in response to fresh tender notice the petitioner neither participated nor furnished his bid, for the reasons known to him; and secondly, in furtherance of Fresh Notice Inviting E-Tender dated 30.01.2025 [Annexure P-5] even the Technical Bids [for ensuring eligibility criteria] and Financial Bid, which was scheduled to be opened on 07.02.2025 stands opened [as disclosed by Learned State Counsel to this Court]; thirdly, once the petitioner has chosen not to participate in tendering process in pursuance to the Fresh Notices Inviting E Tender dated 30.01.2025 [Annexure P-5] and the fact that the petitioner has not revealed any arbitrariness, malafide, biasness or irrationality in inviting Fresh Bids coupled with the fact that restraining respondents shall cause unnecessary loss to State Exchequer and delay in execution of tendered work(s) therefore, the pray for interim is not tenable; and fourthly; even the cancellation of Earlier Tendering Process dated 16.07.2024 on 30.1.2025 [Annexure P-4] due to technical reasons/grounds does not violate any right of the applicant-petitioner, as the right in commercial matters [Tenders-NIET] fructifies, after the proposal in NIT is accepted and such acceptance culminates into a contract either by Issuance of a Letter of Intent or Execution of an Agreement for Commencement of Work [as the case may be], which has not been fructified in favour of petitioner as on the date of cancellation of Earlier Tender on 30.01.2025 [Annexure P-4] and even on date of issuance of Fresh Notice Inviting E-Tender dated 30.01.2025 [Annexure P-5]; and fifthly, the action of State Authorities in rejecting the Earlier Tender dated 16.7.2024 on 30.1.2025 [Annexure P-4] is bonafide and in public interest therefore, in facts of this case, as available at this stage, no claim for staying Fresh Notice Inviting E Tender dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure P-5) is made out in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal versus State of Orissa and others (2007) 14 SCC 517 , which stands affirmed by Hon’ble Three Judges in Tata Motors Ltd. versus The Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) and others, Civil Appeal No. 3897 of 2023, decided on 19.05.2023 and moreso, when Fresh NIET dated 30.1.2025 stands acted upon 7.2.2025. 4. In view of above discussion and the reasons recorded above, the prayer for staying the Fresh Tender dated 30.1.2025 is dismissed. Respondents are directed to proceed ahead with the Fresh Notice Inviting E-Tender dated 30.01.2025 [Annexure P-5], in accordance with law. In aforesaid terms, the prayer for interim is dismissed and instant application is disposed of accordingly. List the matter [CWP No. 2236 of 2025] after four weeks before appropriate Bench. 3. Adverting to the facts of the case, the respondent- Department initially issued notice inviting tender (NIT) for the construction of B.O. quarters at Wasni under Forest Division, Rajgarh, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour, H.P., with estimated cost of work of Rs. 19,87,078/-. Tender was published through online and last date for bid submission was fixed as 22.2.2024. The petitioner being duly eligible submitted his bid before the cut-off date, however the same was cancelled as the petitioner was single bidder. Thereafter, the second NIT was published on 16.7.2024. The technical bids of the tender process were opened by the respondent-department on 9.8.2024. The petitioner’s technical bid was accepted alongwith other bidders and ultimately, financial bids were opened on 20.9.2024, wherein the petitioner was declared as lowest bidder L-1. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent- Department called the petitioner for negotiations about 2-3 times between September 2024 to January 2025, but surprisingly cancelled the bid due to “technical reasons”. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of the reliefs quoted hereinabove. 5. The respondents have filed their reply, wherein facts have not been disputed. According to the respondents, the tender could not be finalized due to technical discrepancies in the DNIT (Draft Notice Inviting Tender). It is averred that at the time of preparation of e-Notice Inviting Tender, the units against item No. 21 were wrongly mentioned as M² instead of Qtl, unit against item No. 26 was wrongly mentioned in M² instead of numbers and unit against item No. 27 was also wrongly mentioned in numbers instead of M² in the schedule of quantity. Therefore, the execution of tender work with these inadvertent mistakes could not be finalized and accordingly, respondent No. 3 decided to reframe the fresh NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) and cancel the present bid of the work for calling the fresh tender vide Office Order dated 30.1.2025. 6. Therefore, the execution of tender work with these inadvertent mistakes could not be finalized and accordingly, respondent No. 3 decided to reframe the fresh NIT (Notice Inviting Tender) and cancel the present bid of the work for calling the fresh tender vide Office Order dated 30.1.2025. 6. A perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the manner and fashion in which the same has been passed, that too without assigning any reasons, cannot be countenanced and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. After all reasons are heartbeats of every decision. 7. It is well-settled principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again that the authority should pass reasoned order. Reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the authority can thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner either by furnishing the same expressly or by necessary reference. 8. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the minds of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. 9. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform the appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. 10. In Union of India vs. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject- matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi- judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. 11. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Charan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 . 12. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice. 11. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Charan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915 . 12. The necessity of assigning reason has been repeatedly emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and Others (2010) 9 SCC 496 , wherein after taking into consideration the entire law on the subject, the position of law was summarized as under:- (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-37). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA C 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires. "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 13. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- 38. It is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order. 39. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 243. para 36). "36......Every State action may be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. 39. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 this Court has observed as under: (SCC p. 243. para 36). "36......Every State action may be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. The rule of law contemplates governance by laws and not by humour, whims or caprices of the men to whom the governance is entrusted for the time being. It is the trite law that 'be you ever so high, the laws are above you'. This is what men in power must remember, always." 40. In LIC Vs. Consumer Education and Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482 this Court observed that the State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or irrational factor into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly is part of fair procedure erwisaged under Articles 14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority or those under public duty must be received and guided by the public interest. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 and Mahesh Chandra Vs. U.P. Financial Corpn. (1993) 2 SCC 279 . 41. In State of W.B. Vs. Atul Krishna Shaw 1991 Supp (1) SCC 414, this Court observed that: (SCC p. 421, para 7) 7....Giving of reasons is an essential element of administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of judicial review." 42. In S.N, Mukherjee Vs. Union of India 1990) 4 SCC 594, it has been held that the object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. The expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice provides for requirement to record reasons as to it is now regarded as one of the principles of natural justice, and it was held in the above case that except in cases where the requirement to record reasons is expressly or by necessary implication dispensed with, the authority must record reasons for its decision. 43. In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605 . this Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne out from the record. 43. In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India (1992) 4 SCC 605 . this Court observed that the rule of law requires that any action or decision of a statutory or public authority must be founded on the reason stated in the order or borne out from the record. The Court further observed: (SCC p. 637, para 47). "47......Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21. 44. This Court while deciding the issue in Sant Lal Gupta Vs. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 13 SCC 336 , placing reliance on its various earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 345-46, para 27). "27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. 3....The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind'. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before the higher forum. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before the higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected." 45. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna (1986) 4 SCC 537 , this Court held that on charge of misconduct the authority holding the inquiry must record reasons for reaching its conclusion and record clear findings. The Court further held: (SCC p. 558, para 30). 30.....In fairness and justice, the member is entitled to know why he has been found guilty. The case can be so serious that it can attract the harsh penalties provided by the Act. Moreover, the member has been given a right of appeal to the High Court under Section 22-A of the Act. To exercise his right of appeal effectively he must know the basis on which the Council has found him guilty. We have already pointed out that a finding by the Council is the first determinative finding on the guilty of the member. It is a finding by a Tribunal of first instance. The conclusion of the Disciplinary Committee does not enjoy the status of a finding. Moreover, the reasons contained in the report by the Disciplinary Committee for its conclusion may or may not constitute the basis of the finding rendered by the Council. The Council must, therefore, state the reasons for its finding." 46. The emphasis on recording reason is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind of the authority before the court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out the reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi judicial performance." 14. Earlier to the aforesaid decisions, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in S. N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India. (1990) 4 SCC 594 , after an exhaustive review of its earlier pronouncements as also the views expressed in other jurisdictions and by expert committees, summarized and explained the law as under:- "The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American Courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the Court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quest judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority; (ii) introduce clarity at the decisions; and (iii) minimize chances of arbitrariness in decision making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary Courts of law and tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at things objectively uninfluenced by considerations of policy or expediency whereas an executive officer generally looks at things from the standpoint of policy and expediency. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other considerations, referred to above, which have also weighed with this Court in holding that an administrative authority must record reasons for its decision, are of no less significance. These considerations show that the re-cording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. The said purpose would apply equally to all decisions and its application cannot be confined to decisions which are subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. In our opinion, therefore, the requirement that reasons be recorded should govern the decisions of an administrative authority exercising quast judicial functions irrespective of the fact whether the decision is subject to appeal, revision or judicial review. It may, however, be added that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. The extent and nature of the reasons would depend on particular facts and circumstances. What is necessary is that the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is greater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority. If it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge. Having considered the rationale for the requirement to record the reasons for the decision of an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions we may now examine the legal basis for imposing this obligation. While considering this aspect the Donoughmore Committee observed that it may well be argued that there is a third principle of natural justice, namely, that a party is entitled to know the reason for the decision, be it judicial or quasi-Judicial. While considering this aspect the Donoughmore Committee observed that it may well be argued that there is a third principle of natural justice, namely, that a party is entitled to know the reason for the decision, be it judicial or quasi-Judicial. The committee expressed the opinion that "there are some cases where the refusal to give grounds for a decision may be plainly unfair; and this may be so, even when the decision is final and no further proceedings are open to the disappointed party by way of appeal or otherwise" and that "where further proceedings are open to a disappointed party, it is contrary to natural justice that the silence of the Minister or the Ministerial Tribunal should deprive them of the opportunity." (P 80) Prof. H.W.R. Wade has also ex- pressed the view that "natural justice may provide the best rubric for it, since the giving of reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice." (See Wade, Administrative Law. 6th Edn. P. 548)." 15. In Pankaj Garg vs. Meenu Garg & Anr. (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 246 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled position of law holding that an order, which does not contain any reason, is no order in the eyes of law. 16. However, in order to satisfy ourselves as to whether the reasons at least exist on the records maintained by the respondents, we called for the records of the case and find that even in the records, no reasons whatsoever have been recorded therein and therefore, the defence raised by the respondents is clearly an after thought. 17. It is more than settled that when an order is made by an authority based on certain grounds, then its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of an affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out. 18. It is more than settled that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self sustaining one, in that, it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. 18. It is more than settled that every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and self sustaining one, in that, it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any authority cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. If precedent is required for this proposition, it can be found in the celebrated decision titled as Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [1978] 2 SCR 272 , of which the following paragraph deserves extraction: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji , AIR 1952 SC 16 : Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of Explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older”. 19. Learned Advocate General would then argue that the tender has now been awarded to some other person, who is not party to the instant lis and therefore, the instant petition ought to be dismissed. 20. However we find no merit in this contention for the reasons that the instant petition came up for consideration before the learned Vacation Judge on 14.2.2025, wherein the learned Vacation Judge declined to grant any interim relief for staying fresh tender dated 30.1.2025 and permitted the respondents to proceed ahead with the fresh notice inviting e- tender, dated 30.1.2025 in accordance with law. Meaning thereby that the award of the tender if any would be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens and it is therefore not necessary that the party, in whose favour tender has been awarded, should have been arrayed as party respondent. The interim order passed by the learned Vacation Judge was obviously to avoid and would otherwise merge into final order that is being passed. 21. We have no doubt in our mind that the official respondents would have informed the party in whose favour fresh tender has been issued about the pendency of the instant lis and if he has chosen not to appear before this court, he has undertaken calculated risk. 22. That apart, we have also already observed that every action of the official respondents taken during the pendency of this petition would have to abide by the doctrine of lis pendens. 23. Consequently, the instant petition, in absence of any reasons, in the order of cancellation of tender, is allowed and the impugned office order dated 30.1.2025 (Annexure P-4) and fresh tender dated 31.1.2025 published on 1.2.2025 (Annexure P-5) are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to take the tender process initiated vide notice dated 16.7.2024 to its logical end. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.