ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioner challenges the action of the 2nd respondent under proceedings dated 22.05.2025, by which, tender notification dated 19.07.2024 was cancelled and petitioner was directed to take refund of EMD. She requests that respondents be directed to grant license in her favour for Stall No. 29 in MGBS, Hyderabad. 1.1. Petitioner states that she submitted her tender offering a monthly licence fee of Rs. 2,61,000/-. The Corporation accepted her tender as the highest bidder. However, the license was not issued because the previous licensee filed Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 challenging the tender notification and seeking extension of his licence period. Due to this, the Corporation kept her case pending. She states that although the Corporation had decided to grant her licence, the interim order obtained in Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 caused the Corporation to ask her to wait for the disposal of that Writ Petition. The Corporation retained her earnest money deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- for one year, stating that licence would be issued after Writ Petition was dismissed. Trusting this assurance, she waited for the outcome of the said Writ Petition. 1.2. Petitioner states that despite keeping her wait for an year, the 2 nd respondent suddenly issued the impugned letter informing that Corporation had cancelled the tender notification dated 19.07.2024 because the third party’s Writ Petition was still pending and asked her to take refund of EMD. She contends that this cancellation, after acceptance of her tender and after keeping her EMD for an year, is arbitrary and unjust. She states that Corporation, having retained her EMD and promised to issue the licence, is estopped from cancelling the tender without any valid reason. Sudden cancellation after a year, without awaiting the disposal of the pending Writ Petition, is unjustified. 1.3. Petitioner further states that she later came to know that Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 was withdrawn on 26.06.2025. After its dismissal, she approached the 2nd respondent, furnished the copy of the order and requested issuance of licence as there was no legal hurdle, however, the 2 nd respondent refused the same without justification. She then submitted the request letter dated 28.06.2025 to the Managing Director of the Corporation, but received no response. Hence, the Writ Petition. 2. After its dismissal, she approached the 2nd respondent, furnished the copy of the order and requested issuance of licence as there was no legal hurdle, however, the 2 nd respondent refused the same without justification. She then submitted the request letter dated 28.06.2025 to the Managing Director of the Corporation, but received no response. Hence, the Writ Petition. 2. Petitioner has taken out I.A.No. 2 of 2025 to implead the Regional Manager, R.R. Region, MGBS, Hyderabad as Respondent No.3, I.A.No. 3 of 2025 to permit petitioner to amend the prayer, in addition to the present prayer ie. to declare the fresh notification dated 18.08.2025 issued by the Regional Manager insofar as it relates to Stall No. 29 in MGBS, Hyderabad as illegal and I.A.No. 4 of 2025 to suspend the operation of tender notification dated 18.08.2025. 3. Respondent Corporation filed counter-affidavits to all these Applications, on similar lines. It is stated, petitioner has no locus whatsoever to challenge the subsequent tender notification dated 18.08.2025 as she has no vested right created in her favour, in respect of Stall No. 29; by virtue of being the first or the second highest bidder. Even assuming that petitioner can challenge the fresh tender notification , the same would stem from an entirely new cause, thereby precluding petitioner from agitating it in the present Writ Petition. 3.1. It is stated, since the tender notification dated 19.07.2024 was cancelled, petitioner has no right to challenge the subsequent tender process in which she has not participated. This Court as well as the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again held that unless the tender process is found to be arbitrary or filled with irregularities, the same cannot be challenged. It is stated, in the notification dated 18.08.2025, there are no mala fides on the part of Corporation, hence, the same cannot be interfered by this Court. It is also stated that it is settled legal principle that solely by virtue of being the highest bidder or depositing any EMD amount, no vested right is created in favour of a bidder. In view of the same, the Applications are liable to be dismissed. 4. To the main Writ Petition, the Corporation filed counter stating that tender process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner and that unless any arbitrary, illegal or high-handed action is shown, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. In view of the same, the Applications are liable to be dismissed. 4. To the main Writ Petition, the Corporation filed counter stating that tender process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner and that unless any arbitrary, illegal or high-handed action is shown, jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Petitioner seeks a positive mandamus for grant of licence in respect of Stall No. 29, but such direction cannot be issued once the tender notification itself stands cancelled. It is further stated that the relief sought by petitioner has become stale, therefore the Writ Petition deserves dismissal. 4.1. It is contended that petitioner has no vested right in the tender, since no contractual relationship was created between her and Corporation. It is explained that privity of contract arises only when the bid is formally accepted by the Corporation, and that no such acceptance was ever issued to petitioner. 4.2. Respondents rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indore Vikas Prathikaran (IDA) v. Humud Jain Samaj Trust , AIR 2025 SC 322 , to assert that even the highest bidder does not acquire any enforceable right merely on the basis of quoting the highest amount. Further, respondents dispute petitioner’s claim that she was the highest bidder, as another bidder, Subhasha, quoted Rs. 2,92,399/-, higher than petitioner’s bid of Rs. 2,61,000/-; both the bidders deposited an EMD of Rs. 10,00,000/- each. It is therefore, contended that petitioner was not the highest bidder and that even otherwise, the highest bidder is not entitled to issuance of a writ directing allotment of licence. 4.3. Respondents explain that the earlier licensee, Sandeep Bandari filed Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 seeking extension of licence period and obtained an interim suspension of the tender notification dated 19.07.2024. Due to the interim order which remained in force from time to time, the Corporation was unable to proceed with the tender process. They also state that the highest bidder, Subhasha, submitted a request dated 06.11.2024 seeking refund of his EMD on account of the pendency of Writ Petition and his EMD was refunded on 10.12.2024. Petitioner was also advised to take refund of her EMD since the tender could not be finalized. The Corporation denies any assurance being given to petitioner that licence would be granted to her after dismissal of Writ Petition. Petitioner was also advised to take refund of her EMD since the tender could not be finalized. The Corporation denies any assurance being given to petitioner that licence would be granted to her after dismissal of Writ Petition. They reiterate that Clause 16(d) of the tender notification reserves the right of the Corporation to reject any tender or bid. It is stated that after receipt of proceedings dated 22.05.2025 cancelling the tender and directing her to take refund, the petitioner accepted the same without raising any objection or protest. She did not challenge cancellation order immediately nor did she take steps to implead herself in Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024. 4.4. It is stated, after Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 was withdrawn on 26.06.2025, the Corporation initiated steps to issue a fresh tender notification; petitioner filed this Writ Petition only to obstruct the fresh tender process and to attempt to secure the licence without participating in the new competitive process. They assert that the entire delay was caused only due to the interim suspension of tender notification by this Court. Petitioner was issued reply dated 01.08.2025 explaining the factual reasons, including that the highest bidder had withdrawn and that fresh tenders would be issued. Direct allotment to petitioner is impermissible because it would defeat the principles of open competition and affect potential bidders. They state that fresh bids were invited under e-Tender Notification dated 18.08.2025 and petitioner is free to participate in the said tender process. 5. Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and paused the record. 6. Having perused the pleadings of both the parties and having heard learned counsel on either side, it is clear that petitioner’s claim proceeds on the assumption that her tender was accepted, but the counter affidavit clearly indicates that no letter of acceptance or confirmation of bid was ever issued to her. There is nothing on record to show that contractual rights crystallized in favour of petitioner. On the contrary, as per the counter, the highest bid was submitted by another tenderer, namely Subhasha, and he subsequently withdrew and received refund of his EMD on 10.12.2024. Further, tender notification dated 19.07.2024 was suspended by the interim order in Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 dated 05.08.2024. On the contrary, as per the counter, the highest bid was submitted by another tenderer, namely Subhasha, and he subsequently withdrew and received refund of his EMD on 10.12.2024. Further, tender notification dated 19.07.2024 was suspended by the interim order in Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 dated 05.08.2024. Respondents were, therefore, legally disabled from processing the tender and they are justified in cancelling the tender notification when it could not be acted upon for nearly one year. Petitioner’s contention that Corporation had assured to grant licence after disposal of the said Writ Petition cannot be accepted when there was no concluded contract, no acceptance of bid and no binding representation. 7. Here, it is pertinent to note that Clause 16(d) of general terms and conditions specifies that Corporation reserves the right to reject any one or all the tenders received without assigning any reason and no correspondence in respect of the decisions arrived by the tender committee will be entertained. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indore Vikas Praadhikaran’s case (supra), held that in the absence of allotment letter and acceptance of highest bid, no relief could have been granted in favour of bidder. To come to the said conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under: “ We are fortified in our view by a decision of this Court in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma [U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Om Prakash Sharma, MANU/SC/0393/2013: 2013:INSC:271: (2013) 5 SCC 182 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 737], wherein the questions arose for its consideration that: whether there is any vested right upon the Plaintiff bidder until the bid is accepted by the competent authority in relation to the property in question? Merely because the Plaintiff is the highest bidder by depositing 20% of the bid amount without there being approval of the same by the competent authority and it amounts to a concluded contract in relation to the plot in question; and whether the Plaintiff could have maintained the suit in the absence of a concluded contract? Considering the aforesaid questions, this Court has discussed the matter thus: (SCC pp. 195-97, paras 30-31) 30. In support of the said proposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Considering the aforesaid questions, this Court has discussed the matter thus: (SCC pp. 195-97, paras 30-31) 30. In support of the said proposition, the learned Senior Counsel for the Defendant, Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi has also placed reliance upon another decision of this Court in State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh [State of U.P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, MANU/SC/0220/1982: (1982) 2 SCC 365 ]. The learned Senior Counsel has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Rajasthan Housing Board case [Rajasthan Housing Board v. G.S. Investments, MANU/SC/4683/2006 : 2006:INSC:766: (2007) 1 SCC 477 ] which reads as under: (SCC ?. 483, para 9) 9. This being the settled legal position, the Respondent acquired no right to claim that the auction be concluded in its favour and the High Court clearly erred in entertaining the writ petition and in not only issuing a direction for consideration of the representation but also issuing a further direction to the Appellant to issue a demand note of the balance amount. The direction relating to issuance of the demand note for balance amount virtually amounted to confirmation of the auction in favour of the Respondent which was not the function of the High Court. In State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal [State of Orissa v. Harinarayan Jaiswal, MANU/SC/0379/1972 1972:INSC:77: (1972) 2 SCC 36 ] case, relevant paragraph of which reads as under: (SCC pp. 44-45, para 13) 13. There is no concluded contract till the bid is accepted. Before there was a concluded contract, it was open to the bidders to withdraw their bids (see Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram [Union of India v. Bhim Sen Walaiti Ram, MANU/SC/0087/1969 1969:INSC:264: (1969) 3 SCC 146 ]). [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in Avam Evam Vikas Parishad case, MANU/SC/0393/2013 2013:INSC:271: (2013) 5 SCC 182 ]. By merely giving bids, the bidders had not acquired any vested rights [Ed.: The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in Avam Evam Vikas Parishad case, MANU/SC/0393/2013: 2013: INSC: 271: (2013) 5 SCC 182 ]”. 8. In view of the settled legal position, petitioner has no legal basis to insist that respondents must allot the stall to her without calling for fresh tenders. Furthermore, petitioner has not made an attempt to implead herself in Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 filed to cancel the tender notification dated 19.07.2024. 8. In view of the settled legal position, petitioner has no legal basis to insist that respondents must allot the stall to her without calling for fresh tenders. Furthermore, petitioner has not made an attempt to implead herself in Writ Petition No. 20948 of 2024 filed to cancel the tender notification dated 19.07.2024. This Court therefore, finds no arbitrariness in the decision of the respondents to issue fresh tender notification dated 18.08.2025 and cannot issue a positive mandamus directing allotment of licence in favour of petitioner. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. EMD amount, if any held by the respondent authorities in respect of the tender notification dated 19.07.2024 shall be returned to petitioner. No costs. 10. Consequently, I.A.Nos. 2 to 4 of 2025 shall stand dismissed.