[3.] Mr. G Kato, learned counsel submits that in passing the impugned Order dated 06.09.2022, the respondent no. 2 has not assigned any reason as to why the NIT was cancelled. He submits that when the tender was opened in respect of the technical bids on 03.09.2022, the respondent authorities concerned did not reject any of the tender documents and therefore, they should have proceeded with the tender process in terms of the NIT by notifying a date for opening of financial bids. The learned counsel also submits that as required from each of the tenderers who participate in the process, a sum of Rs. 60,85,800/- was deposited by the petitioner as Earnest Money on 31.08.2022. As such, the action of the respondent authorities in cancelling the NIT abruptly vide the impugned Order dated 06.09.2022 without assigning any reason should be set aside. According to the petitioner, the impugned action apparently has been taken by the respondent authorities only to favour the firm of their choice who had failed to participate in the tender process. However, the same cannot be a ground for cancellation of the NIT and under the facts and circumstances, the impugned Order dated 06.09.2022 should be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the following authorities:-
