As per case facts, the Petitioner, an L-2 bidder, sought the award of a tender for a nationally important rail project after the L-1 bidder withdrew its offer. The Respondent ... sought multiple bid validity extensions, and after L-1's withdrawal and subsequent forfeiture of its security, the Petitioner, being the next most advantageous tenderer, requested the contract. The Respondent, however, began a re-evaluation process and obtained a no-objection letter for annulment of the tender from the funding agency, citing the L-1 withdrawal and CVC guidelines for re-tendering. The Petitioner later offered to match the L-1 bid. The question arose whether the court should direct the Respondent to award the contract to the L-2 bidder or allow re-tendering, especially when the L-1 bidder had withdrawn and the tender validity had ended. Finally, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, finding no arbitrariness or capricious exercise of power by the Respondent. It noted that the contract was not executed, the Petitioner's belated offer was unacceptable, and the Respondent was within its rights to re-evaluate the situation, considering the project's importance and relevant guidelines for re-tendering.