Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a registered Class I Highways Contractor. The Divisiona, Engineer (Highways and Rural Works)/Chengalpattu invited tenders on 27-6-1990 for execution of special repairs in the Poonal mallee-Avadi Road from KM. 8/2 to KM. 8/8 in Sriperumbudur Taluk in Chengalpattu District. The notification stated that the tender forms should be available between 177-1990 and 24-7-1990 and the tenders submitted would be opened at 3-15 p.m. on 26-7-1990. The petitioner and two other contractors by name Nathan Chettiar and P.V. Janakiraman obtained the tender schedule forms between 17-7-90 and 24-7 90 and submitted their tenders in time. They were present in the office of the second respondent on 26-7-1990 at 2.45 p.m. when they were informed that the tenders would not be opened on that date and the time has been extended for opening of the tenders till 1-8-90 and any tenders received between 24 7-90 and 1-8-90 would also be considered on that date. It is in these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed praying for issue of a Mandamus to direct the respondents to consider the tender schedule submitted by the petitioner and others prior to 24-7-1990 and also to forbear the second respondent from considering any tender form submitted after 24-7-1990 for the work in question. 2. It is the contention of Mr. V. Santhanam, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the dictum of the Supreme Court in the decision in Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India 1 , if an officer discharging public duties does not profess his actions to the standards his action is liable to be questioned. He contended that when the tender condition stipulated that the tender forms would be available between 17-7-90 and 24-7-1990 and when he had submitted in time prior to the opening of the tenders on 26-7-1990, the second respondent had no jurisdiction to deviate and depart from the norms which he has prescribed by extending the time for opening the tenders till 1-8-1990. Secondly, it is submitted that is only to oblige his favourites who had not already purchased the tender schedule forms between 17-7-1990 and 24-7-1990, the second respondent has chosen to extend the time with mala fide intention. 3. Secondly, it is submitted that is only to oblige his favourites who had not already purchased the tender schedule forms between 17-7-1990 and 24-7-1990, the second respondent has chosen to extend the time with mala fide intention. 3. The decision of the Supreme Court reported in Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India 1 , (supra) dealt with the case where certain qualifications were prescribed for the intending tenderers and deviating from the qualification so prescribed, the tender submitted by an unqualified person was accepted and it was in that context, the Supreme Court held that if the procedure is prescribed, it must be strictly and scrupulously be followed. Since that case related to the qualification prescribed which is a basic qualification for award of contract that would not extend to cases where the time for opening of tender is extended by the competent officer. Therefore, merely because the time has been extended till 1-81990, it cannot be said that the second respondents violated the norms prescribed under the tender schedule nor has be committed infraction of the law as declared by the Supreme Court in the decision in Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India 1 , (supra). The second submission that the second respondent had acted with a mala fide intention to oblige his favourities is not substantiated by the acceptable materials. The bald, vague and indefinite allegation contained in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, does not make out a case to warrant a prima facie conclusion that the second respondent had acted mala fide and not in the interest of the State. 4. After all, the respondents are not obliged to accept the tenders that were submitted pursuant to notice inviting tenders. They may reject all the tenders. There is nothing wrong in the second respondent, in the interest of State to get more offers to execute the work from qualified contractors to extend the time for receipt of tenders. Hence the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.