B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed the present writ petition questioning the notification issued by the first respondent-University published in the daily newspaper Deccan chronicle dt. 20-12-2000 and awarding of the contract to the third respondent. According to the petitioner, the awarding of the contract to the third respondent is illegal and vitiated. ( 2 ) THE first respondent-University published a tender notice on 20-12-2000 in the daily newspaper Deccan Chronicle, hyderabad calling for sealed tenders from reputed outdoor advertising agencies having five years experience in the field of erection of publicity hoardings in the university campus and its constituent colleges. The last date for receiving the tender schedule was 23-12-2000 along with earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 10,000. 00. The petitioner-company submitted its sealed tender on 23-12-2000 and so also the third respondent submitted its sealed tender. The notification so issued by the University does not specify any date for opening of the sealed tenders. The petitioner asserts that it was informed orally by the first respondent that the date of opening of the sealed tender would be intimated within ten days. The petitioner having waited for some time got issued a legal notice dt. 13-1-2001 to the first respondent requesting to inform the date of opening of the sealed tenders. The first respondent sent reply notice stating that no time and date for opening of tenders is mentioned in the tender notice. The Tender committee opened the tenders on 3-1-2001 and the highest quotation received by them was for Rs. 27 lakhs and the second highest quotation offered by the third respondent was Rs. 14,22,000. 00 as against the offer of the petitioner-company at Rs. 13,25,974. 00. Through the very same notice the petitioner is informed that the contract was awarded on 16-2-2001 itself to the third respondent. ( 3 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner challenges the very notification, which is, published in the newspaper on 20-12-2000 calling for tenders. According to the petitioner it is only an empty formality observed by the first respondent, inasmuch as the first respondent had already made up its mind to award the contract in favour of the third respondent way back in October, 2000 long prior to the issuance of notification as is evident from the letter dt. 6-10-2000 addressed by the first respondent to the Municipal Corporation of hyderabad. 6-10-2000 addressed by the first respondent to the Municipal Corporation of hyderabad. It is submitted that the whole process of inviting sealed tenders is vitiated. It is only a formality observed by the first respondent-University. ( 4 ) IT is under those circumstances, the very notification is challenged. It is contended that the notification which does not specify the date on which the tender is to be opened is bad in law. ( 5 ) THE record made available by the university for the perusal of the Court would disclose that the first respondent university, on 15-7-2000 required the third respondent to submit its quotation on 25-7-2000. The third respondent has submitted its quotation on 25-7-2000 in a sealed cover. The first respondent awarded the contract to the third respondent on 29-11-2000 and directed the third respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 10,92,5007- the third respondent has already paid the amount on 12-12-2000. The first respondent insisted for a No Objection Certificate from the Municipal Corporation and the same is indicated in the quotation itself. The action of the first respondent-University in calling for the quotation from the third respondent alone was challenged in W. P. No. 25029 of 2000 and the same was allowed at the admission stage directing the first respondent-University to call for sealed tenders. Thus the sealed tenders were accordingly invited through the notification published in the newspaper on 20-12-2000. ( 6 ) IN my considered opinion, the notification dt. 20-12-2000 calling for tenders from the interested persons is not an empty formality. The very fact that no date was fixed for opening of the tenders itself could not vitiate the decision making process. The petitioner with eyes wide open participated in the tender and submitted its offer by quoting Rs. 13,25,974. 00. The third respondent submitted second highest quotation of Rs. 14,22,000. 00. The highest quotation was for Rs. 27 lakhs but the person did not turn up. In the circumstances, the second highest quotation of Rs. 14,22,0007- was accepted by the respondent-University. There was no pre- determination whatsoever on the part of the first respondent-University to award the contract to the third respondent. 14,22,000. 00. The highest quotation was for Rs. 27 lakhs but the person did not turn up. In the circumstances, the second highest quotation of Rs. 14,22,0007- was accepted by the respondent-University. There was no pre- determination whatsoever on the part of the first respondent-University to award the contract to the third respondent. However, the procedure for inviting the offer only from the third respondent was found fault by this Court and the University was accordingly directed to issue fresh notification for the benefit of all the intending bidders vide Judgment in w. P. No. 25029 of 2000. ( 7 ) THE letter addressed by the first respondent-University dt. 6-10-2000 to the municipal Corporation of Hyderabad was before issuance of the present notification and pursuant to the offer of the third respondent which has been interdicted by this Court in W. P. No. 25029 of 2000. The present awarding of the contract to the third respondent is not pursuant to the earlier offer if any made by the third respondent. The attempt if any on the part of the first respondent-University for awarding the contract to the third respondent without inviting sealed tenders by way of notification was set at naught by this Court in W. P. No. 25029 of 2000. Thereafter the impugned notification has been issued by the University in which the petitioner, the third respondent and some other company participated. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY the offer of the third respondent herein offering an amount of rs. 14,22,000/- is comparatively better to that of the offer of the petitioner at rs. 13,25,974/ -. There is no option before the University but to accept the offer of the third respondent which is better than that of the petitioner. There is no loss to the exchequer of the University. The decision making process is not vitiated. The university is not put to any loss. The decision of the University cannot be said to be an act of favouritism. Non-mentioning of the date for opening of the tenders in the notification itself has not resulted in any prejudice whatsoever to the petitioner. The petitioner never raised his objection to the notification and on the other hand participated in the tender by duly submitting its own offer. The decision making process by the University, in my considered opinion, is not vitiated for any reason whatsoever. The petitioner never raised his objection to the notification and on the other hand participated in the tender by duly submitting its own offer. The decision making process by the University, in my considered opinion, is not vitiated for any reason whatsoever. ( 9 ) IT is required to notice that the third respondent already entered into an agreement with the University on 12-3-2001 and an amount of Rs. 14,22,000. 00 was paid towards rent and Rs. 1,42,200. 00 towards security deposit. That apart the third respondent paid an amount of rs. 2,87,440/- to the Municipal Corporation, hyderabad for granting permission. There is no reason or justification to interfere in the matter at this stage. ( 10 ) THE writ petition fails and shall stand accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.