Judgment 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order of 18th April, 2003 by which the Court declined to interfere with the writ petition of Ashutosh Agencies V/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Ors. 2. The order which has been challenged itself records that there was an earlier writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 1400 of 2003 by which the petitioner was challenging the aspect that his tender, in effect, was not being accepted. The Court by an order of 1st March, 2003 noticing that the petitioner had made an essential change in the tender as was offered with regard to the site, directed the Chief General Manager to consider the petitioners request whether change of site would be feasible and take a final decision on the representation so made by the petitioner. 3. The facts on which there is no issue are that for offering the franchise of mobile services, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited made an advertisement as a notice for inviting a tender. This notice was published in the newspaper published on 7th September, 2002 in the newspapers having circulation within Patna. The tender No. is DGM(IT)/Marketing (CMTS)/2002-03. The date of notice is 6th September, 2002. The advertisement announces that expression of interest is invited on behalf of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited from experienced/financially sound party for appointment as Dealer for post-paid services and Distributor for prepaid services of BSNL Cellular Mobile Telephone Service within the licensed service area of Bihar Telecom Circle on commission basis. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, it was making a bid for the revenue district Patna and Nalanda, particularly Patna Rural I. The Court is indicated that this was to be operative from Bihar Sharif. 4. The petitioner states in paragraph 5 of the petition that he submitted his tender duly filled in within time before the competent authority and the petitioner accepts that the tender had been made in terms of the conditions detailed in the notice, that is the advertisement. The petitioner does not mention the date when he had put in his tender but this is not relevant 5. The tender bids were meant to be opened on 27th November, 2002, that is, approximately when the tender had been made. The petitioner does not mention the date when he had put in his tender but this is not relevant 5. The tender bids were meant to be opened on 27th November, 2002, that is, approximately when the tender had been made. When the tender was opened the respondents were desirous to process it and required the petitioner by their letter dated 20th October, 2002 to submit the documents so as to process the contract between them on the offer as made and accepted as such. The petitioner was to submit documents on the basis of the tender as offered and the conditions of service as were given technically by 8th November, 2002. It is on record that the petitioner was unable to supply the documents as were required on the offer as made by the petitioner within the stipulated time. On this alone the offer of the petitioner could have been rejected. 6. However, after the last date of submission of the tender, about three weeks later, on 20th November, 2002 the petitioner acknowledges that the firm sought a change in the conditions of the tender. Impliedly, the offer was being changed after the due date of its acceptance. Time was one of the essential conditions also. The site of business was being changed. Another factor was being changed. Here issues arise between the petitioner and the respondents. The issues are of the petitioners making. The respondents did not accept the change in the tender after the date of submission. The contention of the petitioner is that the stand of the respondents, that is, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited in not permitting the change of site is arbitrary and illegal. 7. The learned Judge declined to interfere in the matter. He noticed the essential clauses on the basis of which the contract was to be processed. The learned Judge was of the opinion that not only there had been a change in the tender as was offered by the petitioner but sufficient reasons had been given by the Chief General Manager in not offering the contract to the petitioner and, thus, declined to interfere. The petition was dismissed, thus, the present appeal. 8. The issue is about the award of a contract which must be entered between the parties out of a free volition on the conditions on which they had agreed. The petition was dismissed, thus, the present appeal. 8. The issue is about the award of a contract which must be entered between the parties out of a free volition on the conditions on which they had agreed. The advertisement which was published in the newspapers was not an offer. Under the law it was an invitation to make an offer. On the basis of the advertisement the petitioner made an offer. The conditions had already been set in the notice inviting the tender. Only what the petitioner offered in pursuance of the advertisement was up for consideration. The offer was to be made within the stipulated time with a cut off date. The petitioner put in his offer and the respondents had considered it with acceptance as offered. Subsequently, the petitioner was changing the original offer. 9. The petitioner made a change in the essential conditions. The site of business was changed by the petitioner. In the writ petition, it is by the petitioner. In the writ petition, it is explained that the site which was put in the tender papers was taken on lease and the moment the landlord found out that the petitioner is about to receive a franchise from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, the landlord increased the rent. This aspect is a matter between the petitioner as a lessee and the landlord as a lessor. The situation of a more premium being sought by the landlord has nothing to do with the respondents. The change of the site is involuntary to the person who is offering the contract. The conditions on which the petitioner was to be granted the offer was on the basis of what the petitioner had originally offered. If the petitioner changes the essential conditions in the site where the business would be carried then it is not the same offer which was made originally. 10. In the circumstances, the Court is unable to certify that the respondents made any error in not accepting the changed conditions or the second offer which the petitioner was making. The learned Judge also has made no error by dismissing the writ petition. 11. The Court notices that in the communication dated 28th March, 2003. The respondents have given sufficient reasons why they did not accept the changed conditions of the subsequent offer of the petitioner. The learned Judge also has made no error by dismissing the writ petition. 11. The Court notices that in the communication dated 28th March, 2003. The respondents have given sufficient reasons why they did not accept the changed conditions of the subsequent offer of the petitioner. The noting of the Chief General Manager reads thus: Manager, Bihar Telecom Circle, Patna issue following orders: "Request of M/s. Ashutosh Agency, 47-Kamruddinganj, Biharsharif for changing the site of showroom from Mamta Complex, Near S.B.I. Main Road, Biharsharif to MG Road near S.B.I. Bazar Branch, Biharsharif is hereby rejected." 12. The situation is of the petitioners making and it cannot be thrust upon the respondents. From the noting of the Chief General Manager, it appears that the request of the petitioner for changing the site of showroom has been rejected. It may imply that the original tender is yet to be considered. The order of the learned Judge dated 18th April, 2003 on the writ petition does not suffer from any error. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the present case with a modification in the essential conditions of the offer made as a tender, subsequently a qualified offer cannot be thrust on the party selling the goods; in the present case, franchise. Even an action for specific performance may not lie. 14. Appeal dismissed.