ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to open the Price bid in respect of the Tender Notice invited by them on 5.7.2004 for removal and transportation of loose dump and top soil to dump yard, as the petitioner fulfills all the terms and conditions of the said Notice Inviting Tender (in short NIT). 2. Pursuant to NIT issued by the respondents, petitioner submitted his tender alongwith orders. There has been correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents regarding submission of all the documents and the petitioner said to have deposited all the documents including Sales-tax clearance certificate. Petitioner thereafter, by letter-dated 5.11.2004 requested the respondents to arrange for opening of price bid of the eligible contractors including the petitioner but the latter is lingering the matter on one pretext or other. By filing amendment petition, petitioner has prayed for, quashing the letter dated 26.11.2004 issued by the Deputy General Manager informing the petitioner about the cancellation of the tender notice and asking the petitioner to collect the earnest money. 3. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that Techno Economic Bid of this tender was opened and it was found that petitioner did not submit sales tax clearance certificate. One of the clauses of NIT was that sales tax clearance certificate has to be produced by the party concerned. However, all the parties objected that sales tax is not applicable in this type of job. The Tender Committee has also felt that submission of valid sales tax clearance certificate may not be, applicable in the instant case. In the meantime, some complaints were received in the Vigilance Department on 13.10.2004 and the Vigilance Department took action and the Additional Chief Vigilance Officer recommended retendering with modified NIT. Consequently, tender was cancelled on 26.11.2004 and letter to that effect was issued to the petitioner and other tenderers. It is incorrect to say that only on 26.11.2004 decision was taken to cancel the tender. 4. I have heard Mr. Binod Poddar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, one of the clauses in the notice inviting tender was that the prospective tenderers must submit sales tax clearance certificate. This clause restricted many contractors from submitting their tenders for want of sales tax clearance certificate. Binod Poddar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. Admittedly, one of the clauses in the notice inviting tender was that the prospective tenderers must submit sales tax clearance certificate. This clause restricted many contractors from submitting their tenders for want of sales tax clearance certificate. Although, the technical bid of few tenderers were opened who submitted their tenders. In the meantime, objections were made regarding the said clause in the NIT and complaint to that effect was also made before the Vigilance Department. It was subsequently felt that regard being had to the nature of the work, sales tax clearance certificate was not required. The Vigilance Department, therefore, recommended the Management for cancellation of NIT and for issuance of fresh notice inviting tenders. 6. As noticed above, because of the inclusion of the clause in the tender notice that the tenderers must submit their sales tax clearance certificate many persons were debarred from submitting tenders for want of sales tax certificate when it was felt subsequently that submission of sales tax clearance certificate was not at all necessary for such type of job then it was incumbent upon the Management to issue fresh NIT so that all prospective contractors may submit their tender. On the contrary if the Management after taking such decision that submission of sales tax clearance certificate was not necessary, proceeded with only a few tenders submitted by few tenderers including petitioner then it would have been arbitrary and discriminatory. 7. In the fact and circumstances of the case, this Court cannot issue mandamus directing the respondents to open price bid of the petitioner and other three tenderers without giving opportunity to other persons to participate in tender. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. This writ application is dismissed.