JUDGMENT : R.C. Lahoti, CJI. Leave granted. 2. Tenders were submitted by several parties in response to the notice inviting tender (NIT) (Annexure R-4/2) issued by respondent No.1. The tender submitted by the appellant was found to be the highest. The appellant's tender was accepted. Out of the amount of Rs. 22,84,721/- which was payable by the appellant, an amount of Rs. 13,80,152/- was paid. Respondent No. 1 which held the auction issued 10 orders out of which payment was made for 7 and delivery for one lot was also effected. At this point of time, some unsuccessful bidders filed writ petitions laying challenge to the tender conditions and also the acceptance of the appellant's tender. 3. The learned Single Judge directed the writ petitions to be dismissed. 4. The intra-court appeals preferred by the unsuccessful writ petitioners have been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court by a brief order. The only submission which has prevailed with the Division Bench is that the tender notification dated 11.12.2002 contained conditions which were vague. The Division Bench has directed the decision of the learned Single Judge to be set aside with a further direction to hold the auction afresh. The successful bidder aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench has filed this appeal by special leave. 5. During the course of hearing, we asked the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners to pinpoint the condition/s of the tender notification which were vague. The learned counsel has read out Condition No. 13.1 of the NIT which reads as under: "13. Implementation of Hazardous Waste (Management & Handling Rules 1989. 13.1 Items such as (1) Used/Scrapped batteries/Lead Acid cells (2) Waste containing water soluble chemical compounds of Lead/Copper/Zinc. Chromium/Nickle/Selenium/Barium Antimony (waste category No.3) & (3) Waste Oil & Oil emulsion (Waste category No. 10) will be sold to units registered with the ministry of Environment & Forest (MOEF) Govt. of India." 6. We have carefully examined the said condition and heard the learned counsel for the parties. 7. It was conceded by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the appellant's unit was registered with the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India, at the time of making the bid and when the appellant's bid was accepted. We do not find the aforequoted condition suffering from any vagueness. 7. It was conceded by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the appellant's unit was registered with the Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India, at the time of making the bid and when the appellant's bid was accepted. We do not find the aforequoted condition suffering from any vagueness. It was, however, submitted by the learned counsel for the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board as also by the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioners that sub-rule (6) of Rule 7 of the Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989 is applicable, but the tender notification did not make any reference to it. We are not impressed. 8. If at all these Rules are applicable, those shall have to be complied with by any successful bidder without which the waste cannot be permitted to be transported. We express no opinion thereon. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that these Rules are not applicable to the appellant and the appellant would be covered only by the Batteries (Management and Handling) Rules, 2001. 9. Needless to say that the appellant shall have to comply with the provisions of applicable law before the waste is transported, but that has nothing to do with the acceptance by respondent No. 1 of the appellant's tender, nor can on this ground the terms and conditions of the NIT be said to be vague. 10. We also make it clear that we have confined our decision only to the question of acceptance of the tender submitted by the appellant with which we find no infirmity. Needless to say, whatever provisions of law which are applicable to the parties including the appellant and respondent No. 1 shall have to be complied with. 11. The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment dated 4.2.2004 of the Division Bench is set aside and instead the judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored. 12. No order as to costs.