ORDER : 1. Both the writ petitions are filed assailing the action of A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited-1st respondent in declaring Stone and States Private Limited as H2 bidder pursuant to tender notification No. M & S-44/BAR-LT/2005 for supply of Barytes mineral. 2. The W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 is filed by Trimex Industries Limited and W.P. No. 11087 of 2005 is filed by Sphera Minerals Private Limited. Since the action of 1st respondent in declaring 2nd respondent as H2 bidder in both the writ petitions is questioned, they are being disposed of by this common order. 1st respondent herein is a monopoly over the extraction of Barytes mineral and it issued tender notification No. M & S-44/BAR-LT/2005 for sale of A grade and B grade Barytes on Ex-mangampet Mines basis. The date of issue of tender documents was 8.4.2005 and the opening of the pre-bid qualification and commercial bid of eligible tenderer was 20-42-005 at 14:30 and 15:30 hours respectively. It was stated in condition No. 6 that 1st respondent would distribute the tendered quantity between H1 to H5 bidders in the ratio of 40:25:15:10:10 respectively, subject to the quantity quoted by the bidders whichever is less provided H2 to H5 bidders match their quoted price with that of H1 bidder. The tenders were opened before the tender committee as well as all the bidders on 20-4-2005 at 14:30 hours. The writ petitioners along with eight others including Stonnes and States (P) Ltd.-2nd respondent were declared as eligible. The price bids were opened at 15:30 hours. The following are the particulars of bids. Rupees 1. Trimex Industries Limited 1050 2. Sphera Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 1050 3. Gimpex 969 4. IBC Ltd. 1055 5. Ashapura 945 6. TMPL 923 7. ORAN Hydro Carbons 927 8. Ennovable Leasing India 946 9. Stone & Slates (R2) 1051 10. Mercury Minerals 963 11. Boss Minerals — 12. Fairway Trading — 2nd respondent quoted the price at Rs. 1051/- subject to the conditions: (i) All the production of Barytes more than 5 lakh tonnes should be given to them only. (ii) Corporation should give interest free credit upto 90 days (iii) The foreign exchange rate against dollar should be fixed at Rs. 43.50 and the difference of FOB rate should be compensated. 3. 1051/- subject to the conditions: (i) All the production of Barytes more than 5 lakh tonnes should be given to them only. (ii) Corporation should give interest free credit upto 90 days (iii) The foreign exchange rate against dollar should be fixed at Rs. 43.50 and the difference of FOB rate should be compensated. 3. Annexure II to the bid document deals with the instructions to the bidders: The price bid shall be as per Appendix-V to the bid document. Clause 3 of the instructions to the bidders contemplates that the tenders qualified by vague and indefinite expression such as subject to immediate acceptance etc. will not be considered. Clause 10 of the instructions to the bidders contemplates that the price quoted must be net per metric tonne. Clause 11 deals with unsolicited modification to the tender on the clarification sought by the Corporation and Clause 15 contemplates that the bids not complying with the requirements of the Corporation will be rejected without seeking any clarification. On coming to know the bid of 2nd respondent along with bid of Gimpex which quoted @ Rs. 969/- per metric tonne was being considered along with the bids of the petitioners and others, a protest letter was sent to 1st respondent on 25.4.2005 point out, inter alia, that bid of 2nd respondent cannot be considered at all in view of the conditional offer made by it. 1st respondent sent communication dated 24.5.2005 to the petitioners for their unconditional acceptance to the rates quoted by H1 within a week from the date of receipt of the letter. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that if the concessions claimed by 2nd respondent were considered, it would come to Rs. 40.30 paise per metric tonne and in which case the price bid quoted by 2nd respondent would be far below than that quoted by the writ petitioners. It is further the case of the petitioners that if they were aware that the 1st respondent would consider the offer of conditional prices, they would have offered much higher price than that of the 2nd respondent. According to them, the action of 1st respondent in considering the conditional offer of 2nd respondent without evaluating the value of conditions offered by it is discriminatory and the same amounts to colourable exercise of powers resulting in undue favour to 2nd respondent. 4. According to them, the action of 1st respondent in considering the conditional offer of 2nd respondent without evaluating the value of conditions offered by it is discriminatory and the same amounts to colourable exercise of powers resulting in undue favour to 2nd respondent. 4. It is further averred in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 that the Managing Director of 1st respondent-Corporation who has been impleaded as 4th respondent has been showing undue favour to 2nd respondent and its sister concern Gimpex since the time he assumed charge as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of 1st respondent-Corporation in September, 2004. Paras 7 and 8 of the writ affidavit read as follows: “I submit that the 4th respondent who is Managing Director of the 1st respondent has been showing undue favour to the 2nd respondent and its sister concern Gimpex, since the time he assumed charge as Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the 1st respondent in September, 2004. The same would be made clear from the statement annexed to this affidavit showing the supplies of Barytes Mineral made to the petitioner and Gimpex from September, 2004 till date and the position prior to it during the preceding years. As already stated the petitioner has been the largest exporter of Barites Mineral from the State to the tune of 55% to 60% of the entire Barytes Mineral in the State, whereas all other exporters were sharing balance 45% including Gimpex. It is necessary to note here that over the last 2 years the 1st respondent had been supplying Barytes Mineral without resorting to tendering process to various exporters as well as for sale within India. For the year 2004-2005 the petitioner had requested the 1st respondent on 17.7.2004 for supply of 2,70,000 metric tonnes of Barites Mineral against firm export orders which were not supplied in time to meet the shipment commitments of the petitioner thereby resulting in heavy demurrages to the petitioner. It is curious to note that though the petitioner had requested at one time (2.12.2004) for the supply of 40,000 metric tonnes of A grade and B grade Barytes Mineral, the 1st respondent has supplied only 25,000 metric tonnes whereas the 3rd respondent herein the sister concern of the 2nd respondent was given 1,00,000 metric tonnes, though the request from the said company was much later than that of the petitioner herein. Though, the delivery orders for certain quantity of mineral were given about 4 months back against export commitments of the petitioner, the mineral has not been supplied so far, whereas 40,000 metric tonnes of Barytes Mineral was supplied to Gimpex on 4.4.2005. It is submitted that the petitioner had to suffer damages to the extent of about 50,000 US Dollars due to non-supply of mineral by the 1st respondent. Whereas the mineral supplied to Gimpex was lying in Chennai Port as it did not have immediate export commitments. 8. I submit that the 4th respondent has shown undue favour to the 3rd respondent not only in the supply of Barytes Mineral but also in the matter of exploitation of low grade iron ore in Prakasham District by awarding the contract to it against stiff competition from other interested parties, which action was also detrimental to the interest of the 1st respondent. The said action of the 1st respondent is the subject-matter of W.P. No. 3519 of 2005 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court has granted interim directions against the 1st and 3rd respondents. The 4th respondent for the reasons best known to himself has been showing undue favours to the 3rd respondent and in the process has favoured its sister concern, the 2nd respondent. The said action of the 4th respondent amounts to colourable exercise of power and is vitiated by malice in law.” 5. The respondents filed counter-affidavits. It is suffice to refer the counter-affidavits in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of 1st respondent that the Corporation issued tender notification inviting offers for the purchase of about 5 lakh tonnes of A grade barytes are with minimum 4.25 specific gravity (hereinafter referred to as SG) and about 1.5 lakh tonnes of B grade barites per annum between 4.108 SG and 4.19 SG on ex-mine Mangampet Barytes Mine/stockyard basis for export purpose for a period of 3 years. The tenders received for purchase of both A and B grade Barytes are opened as per schedule on 20.4.2005 by a committee. The bidders are expected to offer the rates as per the terms and conditions of the tender mentioned in Appendix 5. Any other information as required as per Appendix 5 was ignored by the Board. The tenders received for purchase of both A and B grade Barytes are opened as per schedule on 20.4.2005 by a committee. The bidders are expected to offer the rates as per the terms and conditions of the tender mentioned in Appendix 5. Any other information as required as per Appendix 5 was ignored by the Board. The highest bid by the bidders in Appendix 5 is declared as the highest as H1. The clause dealing with the distribution of quantity reads as follows: i. The Corporation shall distribute the tendered quantity between H1 to H5 bidders in the ratio of 40:25:15:10:10 respectively subject to the quantity quoted by the bidders whichever is less provided H2 to H5 bidders match their quoted price with that of HI bidder. ii. In case two or more bidders quote the same price, the ranking will be done based on the quantities offered to purchase. iii. In case two or more bidders quote the same price as well as quantity, the tender quantity will be distributed equally. iv. The bidders have no claim whatsoever for the balance quantity, if any, after distribution and the Corporation reserves the right to dispose the balance quantity as deemed fit. 6. As per the above clause, the Corporation requires to take confirmation in respect of H2 to H5 bidders to match their quoted price to that of H1 bidder price. In respect of A grade Barytes, two bidders quoted same price and same quantities. As per tender condition No. 8iii in case the bidders quote the same price and same quantity the tender quantity shall be distributed equally. The bids offered by the petitioners are same, they are coming in the 3rd place. In order to resolve such type of situation it was proposed to consider the quantities offered to H3 and H4 to club together and distribute equally between both the bidders who have quoted equal rate and equal quantity. Therefore, the said two bidders will get 12.5% each as the quantity earmarked to H3 and H4 were quoted and distributed to them and the next highest bidder would get 10% which would be just and fair. In respect of B grade Barytes the highest bid was quoted by the two bidders, therefore the Corporation by adopting the principle clubbed the quantities relating to H1 and H2, i.e. 40% and 25% respectively and distributed equally between them. In respect of B grade Barytes the highest bid was quoted by the two bidders, therefore the Corporation by adopting the principle clubbed the quantities relating to H1 and H2, i.e. 40% and 25% respectively and distributed equally between them. Hence, the said bidders got each 32.5% of the tender quantity. H3, H4 and H5 bidders will get respective percentage as per tender quantity. 7. Board after taking into consideration the tender conditions confirmed the bid in favour of IBC Limited, Chennai in respect of A grade Barytes and in respect of B grade Barytes the same was confirmed in favour of Trimex Industries Limited and Sphera Minerals Pvt. Ltd. offering each 32.5% of the quantity as both the parties offered the same highest price and same quantity. The bids were confirmed in favour of H2 to H5 bidders in respect of both A grade and B grade Barytes after matching the H1 price, as per the terms and conditions of tender. The respondent-Corporation is bound to consider only the rates and quantity quoted in the bids submitted by the tenderers and the respondent-Corporation did not take into consideration any of the conditions stipulated separately by way of a letter attached to their bid. Since R2 quoted the highest price than the petitioners it became the H2 bidder in respect of A grade Barytes tender. The Corporation entered into contracts with 2nd and 3rd respondents as H2 and H5 bidders in respect of A grade as H3 and H4 bidders in respect of B grade Barytes and the agreements were concluded on 3.5.2005. The respondent-Corporation did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in considering the bid of 2nd respondent and there is no undue favour to 2nd respondent. 8. Counter-affidavit of 2nd respondent be summarized in brief as it is thus: This respondent submitted its bid in Appendix V of the tender document quoting Rs. 1051/- and Rs. 702/- per MT in respect of A and B grades of Barytes respectively. The quoted rate indicated in Appendix V of the tender document is unconditional and at any rate it is strictly in conformity with the tender conditions. 1051/- and Rs. 702/- per MT in respect of A and B grades of Barytes respectively. The quoted rate indicated in Appendix V of the tender document is unconditional and at any rate it is strictly in conformity with the tender conditions. While submitting its tender bid pursuant to the notification this respondent also addressed a letter dated 20.4.2005 by way of counter conditions that the production of Barytes above 5 lakh MTs shall be given to this respondent, the supply shall have an interest free credit upto 90 days and the foreign exchange against the Dollar should be fixed at Rs. 43.50 ps. and the difference of FOB rate should be compensated. But, these proposals made by way of counter conditions have been excluded from consideration on the threshold by the 1st respondent by issue of a letter dated 29.4.2005 wherein the 1st respondent categorically called upon this respondent to confirm the unconditional acceptance to the rate of Rs. 1055/- per M.T. as per the tender terms and conditions by 6.5.2005, to enable it to consider the tender. This demand, which emanated from the 1st respondent by its communication dated 29.4.2005 is not on account of or in pursuance of the negotiations between 1st and 2nd respondents, but, on the other hand, it is an unilateral declaration made by the 1st respondent that this respondent must confirm to the price stipulated by H1 bidder by unconditional acceptance. Proposals made by this respondent by way of counter conditions were not forming part of the tender. The evaluation of the aggregate advantage in a sum of Rs. 40.30 ps. per MT as a result of acceptance of the conditions is totally baseless and unfounded. This respondent entered into contract with 1st respondent on 3.5.2005 and so also the petitioners entered into contract with 1st respondent on 11.5.2005. 9. Counter of 3rd respondent in brief is that it quoted the bid at Rs. 969/- and Rs. 696/- per MT in respect of A and B grades of Barytes respectively and accordingly it became H5 and H4 tenderer in the bids. The 1st respondent-Corporation has accepted the tender bid and awarded ranking. The 1st respondent-Corporation has declared this respondent as H5 in respect of A grade Barytes. The allegation that 4th respondent has been extending undue favour to this respondent is not true, baseless and unfounded. 10. The 1st respondent-Corporation has accepted the tender bid and awarded ranking. The 1st respondent-Corporation has declared this respondent as H5 in respect of A grade Barytes. The allegation that 4th respondent has been extending undue favour to this respondent is not true, baseless and unfounded. 10. Since V.D. Rajagopal, the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of 1st respondent-Corporation has been impleaded as a party in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 attributing certain mala fides he has filed his counter denying the same. It is suffice to refer para 6 of the counter and it is thus: “6. With reference to the averments made in the additional affidavit, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner is trying to make out a case out of nothing. It is submitted that while issuing LOI, the 2nd respondent was called upon to furnish the Performance Bank Guarantee 9PBG) amounting to Rs. 1,31,87,000/- as per Clause 9, Annexure II of the tender document. After adjusting the EMD amount of Rs. 15.00 lakhs, the 2nd respondent was called upon to submit the PBG for the rest of the amount within 7 days. The 2nd respondent informed the Corporation that they applied for a Bank Guarantee and their bankers promised to issue the same by 21.5.2005 and the same would be submitted to the Corporation. They have also enclosed a cheque for Rs. 1,16,87,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of the Corporation and promising to take return of the said cheque after they furnished the Bank Guarantee. Considering the delays in obtaining the bank guarantee and considering the request of the 2nd respondent, the same was accepted and a contract was signed with it on 3.5.2005. It is submitted that despite the acceptance of the cheque and signing of the agreement, the 2nd respondent was not issued delivery orders till PBG was submitted on 20.5.2005. It is submitted that similar concession was extended to the petitioner also. It is submitted that the petitioner in respect of B grade Barytes is required to execute the contract within seven days from the date of LOI and the said date expires on 6.5.2005. But the petitioner requested for postponement of the execution of the contract by its letter dated 5.5.2005 on the pretext of auspicious date and the same was accepted and the petitioner signed the contract only on 11.5.2005. But the petitioner requested for postponement of the execution of the contract by its letter dated 5.5.2005 on the pretext of auspicious date and the same was accepted and the petitioner signed the contract only on 11.5.2005. It is submitted that the Corporation always acted with reasonableness in conduct of its affairs as it is dealing with exporters and there may be problems for each of them. So long as such concessions do not result in any kind of loss to the Corporation, they were favourably considered and the same cannot be styled as favoritism. Contra allegations are thus false and denied.” 11. Heard Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005, Sri D.V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 11087 of 2005, Sri A. Sudershan Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for 1st respondent-Corporation in both the writ petitions, Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior Counsel appearing for 2nd and 3rd respondents in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 and 2nd respondent in W.P. No. 11087 of 2005 and Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for 4th respondent in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005. 12. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that accepting the conditional offer made by 2nd respondent amounts to modifying the tender conditions and therefore the action of 1st respondent in considering the tender of the 2nd respondent along with the tenders of the writ petitioners is arbitrary and illegal. They further submit that had there been any provision in the tender to include conditions such of those indicated by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners would have quoted much more amount than what was quoted by them. The learned Counsel would farther submit that concessions sought for by 2nd respondent would workout to Rs. 40.30 paise per MT and in which case the price bid quoted by the 2nd respondent would be far below than that of quoted by the petitioners. Their further submission would be that the authorities ought not to have accepted the price bid quoted by 2nd respondent since it is vague. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners refer to clause 3 of Annexure-D in Instructions to the bidders. Clause 3 states that tenders qualified by vague and indefinite expression subject to minimum acceptance etc., will not be considered. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners refer to clause 3 of Annexure-D in Instructions to the bidders. Clause 3 states that tenders qualified by vague and indefinite expression subject to minimum acceptance etc., will not be considered. As per clause 10, the price quoted must be net per metric tonne, which reads as under: “10. Price: The price quoted must be net per metric tonne in loose on the basis of 4.25 specific gravity average in respect of A grade Barytes and 4.15 specific gravity average in respect of B grade Barytes exclusive of statutory levies like royalty payable to the Government and Sales Tax if any on Ex-Mangampet Barytes mine/stockyard basis. The bidders however shall not quote prices less than the minimum prices as per clause 5 of Annexure I. Modification(s) to the offer after opening of the tenders and conclusion of the negotiations, if any, will not be considered. (ii) The bidders shall quote the price per MT in the prescribed form as per the Appendix-5. (iii) Sale price in respect of 2nd year and 3rd year period of the contract will be in accordance with 10.iv of Annexure III.” 13. Clause 11 says that in case of any clarification sought by the Corporation after opening the bids, the reply by the bidder should be restricted only to such clarification and any modification including the one which has effect on price or value of the offer without specific reference by the Corporation shall render the bid rejected without notice and further reference to the bidder. In nutshell, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the bid offered by the 2nd respondent could not have been categorized as H2. 14. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation submits that 2nd respondent while submitting the bid enclosed a covering letter dated 20.4.2005 and since the covering letter cannot form part of the tender documents, the same has been ignored and the price offered by the 2nd respondent has been taken note and therefore there is no illegality in considering the offer made by 2nd respondent and categorizing his bid as H2. 15. Learned Counsel appearing for 2nd and 3rd respondents in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 submits that 2nd respondent has quoted a rate at Rs. 15. Learned Counsel appearing for 2nd and 3rd respondents in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 submits that 2nd respondent has quoted a rate at Rs. 1051/- per MT for A grade Barytes in Column No. 3 in Appendix-V which is “the document” in which price is contemplated to be specified by the prospective bidders. While specifically mentioning the rate in Column No. 3 of the Appendix-V, no condition whatsoever has been incorporated in the said document. Thus, the quoted rate in Appendix-V is unconditional and, at any rate, it is strictly in conformity with the tender conditions. He further submits that since the 1st respondent took into account the rate quoted in Appendix-V appended to the tender and nothing else and therefore the action of 1st respondent in categorizing the bid offered by 2nd respondent as H2 cannot be found fault. He further submits that the petitioners secured supplies from the 1st respondent-Corporation during the year 1998-2001 by filing series of writ petitions and it was only on and from the year 2002 there has been rationalization in supply of material to 2nd respondent as well as to the writ petitioners. The analysis of supplies made even after September, 2004 will clearly demonstrate that the aggregate supplies were made to the petitioner as well as to 3rd respondent on even scale. 16. Learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 submits that the 4th respondent has to implement the decision of the Board which consists of Chairman, official and unofficial Directors and therefore he has no discretion in allotment of the material to the parties. He further submits that whatever concessions given to the 2nd respondent with regard to furnishing bank guarantee, the same concession has been extended to the petitioner in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 and therefore the petitioner cannot be permitted to attribute motives to 4th respondent. He would further submit that 4th respondent always acted with reasonableness in conduct of its affairs as Chairman and Managing Director of 1st respondent-Corporation. 17. Generally speaking in entering into contracts the public authority is not like a private person. The question to be asked have there been any guideline laid down, if so laid down have they been absurd. The parameters of judicial review in the matter of award of contracts would be (i) mala fide (ii) bias, arbitrariness to the extent of perversity. Generally speaking in entering into contracts the public authority is not like a private person. The question to be asked have there been any guideline laid down, if so laid down have they been absurd. The parameters of judicial review in the matter of award of contracts would be (i) mala fide (ii) bias, arbitrariness to the extent of perversity. If none of these is present the Court should not interfere, it must be left to the authorities. Judicial review will be concerned in reviewing not the merits of the decision made, but the decision making process itself. The grounds on which administrative action would be subject to control by judicial review could be classified as: (i) illegality (namely, failure to give effect to the law that regulates the decision making power) (ii) irrationality, namely Wednesbury unreasonableness, the question ‘whether or not they (the local authority) have taken into account matters which they ought not to have taken into account, or…have refused to take into account or neglected to take into account matters which they ought to take into account’, and (iii) procedural impropriety. 18. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11 , the Supreme Court recognized the above principles as applicable with the judicial review of administrative action in contract matters and the Court also mentioned two more facets of irrationality, being: (a) a Court could review the decision-makers' evaluation of facts and intervene where the facts taken as a whole could not logically warrant the conclusion of the decision maker; and (b) a decision would be unreasonable if it is impartial and unequal in its operation as between different classes. 19. The principles deduced by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, cited case are: (i) the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action; (ii) the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made; (iii) the Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible; (iv) the terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted, it will be substituting its own decision without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible; (iv) the terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by the process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts; (v) the Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury Principle of Reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides; (vi) quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 20. In Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 738 , the Supreme Court held that judicial review of contractual transactions of public bodies was permissible to prevent arbitrariness, favouritism and use of power for collateral purposes, and further where it would be detrimental in public interest to interfere. The later emphasis is on allowing certain flexibility in administrative decision making; and a decision can be challenged on the Wednesbury Principle of Unreasonableness, i.e. the decision was so unreasonable that no sensible person would have arrived at it; else, it should not be disturbed; and that if a reasonable procedure had been followed, the decision should not be challenged except on the Wednesbury Principle of Unreasonableness. 21. The terms of invitation to tender are not normally open to judicial review because the authority issuing the notice knows how to get the best person. In reviewing such administrative action, the Court will not substitute its own view as an appellate authority but can interfere if Article 14 of the Constitution is violated. 22. The grievance of Trimax Industries Limited and Sphere Minerals Private Limited is that conditional tender offered by 2nd respondent has been accepted. In reviewing such administrative action, the Court will not substitute its own view as an appellate authority but can interfere if Article 14 of the Constitution is violated. 22. The grievance of Trimax Industries Limited and Sphere Minerals Private Limited is that conditional tender offered by 2nd respondent has been accepted. It has come on record that 1st respondent considered the offer made by the 2nd respondent along with the offer made by the writ petitioners and others without taking into account any conditions attached to the tender documents. Had 1st respondent considered the offer made by 2nd respondent subject to conditions, there is every justification in the objection raised by the writ petitioner. Since the offer made by 2nd respondent has been considered by 1st respondent along with the offers made by the writ petitioner and others ignoring the conditions annexed to the tender documents. It is left open to the 1st respondent to consider the offer made by 2nd respondent. In the counter of 1st respondent it is specifically asserted that 1st respondent-Corporation is bound to consider only the rates and quantity quoted in the bids submitted by the tenderers and that it did not take into consideration any of the conditions stipulate separately by way of a letter attached to their bid and only the price and quantity offered by the bidder is only acceptable. In view of the specific assertion of 1st respondent that it did not take into consideration any of the conditions stipulated separately, I do not see any substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that 1st respondent violated any of the tender conditions. Coming to the bias pleaded by Trimax Industries Limited against the 4th respondent it has been asserted by 4th respondent that there is no delay in complying the request of the petitioner with regard to supply of A grade byrates in the year 2004-2005. To substantiate his contention a statement has been placed on record to indicate the supply of A grade byrates to the petitioner in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 as well as 3rd respondent Gimpex Private Limited. A glance at the chart is enough to draw the conclusion that there is no undue preference given to 3rd respondent. To substantiate his contention a statement has been placed on record to indicate the supply of A grade byrates to the petitioner in W.P. No. 11033 of 2005 as well as 3rd respondent Gimpex Private Limited. A glance at the chart is enough to draw the conclusion that there is no undue preference given to 3rd respondent. Therefore, I do not see any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that 4th respondent has given undue preference to 3rd respondent. 23. In the result, both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and they are dismissed. 24. No costs.