Judgment :- This writ petition is listed today for admission and I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for respondent. 2. Theprayer in this Writ Petition is for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the impugned communication of the respondent dated 31.05.2006 vide. Ref. Letter No.Va.P.Va.Tho.A/Ma.Ni.A Committee (F 654 Pilot Schemes 3/06 and the consequential re-tender notification dated 02.06.2006 vide Call No.1/2006-2007/Va.Tho.A/A.Na.Va/ Trichy, as published in the newspaper Dinakaran on 07.06.2006 in so far as the work viz., repairing, renovation and reformation of Pannai Eri in Keezhakottai Village, Sivagangai Taluk and quash the same. 3. Mr. Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has participated in the tender invited by the respondent on 09.02.2006, however, due to the intervention of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Election, the tenders were not considered immediately. Thereafter, the petitioner has appeared before the respondent on 15.05.2006 for negotiation, but the respondent in their counter wrongly mentioned that the petitioner did not turn up for negotiation; that the impugned order is passed by the respondent directing the petitioner to get back the earnest money deposit, however, no details of cancellation of the tender or the alleged non-appearance of the petitioner for negotiation is found mentioned and when the impugned order does not contain the said details, the counter, which was filed subsequently to patch up the lacuna, cannot be taken into account. 4. Mr. Sasi Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, relying on the counter submitted as follows:- After the assembly elections were over in Tamil Nadu, the tenders were taken up for consideration to continue from the stage of calling the tenderers for negotiation. All the tenderers were sent intimation, including the petitioner, requesting them to consider revising the rates quoted by them and also to appear for a negotiation, to submit the engagement of Technical Assistant and attested copy of the certificate of qualification of the Technical Assistant, certificate of the work taken up and completed by the tenderer and his acceptance for extending the validity period of the tender. In addition to the written communication, tenderers were also informed by phonogram to attend the office of the respondent for negotiations before 17.05.2006. The petitioner was also requested accordingly to produce the said certificates and acceptance for extending the period of validity of the tender. In addition to the written communication, tenderers were also informed by phonogram to attend the office of the respondent for negotiations before 17.05.2006. The petitioner was also requested accordingly to produce the said certificates and acceptance for extending the period of validity of the tender. This is also admitted by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. The petitioner neither appeared nor submitted his acceptance for extending the validity period of the tender. 5. Thelearned counsel for the petitioner further brought to the notice of this Court the reply to the counter filed by the petitioner and submitted as follows:- The averments made by the respondent that the petitioner did not appear on 15.05.2006 is false. Indeed, the representative of the petitioner appeared before the respondent on 15.05.2006 and presented himself in front of the Head Draftsman and Junior Divisional Officer, who were in the office on 15.05.2006 on that date between 11.15 am to 12.15 pm but the respondent was not in the office. Later, the petitioners representative was advised to contact the respondent over telephone. When the respondent was contacted over phone, he directed to hand over the papers and letter reducing the price. Accordingly, the letter reducing the price was also given in the format, as directed by the subordinates of the respondent. 6. Mr. Sundar further submitted that in spite of the petitioner reducing the price and agreed to do the work at 2.5% above the value of the work, it is improper on the part of the respondent in not accepting the offer submitted by the petitioner and prayed for quashing the impugned order. 7. Mr. Sasi Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that she herself appeared before the respondent on 15.05.2006, whereas, in the reply to the counter, for the first time, it is stated that her unnamed representative has appeared. It is also further brought to the notice of this court by the learned Government Advocate that even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, nothing has been whispered about the rate quoted by the petitioner. It is also further brought to the notice of this court by the learned Government Advocate that even in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, nothing has been whispered about the rate quoted by the petitioner. When the same was pointed out in the counter, the petitioner realised her mistake and for the first time canvassed in the reply as if they agreed for 2.5% above the value of the work. Pointing out the above inconsistencies, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the averments made in the reply is nothing but a later-thought. The learned Government Advocate further reiterated that neither the petitioner nor her representative appeared before the respondent during the relevant date and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. This Court carefully considered the arguments of the counsel for both sides and perused the material records. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was called upon by the respondent to participate in the negotiation, along with the other tenderers. It is seen from Para-12 of the counter that a communication dated 11.05.2006 was sent by the respondent informing all the tenderers that the tenders offered by them were under consideration and they were requested to consider reducing their rate and attend for negotiation and also to submit the engagement of Technical Assistant and attested copy of the certificate of qualification of the Technical Assistant, certificate of the work taken up and completed by the tenderer and his acceptance for extending the validity period of the tender. Besides the written communication, the tenderers were also admittedly informed by way of phonogram to attend the office of the respondent for negotiation before 17.05.2006. It is the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner did not attend the office on 15.05.2006 or any other date subsequently. It is the case of the petitioner that she herself attended the office on 15.05.2006 as per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. No where in the affidavit it is mentioned about the alleged reduced rate quoted by her. But after filing the counter, the petitioner has filed a reply stating that she deputed her unnamed representative, who met the subordinates of the respondent, but the respondent was not available in the office on that date. No where in the affidavit it is mentioned about the alleged reduced rate quoted by her. But after filing the counter, the petitioner has filed a reply stating that she deputed her unnamed representative, who met the subordinates of the respondent, but the respondent was not available in the office on that date. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioners representative was advised to contact the respondent over telephone and the respondent was contacted, who suggested to submit the written reduction of rate, which was also submitted, but the date of submission of the same was not mentioned in the reply. The said averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and reply affidavit are contradictory. Nothing whispered either in the affidavit or in the reply affidavit about the request for extending the tender validity period since it expired on 24.05.2006, after that period, the respondent cannot act. Similarly, the petitioner has not produced evidence to show the requisite certificates furnished by her. The petitioner did not come forward to negotiate in terms of Section 10 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Act, 1998 and her consistent failure in making request for extending the validity period in terms of Rule 14 (2) of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000, made the respondent to reject the petitioners tender, hence the same is justified. Since the petitioner failed to comply with the necessary requirements mentioned above, the respondent thought it fit to go for fresh tender, as mentioned above, the period of validity of the previous tender also expired as early as 24.05.2006. 9. If a tender is given it is merely an offer and only it is accepted absolutely any contract can come into force, otherwise, no right flows from such an offer. The principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view when accepting or refusing the tender. However, there can be no question of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India when the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. As regards awarding of contract, what is paramount is public interest. However, there can be no question of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India when the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. As regards awarding of contract, what is paramount is public interest. It is open to the Government to reject even the highest bid at a tender where such rejection is not arbitrary or unreasonable or such rejection is in public interest and for valid and good reasons. In this case, no such arbitrariness was found. 10. The other averment of the counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is bereft of details. Of course, the said argument is attractive, but this Court is of the view that non-mentioning of the details alone not invalidate the order of rejection. Each and every case has to be determined based on the facts and circumstance of the case. In this case, even before passing the impugned order of rejection of the tender, admittedly, the petitioner was summoned. The case of the respondent is that the petitioner did not turn up. As this Court also found that the petitioner did not appear on the relevant date, though the impugned order does not contain the relevant details, this Court is of the view that before passing the impugned order, necessary action was taken by the respondent intimating all the tenderers, including the petitioner, to submit their revised rate, but the petitioner has not participated in the negotiation. The above said discussion disclose that the petitioner was fully aware as to why her tender was rejected, hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent is confirmed. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.