JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri U.B. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner before this Court claims to be registered with the Public Works Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the purposes of contract of `D category of works to be performed under the said Department. Under the advertisement impugned in the writ petition dated 27th August, 2008 bids were invited in respect of the works, which were classified under various heads by Executing Engineer, P.W.D., Jaunpur. Petitioner being registered as `D category contractor, was not entitled to participate in the offers to be made in respect of the works mentioned at Item Nos. 11, 14 and 15. Hence, he approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 3. While entertaining the present writ petition on 11th September, 2008 this Court required the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. Today learned Standing Counsel has produced letters dated 10th September, 2008 as well as dated 12th September, 2008 where under a corrigendum has been issued in respect of the advertisement referred to above extending the date of purchase of the tenders up to 18th September, 2008 and for deposit of same up to 19th September, 2008 within the time specified. By the other letter `D category contractors have also been permitted to offer bids in respect of works mentioned at Item Nos. 11, 14 and 15 of the tender notice. 4. In view of the aforesaid letters, the grievance raised by the petitioner qua permission being not granted in respect of participation qua the works mentioned at Item Nos. 11, 14 and 15 of the tender notice has become redundant. However, in view of the fact that petitioner had approached this Court and this writ petition was pending, we provide that if petitioner makes an application for purchase of the tender document by tomorrow alongwith requisite money for the purposes, the respondent authorities shall issue a tender document in his favour and the petitioner shall deposit the same with all requisite conditions being satisfied by 18.9.2008 itself. The tender so deposited shall be taken into consideration at the time of opening of the bids. 5. The tender so deposited shall be taken into consideration at the time of opening of the bids. 5. Now we may consider the another grievance raised by the petitioner, namely, the condition requiring the contractors to furnish security to the extent of 10% of the contract value as per the Clause 13 of the notice inviting tender. The petitioner with reference to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of M/s. Jal Akash v. State of U.P. and others, being Writ Petition No. 35771 of 2005 decided alongwith connected writ petitions on 28th July, 2006 submits that it has been clarified by Division Bench of this Court that the money, which is required to be deposited alongwith the tender document, is earnest money and such earnest money cannot exceed generally 2% of the total contract value. It is further stated that security is required to be furnished only after the tender bid of a contractor is accepted for due performance of the contract. He further submits that payment of 10% security money in terms of the notice inviting tender impugned in the writ petition is legally not justified. 6. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of M/s. Jal Akash (supra). 7. At the very outset we may record that under Clause 13 of the tender notice it has specifically been mentioned that tenderer shall submit security in the shape of interest bearing securities like Post Office saving pass book, National Saving Vikas Patra etc. with reference to the total amount of the contract value for which they are offering the bid. The said uniform condition has been applied in respect of all categories of tenderers. In our considered opinion, there is no restriction upon the power of the State Government or its subordinate officers to impose conditions, which are fair and just. Such conditions, which are applicable uniformly are for the purposes of ensuring that the contract is carried out faithfully and only persons having capability to perform the contract are permitted to offer the bid. 8. Such conditions, which are applicable uniformly are for the purposes of ensuring that the contract is carried out faithfully and only persons having capability to perform the contract are permitted to offer the bid. 8. In the case of M/s. Jal Vikas (supra) the Division Bench of this Court has specifically noticed as follows : "Aforesaid minutes have been perused but we fail to find any condition requiring a tenderer to deposit 10% of the estimated cost of work contract at the time of filing `tender-application itself. In fact the said minute provides that instead of flat rate of security of Rupees One Lac in respect of `A Class Contractors under the prevailing system, security money equivalent to 10% of estimated cost of every `contract-work should be deposited by these contracts. We find no clause anywhere which require a contractor to deposit 10% of the estimated cost of work at the time of filing `tender-application." 9. It is in the aforesaid factual background that the Court came to the conclusion that demand of security money was not called for. We may record that any unilateral change in the terms and conditions of the contract would render the same as a counter proposal. Reference U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. v. Indure Pvt. Ltd. and others, (1996) 2 SCC 667 . Further the Honble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in JT 2002 (4) SC 599, M/s. Build India Construction System v. U.O.I., clarified that once the contract has been notified and tenders have been submitted, no change in the condition can be made except with the mutual consent of the parties. The Division Bench judgment in the case of M/s. Jal Vikas (supra) has to be examined and considered in the light of the aforesaid legal position only. 10. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that when the tender notice itself prescribes a condition of furnishing of security of 10% of total contract value uniformly for all tenderers intending to offer bid, such condition cannot be said to be arbitrary so as to give a cause to the writ petitioner to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are not inclined to accept the contention raised by the petitioner that requirement of 10% of the contract money as security in the shape of interest bearing securities like Post Office saving pass book, National Saving Vikas Patra etc. is illegal. Consequently, the prayer in that regard is rejected. 11. The writ petition is disposed of subject to the liberty granted to the petitioner. 12. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the counsel for the petitioner today on payment of usual charges. ————