ORDER N. K. Patil, J. Petitioner in this petition has sought for setting aside the order dated 25th April, 2008 vide Annexure-E as illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to award the contract in favour of petitioner. 2. Facts in brief is that, the second respondent-Director of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore has issued the Tender Notification dated 27th June, 2007 to run a canteen in the second respondent-Hospital premises. The petitioner and the third respondent submitted their tender applications along with the respective quotations. The second respondent did not consider the case of the petitioner and his offer was rejected, inspite of quoting lower price in respect of 23 different items of food for the attendants and patients, who are admitted for treatment of their respective diseases. It is the case of petitioner that, even though, the third respondent has offered higher price in respect of the different items to be supplied in the hospital premises, his tender has been accepted without following due procedure as envisaged under the Transparency Act and Rules. Therefore, petitioner herein is constrained to redress his grievance by presenting the instant writ petition, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra. 3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. 4. After careful perusal of the material available on file including the grounds urged by petitioner and the stand taken by respondents in their statement of objections, what emerges is that, as per the Tender Notification dated 27th June, 2007 vide Annexure A, it is specifically referred that, the tenderers shall submit their applications in two cover system to the second respondent for the year 2007-08. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for respondents, admittedly, petitioner has not submitted his tender application in two cover system. Petitioner has submitted his application in only one cover. In the two cover system, one pertains to the technical bid, containing the particulars regarding the eligibility of the tenderer to participate in the tender proceedings pursuant to the Notification and the second cover pertains to financial bid, consisting of the quotation in respect of different items for catering. Admittedly, petitioner has not submitted his application by satisfying the basic requirement of producing two bids and therefore he was found ineligible. Admittedly, petitioner has not submitted his application by satisfying the basic requirement of producing two bids and therefore he was found ineligible. After opening of the first cover -technical bid, if he is found eligible, then, the second cover is opened. In the instant case, there is no qestion of opening second cover, since the petitioner has not fulfilled the basic requirement of submitting two bids in two cover system. Therefore, petitioner is basically found ineligible to compete in the tender proceedings. The petitioner has not adhered to the very preliminary terms and conditions of the Tender Notification issued by the second respondent. It is also not the case of petitioner that, he has also submitted his application under two cover system. The only defence specifically taken and pointed out by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. Sri Ashok is that, the earlier system followed by respondents was only one cover system and therefore, under the bona fide impression he has submitted the application under one cover system, by quoting the lowest price in respect of different items notified in the tender Notification and this aspect of the matter has not been looked into nor considered by the second respondent and in an arbitrary manner, the tender is confirmed in favour of third respondent, that too, making huge loss to the second respondent-Hospital. 5. The said submission made by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner cannot be accepted nor has the same got any substance nor it carries any weight for the simple reason that, it is specifically and in unequivocal terms mentioned in the tender Notification published that, the application should be submitted under two cover system. Once petitioner has accepted the terms and conditions of the said Tender Notification, it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to file his application strictly as per the terms and conditions of the said Notification and once he has not adhered to the terms and conditions of the said Tender Notification, and is found ineligible at the first instance only, the question of considering his case does not arise and redressing his grievance invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, assailing the correctness of the impugned Notification is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds as such made out by petitioner to entertain the instant writ petition. 6. 6. Therefore, when the tender notification issued by second respondent is after following due procedure as envisaged under the Transparency Act and Rules, this Court is not justifiable to interfere in the same. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.