Judgment :- Petitioner is this petition is a Private Limited Company represented by its Managing Director. It is stated that petitioner is involved in the business of manufacture of bodies of luxury buses and is a small scale industry. First Respondent -The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation ("Corporation" for brevity) is an undertaking of the State Government operating in the field of Road transport plying the buses throughout the country. 2. Petitioner has sought for quashing Clause 2(b) of the terms and conditions laid down in Annexure B to the tender document / application pursuant to the tender Notification dated 27th February 2009 due on 30th March 2009 issued by the second respondent produced as Annexure D to the writ petition and to declare that the action of the second respondent in not opening the commercial bid of the petitioner dated 30th March 2009 produced as Annexure L is illegal. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to open the commercial bid of the petitioner dated 30th March 2009 produced as Annexure L. 3. Facts in the nutshell are that, it is not disputed that the second respondent issued the tender Notification dated 24th December 2008 bearing No.KST/CO/ME/T-80/2008-09, vide Annexure A, inviting applications from the eligible registered establishments who are in regular line of fabrication of Hi-tech Buses bodies for construction of 200 Numbers of Ultra Deluxe Rajahamsa Bus Bodies for first respondent. Thereafter, the Corporation issued a corrigendum on 27th February 2009 to the aforesaid tender Notification No. T-80 dated 24th December 2008, by which the quantity of the construction of ultra Deluxe Rajahamsa Bus Bodies was reduced from 200 Numbers to 100 Numbers; the issuance of tender forms was fixed from 4th March 2009 to 18th March 2009; Pre-bid meeting was fixed on 23rd March 2009 at 14:00 hrs; last date for submission on 30th March 2009 till 14:00 hrs; opening of pre-qualification cover also on 30th March 2009 at 14:30 hrs; and opening of financial bid on 4th April 2009 at 12:00 hrs. Thereafter, after intimating the petitioner, the commercial bid / financial bid of all the tenderers including the petitioner was opened on 6th April 2009. Thereafter, after intimating the petitioner, the commercial bid / financial bid of all the tenderers including the petitioner was opened on 6th April 2009. It is the case of petitioner that, for the first time the second respondent has surprisingly formulated the minimum requirement under the Pre-Qualification criteria by including that the SSI establishment should have constructed 80 passenger vehicles per year including ultra deluxe / Hi-tech Luxury coaches having around 36 seating capacity during the year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 instead of taking the average annual turnover of the said years. Therefore, petitioner is highly aggrieved by the said minimum requirement of the Pre Qualification criteria, i.e. clause 1 (ii) (b) of the Terms and Conditions of the Corporation vide Annexure D in respect of the impugned Tender Notification, as the same is without any basis and is totally unscientific and unrealistic and hence unsustainable. Therefore, being aggrieved by the said condition imposed in the corrigendum, petitioner submitted the requisition on 23rd March 2009 to the second respondent requesting them to relax the condition by taking average turnover of four years including the current year instead of specifying the turnover for each year starting from 2004-05 since petitioner was established only in the year 2005-06 and has not built any buses in the year 2004-05, it requested to permit the petitioner Company to participate in the tender process. It is further case of petitioner that petitioner has participated in the above tender proceedings conducted by the second respondent by filing tender document / application dated 30th March 2009 along with necessary documents and also deposited the required Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.01 lakh in favour of second respondent by way of Demand Draft dated 28th March 2009 bearing No.633941. Thereafter, the petitioner has received the intimation from the second respondent to attend the pre-bid meeting to witness the opening of the commercial bid and during the said meeting, petitioner was informed through their representative who was present that, petitioner Company was disqualified from participating in the tender proceedings on 6th April 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner has received the intimation from the second respondent to attend the pre-bid meeting to witness the opening of the commercial bid and during the said meeting, petitioner was informed through their representative who was present that, petitioner Company was disqualified from participating in the tender proceedings on 6th April 2009. Immediately petitioner has submitted another requisition dated 8th April 2009 received by the Corporation on 11th April 2009 requesting the second respondent to consider the previous track record of the petitioner and also the fact that the prices quoted by the petitioner are much lower than the offers received by the Corporation and to open the commercial bid of the petitioner. Further, learned counsel for petitioner specifically contended that, just to eliminate the petitioner from participating in the tender proceedings, the Corporation has intentionally issued the corrigendum to the impugned tender Notification by prescribing the minimum requirement to the Pre-qualification criteria for the years from 2004-05 to 2007-08. It is the specific case of petitioner that, if the earlier tender notification vide Annexure A without the corrigendum is taken into consideration, then, petitioner would be found eligible to participate in the tender proceedings. The Corporation has without any justification and without application of mid and only to eliminate the petitioner from participating in the same, deliberately brought in the corrigendum. Therefore, petitioner Company is constrained to redress its grievance seeking appropriate reliefs as stated supra. 4. The Principal submission canvassed by learned counsel for petitioner is that, the corrigendum to tender Notification dated 27th February 2009 / 1st March 2009 issued by the respondent vide Annexure A1 formulating the minimum requirement of the Pre qualification criteria for each year for a period of four years instead of average of four years contrary to their own tender Notification dated 24th December 2008 vide Annexure A is unreasonable and unsustainable. The said procedure adopted in issuing the corrigendum to tender Notification is without compliance of Rule 18 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Rules, which is mandatory in nature. Therefore, the clause 1(ii)(b) of the Terms and Conditions of corrigendum to the impugned Tender Notification is unsustainable and hence, the same is liable to be set aside at the threshold. Therefore, the clause 1(ii)(b) of the Terms and Conditions of corrigendum to the impugned Tender Notification is unsustainable and hence, the same is liable to be set aside at the threshold. Further, he pointed out that, in fact, petitioner has submitted its requisition dated 23rd March 2009 during the pre bid meeting itself to the second respondent to relax the terms and conditions and permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process in question taking into consideration the average of the four years from 2005-06 to 2007-08 and also the current year 2008-09 instead of 2004-05 to 2007-08. Therefore, the same is deemed to have been relaxed when the Corporation itself has permitted the petitioner to participate in the tender process in question in the pre-bid meeting held on 6th April 2009. During the said meeting, it was informed to the petitioner through its representative who was present there that, petitioner is disqualified from participating in the tender proceedings only on the sole ground that petitioner does not possess the experience for four years from 2004-05 to 2007-08 and to eliminate the petitioner from participating in the tender process and show favouritism to the other tenderers. Therefore, he submitted that, the action of the Corporation in not opening the commercial bid of petitioner and confirming the bid in favour of third respondent cannot be sustained and is untenable. To substantiate his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of S.S. & Company and another Vs. Orissa Mining Corporation Limited reported in 2008 (5) SUPREME COURT CASES 772 and drew my specific attention to paragraph 51 at page 791 wherein it is observed "Had the appellant been qualified in terms of the un-amended clause and faced exclusion only as a result of the amendment in the criterion it might have been open to it to assail the introduction of the amendment." Therefore, he submitted that, in the instant case, petitioner was qualified as per the terms and conditions of the earlier tender Notification but only on account of the corrigendum issued amending the pre-qualification criteria, the Company has been declared disqualified. Further, he relied on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Further, he relied on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and Others reported in (2008) 10 Supreme Court cases 1 and submitted that, "if the Courts command others to act in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and the rule of law, it is not possible to countenance violation of the constitutional principle by those who are required to lay down the law." In the instant case, he submitted that, the respondent Corporation intentionally and deliberately has not followed the relevant rules as referred above and in spite of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in many cases, the statutory bodies are not adhering to the mandatory norms prescribed under the relevant Rules. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the manner in which the respondent Corporation has proceeded to conclude the tender proceedings both in pre-qualification and commercial bids through E procurement contrary to the Rules, the award of tender in favour of third respondent rejecting the bid of petitioner is not justifiable. Further, he relied on two more judgments of the Apex Court reported in (1985) 3 SCC 267 , AIR 1985 SC 117 in case of Ram and Shyam Company Vs. State of Haryana and Others and (1994) 6 SCC 651 , AIR 1996 SC 11 in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India and further relied on the Advance Law Lexicon (3rd Edition 2004) and submitted that, A corrigendum to a Notification is issued only to rectify errors or imperfections of an already existing document and in latin, a corrigendum means correction an error in printed work discovered after the work has gone to the press. It is a printing or typographical error detected after publication and corrected separately on added page. Therefore, he submitted that, by virtue of the corrigendum, the entire nature of the earlier document cannot be significantly altered. Learned counsel also cited another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2000 SC 2352 and drew my attention to paragraph 15 and submitted that, there is no bar on issuing the second corrigendum or more corrigendum or more corrigenda in correcting the arithmetical error. Learned counsel also cited another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2000 SC 2352 and drew my attention to paragraph 15 and submitted that, there is no bar on issuing the second corrigendum or more corrigendum or more corrigenda in correcting the arithmetical error. In the case on hand, the corrigendum is issued by modifying the minimum requirement under the Pre qualification criteria changing the very basic eligibility and the same is impermissible and arbitrary. Therefore, he submitted that, the prayer sought in the writ petition may be granted and Corporation may be directed to open the commercial bid of the petitioner or appropriate direction may be issued to re-notify the tender in the light of the order passed by this Court dated 11th February 2009 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 853 and 1003-1004 of 2009 and connected matters filed by Sri.B.K. Bhaskar and others, wherein this Court has reserved liberty to the BDA to approach the Government seeking for issue of a Notification and thereafter resort to e-procurement process or in the alternative to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules for procuring goods and services. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Corporation by issuing the impugned corrigendum is illegal, void ab initio and without authority of law. Therefore, the impugned corrigendum issued is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 - Corporation and senior counsel appearing for third respondent at the outset raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition and submitted that petitioner has no locus standi to seek the relief as sought in the present petition. In substantiation of the said submission, they pointed out that several tender Notifications have been issued on 24th December 2008 in respect of various items and that, the tender forms were not issued and only advertisement was given. Before issuing the tender forms, corrigendum to the said tender Notification is issued by reducing the quantity of the bodies of Deluxe buses from 200 Numbers to 100 Numbers and fixing the calendar of events. Before issuing the tender forms, corrigendum to the said tender Notification is issued by reducing the quantity of the bodies of Deluxe buses from 200 Numbers to 100 Numbers and fixing the calendar of events. Further, it is submitted that, the Corporation reviewed the Pre qualification and evaluation Norms for construction of Rajahamsa Ultra buses and formulated the eligibility criteria considering the comfort level of the travelling public, pre-existing pre qualification criteria, latest developments and need of the latest technologies to suit the requirements and the pre existing pre-qualification and other terms and conditions and not for eliminating the petitioner as alleged by the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that, in the impugned tender Notification and also in the corrigendum issued, it is specifically mentioned that, the entire tender process is by way of "e-Tendering mode only". The petitioner was well within the knowledge of the corrigendum issued on 27th February 2009 when he filed his application on 30th March 2009 and therefore, petitioner submitted its requisition on 23rd March 2009 requesting the corporation to relax the terms and conditions and permit the petitioner to participate in the tender process. 6. Further regarding the specific ground taken by the petitioner that, petitioner has been permitted to participate in the tender proceedings, its technical bid has been opened and petitioner has been sent a communication to appear personally or through its agent to attend the pre-bid meeting to witness the opening of the commercial bid / financial bid, learned counsel for Corporation submitted that, petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that its financial bid has to be opened when an inadvertent mistake or wrong is committed without fully knowing the procedure, especially, when petitioner does not possess the basic requisite qualification to participate in the proceedings and several other eligible qualified established companies have participated and companies who did not possess the requisite qualification have been rejected and that, petitioner has not been picked and chosen but on the other hand, the representative of the petitioner Company who was very much present in the meeting was informed that the Company was disqualified from participating in the tender proceedings. The petitioner has participated in the tender process having full knowledge of the pre qualification criteria and after accepting the same and now it cannot go back and say that the tender conditions prescribed are unreasonable and have to be changed by taking the average of the four years instead of individual years, since petitioner -Company is established only in 2005-06 and they do not have any experience for the year 2004-05. Therefore learned counsel for respondents submitted that the prayer (a) sought for by petitioner cannot be sustained and is therefore liable to be rejected. Consequently, when once petitioner is not fully eligible and qualified, question of considering the other prayers (b) and (c) does not arise. 7. To substantiate the submission that petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that since they have been invited for pre bid meeting and their technical bid is opened, permission should be given to open the financial bid, learned counsel appearing for respondents placed heavy reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of South India Corporation Ltd. Vs. The Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. and Others reported in I.L.R. 2002 Kar.3038 and submitted that, this Court has held that, the tenderer's right is only for a just consideration of his tender. If they do not possess the requisite qualification, the said tenderers cannot be permitted to dictate terms and seek deletion of eligibility criteria so as to enable them to come within the zone of consideration. They do not have any such right. Further, they have taken me through paragraph 11 of the judgment reported in (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 492 in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others and submitted that, when a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging the award of a contract by a public authority or the state, the Court must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. If the dispute is purely between two tenderers, the Court must be very careful to see if there is any element of public interest involved in the litigation and unless the Court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into mala fide, the Court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers. Therefore, they submitted that, petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for respondents on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Spanco Telesystems and Solutions Limited Mumbai Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2008 (5) Kar.L.J.521, particularly paragraph 33. 8. In addition to the submission and the reliance placed by learned senior counsel appearing for third respondent, learned counsel appearing for Corporation relying upon the judgment is S.S. & Company's case (supra), has taken me through paragraphs 14 to 18 of the said judgment and submitted that, in view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court in the said judgment, " It is axiomatic that the Corporation is the best judge of its interest and needs and it is always open to it to suitably modify or change the eligibility criteria so as to best serve its purposes. Whenever a change is introduced in the eligibility criteria either by introducing some new conditions or restricting or altogether doing away with certain previous concessions it might hurt the interests of some one or the other but for that reason the changes/s made in the eligibility criteria cannot be labelled as made fide. Further, she submitted that, petitioner has made several uncalled for and unnecessary references against the second respondent in the writ petition. Without impleading the second respondent by name, making such allegation and taking such ground cannot be sustained and therefore, they are liable to be rejected at the threshold. Further, she drew my attention to one of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for third respondent in the case of S.S. & Company (supra) and also the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13th September 2007 in Writ Petition No. 1195 / 2007 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, produced at Annexures R14 and R15 to the writ petition, wherein it is held after relying upon the Apex Court decision that, ordinarily, the Court should not interfere where the decision of the authority is in respect of a policy matter unless it is shown that it is beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. Therefore, having regard to the same, interference by this Court in the impugned Notification issued by the Corporation is not justifiable nor petitioner has made out any good grounds to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, she submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as misconceived. 9. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents for considerable length of time on 12th June 2009 and also on 19th June 2009. 10. After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioner and respondents, after thorough evaluation of the entire material available on record threadbare, after considering the relevant judgments of the Apex Court and this Court, the specific ground taken by petitioner in the writ petition and also the stand taken by respondents in their statement of objections, the important points that arise for consideration in this case are: I] Whether petitioner has fulfilled the minimum eligibility criteria for participating in the impugned Tender proceedings? II] Whether petitioner is entitled to seek quashing of the impugned Notification and also the corrigendum having accepted the terms and conditions of the said Notification and participated in the tender proceedings? III] Whether petitioner is entitled to question the correctness or otherwise of clause 1(ii) (b) of Pre-qualification criteria vide Annexure D having accepted and participated in the tender proceedings? 11. Re Points I, II & III: The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondents 1 and 2 - Corporation has issued the Tender Notification dated 24th December 2008 bearing No.KST/CO/ME/T-80/2008-09 vide Annexure A, calling for tenders from the Registered establishments / Companies who are in regular line of fabrication of Hi-tech Bus bodies for construction of 200 Numbers of Ultra Deluxe Rajahamsa Bus Bodies. Only the said advertisement was given and the tender forms were not yet issued. At that stage, on 24th February 2009, the Corporation thought it fit to revise / re-fix the eligibility criteria taking into consideration the overall global changes. Only the said advertisement was given and the tender forms were not yet issued. At that stage, on 24th February 2009, the Corporation thought it fit to revise / re-fix the eligibility criteria taking into consideration the overall global changes. Accordingly, it issued a corrigendum dated 27th February 2009 to Tender Notification dated 24th December 2008 bearing No.KST/CO/ME/T-80/2008-09 reducing the requirement of construction of Ultra Deluxe Rajahamsa buses from 200 Numbers to 100 Numbers and also re-fixing the tender pre qualification criteria that the tenderers must have the experience of construction of minimum of 80 luxury buses for each year commencing from 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 in place of the earlier condition that the tenderer should have built on a minimum 80 Nos. luxury buses on an average basis during the preceding three years out of last four years vide Annexures A and A1 respectively. Consequently, the calendar of events, as stated in the preceding paragraph was rescheduled and tender forms were issued to the tenderers. The petitioner being well aware of the first tender Notification as well as the Corrigendum issued to tender Notification T-80, having full knowledge of the same, by accepting the terms and conditions has filed his application on the last day for receipt of tender forms i.e. on 30th March 2009 vide Annexure R6, produced by learned counsel for Corporation along with objections statement. Further it is not in dispute that petitioner itself has submitted its requisition on 23rd March 2009 vide Annexure R3 requesting the Corporation to relax the condition at clause 1(ii) (b) by considering the average number of 80 passenger vehicle instead of 80 passenger vehicles for every year form 2004-05 to 2007-08. Further, petitioner has requested the Corporation to reconsider the pre-qualification on the basis of four years completion including the current year production i.e. 2008-09 by omitting 2004-05 since petitioner - Company is established only from 2005-06. It is significant to note that the said relaxation of condition at clause 1 (ii) (b) of the corrigendum to Notification sought for by petitioner for participating in tender proceedings was not at all considered nor relaxed nor modified nor sanctioned by the competent authority of the Corporation but on the other hand, petitioner was reasonably kept informed that petitioner was disqualified from participating in the tender proceedings. It is also significant to note that, petitioner has not produced an iota of document to establish that, the said condition was relaxed either in the writ petition or as on the dates of hearing the matter, as referred above, except stating that, petitioner submitted its application along with the tender documents on 30th March 2009 along with requisite deposit of EMD and taking shelter under the communication dated 6th April 2009 inviting the petitioner to participate in the pre-bid meeting to witness the opening of the commercial bid. Petitioner cannot presume that the condition imposed has been relaxed unless intimated in writing and here petitioner has in fact been intimated through its representative that their company is disqualified in the technical bid itself for not fulfilling the eligibility criteria. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that, they were surprised to know that they were disqualified from participating in the tender proceedings after being invited to participate in the opening of the commercial bid and it was deemed relaxation, does not stand to any reason. The said specific submission and the ground taken by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be rejected at the threshold for the reason that as per Annexure R10 produced by the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 in their objections statement, the application has not been rejected only for not having built the buses for the year 2004-05, but also for not furnishing assessment orders for the years 2004-05 and 2005-06 and for not furnishing RIOTS Risk coverage. Further another important aspect to be noticed is that, one of the petitioner's representative, Mr. Jairaj appeared before the Committee on 23rd March 2009 as per Annexure R5 produced along with the objections at ink page.48, wherein it is specifically stated that the CME (P) informed the petitioner that the pre-qualification conditions were finalized by the Contract Management Group Committee and the said Committee has finalized to obtain the details of production of buses and turnover for the preceding four years namely for the years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Hence, the petitioner's bid does not come with the requirement set by the CMG Committee consisting of experts in the respective field. Hence, the petitioner's bid does not come with the requirement set by the CMG Committee consisting of experts in the respective field. Therefore, the petitioner was well aware of its position and fate on 23rd March 2009 itself and knowing fully well, it has volunteered to submit its tender form and having done so on its own, it is not now open for the petitioner to state that, the relaxation of the pre-qualification sought for by petitioner was deemed to have been permitted and relaxed by the Corporation and by no stretch of imagination the said submission could be appreciated. When petitioner did not possess the requisite basic qualification to participate in the tender proceedings at the first instance, has further gone ahead and participated and thereafter when it could not succeed or get benefit, it is redressing its grievance questioning the correctness of the pre requisite qualification prescribed by the Corporation. It is the prerogative and franchise of the tender inviting authority to see that they get best among the best in order to give best and effective service to the public. The terms and conditions are normally fixed by the persons having rich experience in the respective field and petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that its commercial bid has to be opened since the technical bid is deemed to have been accepted. Petitioner cannot dictate terms to the Tender inviting Authority but on the other hand the tenderers have to adhere to the requirements of the tender issuing authority which are made to suit their requirements and in larger public interest. The terms and conditions cannot be directed to be tailor-made to suit one's requirements. 12. Therefore, the submission that, Corporation may be directed to open the commercial bid cannot be sustained nor it is permissible to take such ground, by invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Further, it may be noted that the stand of the petitioner that it is well qualified and having knowledge and rich experience in establishment of the vehicles and has been rendering its services to the Corporation for the past several years, cannot be the ground for relaxing the pre-qualification condition. Therefore, petitioner cannot be declared as qualified to participate in the impugned tender proceedings, when it does not fulfill the required minimum eligibility criteria. 13. Therefore, petitioner cannot be declared as qualified to participate in the impugned tender proceedings, when it does not fulfill the required minimum eligibility criteria. 13. As rightly held by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments, particularly by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of South India Corporation Ltd. (supra), it is held that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Further it is held that the tenderer's rights is only for a just consideration of his tender and if they do not possess the requisite qualification, the said tenderers cannot be permitted to dictate terms and seek deletion of the eligibility criteria so as to enable them to come within the zone of consideration. They do not have any such right. 14. Further, it is well settled law that if a person participates in tender proceedings and fails to get the work / contract, the said tenderer cannot challenge the tender notice subsequently. In the instant case, petitioner has participated in the tender proceedings without fulfilling the basic eligibility requirement and after being unsuccessful, it cannot turn around and claim the different interpretation that the pre requisite qualification prescribed in the corrigendum to the tender Notification is bad, etc. In fact, petitioner's participation in the tender process is void ab initio since the Company is not eligible to participate at the first instance itself as per the corrigendum to tender Notification. Knowing fully well, petitioner has volunteered to take the risk and when it has failed in its attempt, it is not open for the petitioner to question the correctness or otherwise of a particular condition which is not suitable to the petitioner or which is not possessed by the petitioner, by taking irrelevant grounds. Therefore, interference in the writ petition, withholding the public project is not justifiable as the same would affect the beneficiary and the public in general and there will be serious financial implications in view of escalation of prices to provide just, reasonable and efficient service to the citizens. Therefore, interference in the writ petition, withholding the public project is not justifiable as the same would affect the beneficiary and the public in general and there will be serious financial implications in view of escalation of prices to provide just, reasonable and efficient service to the citizens. The said condition is imposed with the aim and object of giving efficient service to the passengers of the Luxury Buses of the Corporation. This aspect of the matter must be borne in mind when the Courts exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction as envisaged under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Taking all the relevant factors into consideration, and also the factual and legal aspects, I am of the considered opinion that, the prayer sought for by petitioner cannot be sustained nor I find any good grounds as such made out by petitioner to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merits. 15. Further, so far as the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner are concerned, I am of the view that, there is no second opinion or quarrel or second thought regarding the well settled law laid down in the said judgments but, unfortunately, the facts and circumstances of the said cases are entirely different from the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Therefore, the said judgments cannot be applied to the case of petitioner nor they are of any help to the petitioner in this petition. Therefore, the reliance placed by petitioner cannot be taken into consideration nor any relief as sought for by petitioner could be granted in this petition. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the writ petition filed by petitioner is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed.