JUDGMENT : S. Panda, J. - In this writ application challenge has been made to the action of the opposite parties in rejecting the Technical Bid of the Petitioner as arbitrary and violative of natural justice not complied with. 2. The Petitioner is a Private Limited Company having interest in taking hotels on lease. Opposite Party No. 1 -India Tourism Development Corporation is a Government of India Undertaking established with a primary objective of development of tourism in India. The Corporation invited tenders from different parties for Long Term Operating Lease of Hotel Nilachal Ashok, Puri including consortium of operation and maintenance of the said Hotel. In pursuance of the said tender, three bids were received and the Petitioner's was one of the same. 3. As per the said tender, the bids were to be in two parts, i.e., Technical Bid and Financial Bid. The parties were instructed to submit their Technical Bid and Financial Bid separately in sealed covers and those covers may be put together in the main sealed cover. Accordingly, the Petitioner-Company filed the bid and also submitted a statement evidencing that its annual turnover was more than Rs.6.00 Cores and further a Solvency Certificate from a Nationalized Bank showing solvency to the tune of Rs.15.00 Crores in conformity with the conditions of the tenders. As the balance-sheet for the year 2008-2009 was not prepared, the Petitioner-Company submitted a certificate issued by the auditor showing only one year annual turnover of more than Rs.6.00 Crores with an undertaking to submit all the documents with the authorities as and when the same are available. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-Company also submitted the tender documents duly filled up along with the supporting documents with the authorities within the stipulated time as per the tender notice. Further he submitted that if a bid is rejected by the authorities, these same should be returned back to the bidder immediately and if a bid is accepted, the same should be intimated to the successful bidder. 5. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner-Company received a caveat from this Court wherein the Petitioner-Company was intimated that its technical bid has been rejected without any reasons whatsoever. The caveat application was dispatched on 27.8.2009 from Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner-Company on its own enquiry, understood that its tender was rejected because its average turnover was less than Rs.6.00 Crores. 5. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner-Company received a caveat from this Court wherein the Petitioner-Company was intimated that its technical bid has been rejected without any reasons whatsoever. The caveat application was dispatched on 27.8.2009 from Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner-Company on its own enquiry, understood that its tender was rejected because its average turnover was less than Rs.6.00 Crores. Therefore, the Petitioner-Company approached this Court as the opposite parties while rejecting its tender, had not complied with the principle of natural justice and were going to open the price bid on 1.9.2009. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the opposite parties should have intimated the Petitioner-Company that its average annual turnover was less than the requirement. As the Petitioner-Company had given an undertaking to supply the required document, one chance should have been given to it to comply with the said requirements before rejecting its tender. In support of the statement, he cited the decision reported in 2007 AIR SC 6414 (Reliance Energy Limited and Anr. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.) wherein the apex Court has held as under: ... There is a mix-up of two concepts here. The concept of non-compliance of financial criteria and the impact in future years on cash flow. As stated above, the very purpose of "cash flow reporting" is to find out the ability of HDEC to generate cash flow in future and if an important method of cash flow reporting is kept out, without any reason, then the decision to exclude REL/HDEC, is arbitrary, whimsical and unreasonable.... 7. Though the caveator-opposite parties appeared through their counsel, they have not filed any counter. However, learned Counsel for the opposite parties produced the record. On perusal of the record, it appears that the tender notice was published specifically mentioning the last date for submission of the tender as 30.6.2009 by 12.00 noon and the date of opening of the tender as 30.6.2009 by 1400 hours. To obtain the detail of tender documents, terms and conditions, they had given their website address. In the said tender notice, it was also specifically mentioned that the tenderer should read the following information and instructions before submitting the tenders. For better appreciation, some of the information and instructions which are relevant for our purpose are quoted hereunder : xxx xxx xxx 6. In the said tender notice, it was also specifically mentioned that the tenderer should read the following information and instructions before submitting the tenders. For better appreciation, some of the information and instructions which are relevant for our purpose are quoted hereunder : xxx xxx xxx 6. The tender oomplete in all respects, shall be submitted in a sealed cover super scribing on the top "Tender for Hotel Nilachal Ashok, Puri" due to be opened on 30th June, 2009 at 14.00 hrs and put in the tender box placed in room No. 505, the office of Sr. Manager (HOD), ITDC, Scope Complex, 7 Lodi Road, New Delhi -110 003 by the stipulated time and date. 7. The bids will be submitted by the bidders in two parts : (a) Technical Bid (b) Financial Bid Following bid documents are required to be filled in and submitted for technical and financial bids : FOR TECHNICAL BIDS Annx-V Statement of Legal Capacity Annx-VI : Litigation Impact Statement Annx-VII : Technical Proposal Annx-VIII : Format for confidential Undertaking FOR FINANCIAL BIDS Annx-IX : Format of the financial bid. 8. The tenderer shall submit financial bids as well as technical bids with enclosures as stated in the preceding para, in separate sealed covers, which may be put together in the main sealed cover. The Lessor/management will open the technical bid first. Tenderer who will be found technically suitable, will only be considered for financial bid. (a) While filling up the different, requirements of the technical bid in ANNEXURE-VII, attention of the Bidders is drawing to the following : XXX XXX XXX 9. The Bidder should furnish adequate evidence to support its claim as per the prescribed format specified under Annexures XIV, XIVA&XIVB. XXX XXX XXX. 8. It is crystal from the above that the opposite parties had categorically stated that the bidders shall furnish all the documents in support of their tenders. The Technical Bid would be opened first and if it is found suitable, the authorities would consider the Financial Bid. As per Clause-9 of the said instructions, the bidders were to furnish all the materials as per the prescribed format specified under Annexure-XIV, XIVA & XIVB. Further, the records produced by the opposite parties reveal that they prepared a comparative Technical Bid Statement. As per Clause-9 of the said instructions, the bidders were to furnish all the materials as per the prescribed format specified under Annexure-XIV, XIVA & XIVB. Further, the records produced by the opposite parties reveal that they prepared a comparative Technical Bid Statement. The said statement reflected that the average annual turnover of the present Petitioner-Company was Rs.2.75 Crores and the other two bidders' annual turnover was 132.85 Crores and 10.74 Crores respectively. As the Petitioner-Company did not fulfill the terms and conditions of the tender in respect of annual turnover, its Technical Bid was rejected. 9. However, in the present case, the record further reveals that the bid of the Petitioner-Company was incomplete in respect of the Technical Bid as it had not furnished all the documents in support of its annual turnover for the last three years. On that ground, its Technical Bid was rejected and this was the reason assigned by the opposite parties for rejection of the bid. 10. Law is well settled that there can be no empirical formula of universal application in such matters. Each case has to be judged in its own background. In Reliance Energy cases (supra), if any, no generalization is possible. In the above reported case, the tender was a global tender and the terms and conditions of the tender were also different. Here, in the present case, the situations not the same as the tender is one for management of the Hotel of Tourism Corporation and to a global tender and It is for operating the hotel on 40 years lease basis with the grade of a three plus star rating Hotel. That apart, Clause-9 of the tender notice stipulates that evidence in support of the claim are to be filed in prescribed format as given under Annexures XIV, XIVA & XIVB. Said condition required the bidders to submit financial statements of last three financial years. 11. From the above, it transpires that the opposite parties clearly stated in the tender notice that if the tender is not complete in all respect, they will reject the same. In that view of the matter, the bid submitted by the Petitioner-Company was incomplete, as it had not furnished its annual turnover for the last three years in the format as per Annexure-XIV, XIVA & XIVB as stipulated in the Clause-9 of the tender Notice. 12. In that view of the matter, the bid submitted by the Petitioner-Company was incomplete, as it had not furnished its annual turnover for the last three years in the format as per Annexure-XIV, XIVA & XIVB as stipulated in the Clause-9 of the tender Notice. 12. Hence, we are of the view that there has been no illegality or infirmity in rejecting the Petitioner's bid as it was not complete in all respect due to the specific terms of the tender notice. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J. 13. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed