Judgment : The action of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (for short, ‘T.T.D.’), Tirupati, in issuing Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011 for disposal of six varieties of human hair and allotting tender quantities as well as additional quantities to the successful bidders is under challenge in all these writ petitions. 2. Under the impugned Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011, sealed tenders were invited by T.T.D. for disposal of six (6) varieties of human hair specifying the minimum quantity to be quoted for each variety. The upset price for each variety was also specified and 2.5% of the respective upset prices was fixed as minimum deposit to be paid for each variety. As per Condition No.11 of the Tender Notice, the T.T.D. is entitled to allot the remaining tender quantity of all varieties of human hair to the tenderers that have taken part in the tender on a written request made by them for the said quantity at the rates approved by T.T.D. As per Condition No.12, the bidder/tenderer has to pay 20% cost of the additional quantity allotted under Condition No.11 as deposit on the price quoted by him within seven days from the date of his requisition, failing which the request for such allotment will be cancelled and the bidder will be blacklisted for a period of five years. Condition No.12 further provided that the balance 80% cost for the additional quantity shall be paid within 30 days from the date of confirmation orders and the delivery shall be taken failing which 20% amount paid as deposit for additional quantities would be forfeited. 3. Pursuant to the impugned Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011, thirteen (13) tenderers have participated. The tenders were opened on 31.03.2011 and after finalizing the same, allotment letters, dated 7.4.2011 were issued to the successful bidders communicating the tender quantities as well as the additional quantities allotted to them and calling upon them to pay the balance amount within 30 days from the date of the said orders. So far as additional quantity is concerned, it was made clear that in the event of failure to pay the balance amount within 30 days, the deposit amount of 2.5% paid by them would be forfeited. 4. At that stage, the present writ petitions came to be filed. So far as additional quantity is concerned, it was made clear that in the event of failure to pay the balance amount within 30 days, the deposit amount of 2.5% paid by them would be forfeited. 4. At that stage, the present writ petitions came to be filed. In W.P.NOs.9668, 9860, 10198, 11094 of 2011 and 11100 of 2011 the petitioners sought a declaration that the action of T.T.D. in issuing Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011 in contravention of the statutory Rules and without finalizing the tenders pursuant to the earlier tender notice dated 31.01.2011 is arbitrary and illegal. In W.P.No.9860 of 2011 the petitioner sought a further declaration that the action of T.T.D. in not blacklisting the respondents 5 to 10 therein in terms of Condition No.12 of the Tender Notice is arbitrary and illegal. So far as W.P.No.9838 of 2011 is concerned, the tender notice is not challenged but a Mandamus is sought directing T.T.D. to cancel the requisition of the respondents 2 to 7 therein (respondents 5 to 10 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011) for allotment of additional quantities and to blacklist them for a period of five years on the ground that they failed to pay 20% cost of the additional quantities as deposit on the price quoted by them within the time prescribed under Condition No.12 of the Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011. 5. It is not in dispute that T.T.D. had earlier issued tender notice dated 31.01.2011 inviting sealed tenders for the very same purpose of disposal of six varieties of human hair. As per the said tender notice, the bidders were required to submit 20% of the upset price fixed for each variety as Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). In response to the said notice dated 31.01.2011, the petitioners herein had submitted their tenders. However it was found that except one tenderer, all others had quoted less than the upset price fixed. Therefore negotiations were held with the tenderers on 17.02.2011 and they were requested to increase the prices quoted by them. 6. It is alleged by the petitioners that though they had participated in the negotiations and offered increased rates, T.T.D. failed to finalize the tenders and on the other hand issued the impugned Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011 for the very same purpose. 6. It is alleged by the petitioners that though they had participated in the negotiations and offered increased rates, T.T.D. failed to finalize the tenders and on the other hand issued the impugned Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011 for the very same purpose. According to the petitioners, the sale under the Tender Notice, dated 31.01.2011 should be deemed to have been confirmed in terms of Rule 118-A (2) of the Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.311, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 9.4.1990 and therefore the action of T.T.D. in issuing the impugned tender notice is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that Condition Nos.11 & 12 of impugned Tender Notice which empowered T.T.D. for sale of additional quantities to the tenderers whose bids were accepted at the rate which they had quoted for the tender quantity are arbitrary and illegal. 7. In W.P.No.9838 of 2011 and W.P.No.9860 of 2011, it is further contended that as the successful bidders had failed to pay the 20% cost of the additional quantity within seven days from the date of requisition as required under Condition No.12 of the impugned Short Tender Notice, the allotment of additional quantity in their favour should be cancelled apart from black-listing them for a period of five years. 8. In the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of T.T.D., it is stated as under: In response to the earlier tender notice, dated 31.01.2011, altogether 46 tenders were received. When the tenders were opened on 17.2.2011, it was found that except for 2nd variety of human hair, for all other varieties all the tenderers, including the petitioners, had quoted prices less than the upset price fixed. Hence on the same day i.e., 17.02.2011 negotiations were held with the tenderers by the Negotiation Committee requesting to increase the price quoted by them. However neither the petitioners nor other tenderers came forward to increase the rates quoted by them. Hence the Negotiation Committee placed the matter before the Executive Officer for further course of action. Having regard to Condition No.4 of the Tender Conditions which provided that the tender shall become invalid if the rates quoted by the tenderers is less than the upset price fixed, it was decided by T.T.D. to go for fresh tendering process. Hence the Negotiation Committee placed the matter before the Executive Officer for further course of action. Having regard to Condition No.4 of the Tender Conditions which provided that the tender shall become invalid if the rates quoted by the tenderers is less than the upset price fixed, it was decided by T.T.D. to go for fresh tendering process. On 18.03.2011 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of V. Nagi Reddy, Member of the Specified Authority, to discuss about certain modifications in the tender conditions to facilitate more public participation and it was decided to reduce the EMD from 20% to 2.5%. Accordingly, the impugned Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011 was issued for sale of human hair. The 13 tenders received in response to the said tender notice were opened on 31.03.2011. During the course of negotiations held by Negotiations Committee on 31.3.2011, the tenderers made a request for reduction of EMD amount on the cost of the additional quantity also from 20% to 2.5% as was done in the case of tender quantities. The said request was considered and the Negotiations Committee agreed to reduce the EMD on the additional quantity subject to approval by the competent authority. Pursuant thereto, allotment letters were issued by T.T.D. to the successful bidders on 7.4.2011 allotting tender quantities as well as additional quantities. Thereafter the decisions taken by the Negotiations Committee were placed before the Specified Authority and the same were ratified vide Resolution No.384, dated 13.04.2011. On 7.4.2011 it was also decided to forfeit the EMDs of the petitioners along with other tenderers as per Condition No.23 by declaring the tenders submitted by them as invalid for violation of Condition No.4 of Tender Notice, dated 31.01.2011. The said decision of T.T.D. was communicated to the petitioners vide proceedings dated 15.04.2011. In view of the decision taken by the Specified Authority to reduce the EMD on additional quantity from 20% to 2.5% and since the EMD was paid by the successful tenderers within the stipulated time, the question of cancelling their tenders and blacklisting them for five years did not arise. 9. Apart from merits, it is also contended that as the petitioners did not participate in the tender process pursuant to the impugned Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011 they are not aggrieved persons and they have no locus to file the writ petitions. 10. 9. Apart from merits, it is also contended that as the petitioners did not participate in the tender process pursuant to the impugned Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011 they are not aggrieved persons and they have no locus to file the writ petitions. 10. It is also explained that the practice of allotting additional quantities over and above the tender quantities is in vogue since several years and the said benefit was availed by the petitioners also on several occasions and therefore the petitioners are estopped from contending that the tender conditions relating to allotment of additional quantity to the successful bidders are arbitrary and illegal. 11. The successful bidders who are arrayed as respondents 2 to 7 in W.P.No.9838 of 2011 and respondents 5 to 10 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011 filed separate counter-affidavits denying all the allegations made by the petitioners and contending that the procedure adopted by TTD in accepting their tenders and allotting tender quantities as well as additional quantities is in accordance with law. 12. I have heard Sri E. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.9838 of 2011; Sri N.Guru Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.9668 of 2011, Sri W.B. Srinivas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9860, 10198 & 11094 of 2011 and Sri Vivek Reddy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.11100 of 2011. 13. I have also heard Sri Challa Sitharamaiah, the learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Hari Sridhar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.9838 of 201 and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011; Sri P. Rajagopala Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 in W.P.No.9838 of 2011, and respondent No.6 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011; Sri A.V. Sivaiah, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 & 5 in W.P.No.9838 of 2011, and respondent Nos.8 & 10 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011; Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, appearing for the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.9838 of 2011, and respondent No.9 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011, as well as Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the T.T.D. 14. In the light of the rival submissions made on behalf of parties, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court. In the light of the rival submissions made on behalf of parties, the following questions arise for consideration by this Court. (1) Whether the petitioners who did not submit their tenders pursuant to the impugned tender notice dated 23.03.2011 have locus to maintain the writ petitions challenging the tender process? (2)Whether the action of T.T.D. in issuing the impugned Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011 without rejecting the tenders submitted by the petitioners in response to the earlier tender notice dated 31.01.2011 is arbitrary and illegal? (3) Whether Conditions 11 & 12 of the impugned Short Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011 providing for allotment of additional quantities on the requisition of the bidders are valid? (4) Whether the acceptance of the bids of the successful bidders and allotment of tender quantities to them pursuant to the impugned short tender notice dated 23.03.2011 is vitiated by any legal infirmity? (5)Whether the allotment of additional quantities made in favour of respondents 2 to 7 in W.P.No.9838 of 2011, who are also arrayed as respondents 5 to 10 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011, is liable to be cancelled for non-compliance with Condition No.12 of the Tender Notice, dated 23.03.2011, and whether they are liable to be blacklisted for a period of five years? Question No.1: 15. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents as to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that none of the writ petitioners submitted their tenders in response to the impugned short tender notice dated 23.03.2011. It is contended that as the petitioners did not participate in the tender process, they are in no way prejudiced or concerned with the sale under impugned tender notice and therefore they have no locus standi to maintain the writ petitions. 16. This contention as to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of locus, in my considered opinion, is wholly untenable. 17. As noticed above, the grievance of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the very issuance of the impugned short tender notice without finalizing the tenders submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the earlier tender notice dated 31.01.2011 is illegal. 17. As noticed above, the grievance of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions is that the very issuance of the impugned short tender notice without finalizing the tenders submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the earlier tender notice dated 31.01.2011 is illegal. They are also questioning the action of T.T.D. in reducing the EMD for additional quantity from 20% to 2.5% by relaxing the Condition No.12 after opening the tenders contending that if it were known that the EMD for additional quantity would be only 2.5%, but not 20% of the upset price, they would have participated in the tender process and would have become eligible to seek allotment of additional quantities. The grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the relaxation of Condition No.12 after opening the tenders, they were denied an equal opportunity with the successful bidders to seek allotment of additional quantities. As held in RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY v. THE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND OTHERS ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ), such contention cannot be rejected at the threshold on the mere ground that they did not submit their tenders and it is necessary for this Court to proceed to consider whether the grievance of the petitioners is justified in law. Question No.2: 18. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the action of T.T.D. in issuing the Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011 without finalizing the tenders received pursuant to the earlier tender notice dated 31.01.2011 is arbitrary and illegal since as per the deeming provision under Rule 118-A (2) of the statutory Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 9.4.1990 the sale under tender notice dated 31.01.2011 should be deemed to have been confirmed. 19. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that all the tenders received pursuant to the tender notice dated 31.01.2011 including the tenders of the petitioners being invalid, the deeming clause under Rule 118-A(2) is not attracted and therefore the action of T.T.D. in proceeding to issue the impugned tender notice inviting fresh tenders for the very same purpose cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. 20. Admittedly the tender notice dated 31.01.2011 contained a specific clause as under: “Condition No.4: The tender shall become invalid if the rate quoted by the tenderer is less than the upset price fixed by T.T.D.” 21. 20. Admittedly the tender notice dated 31.01.2011 contained a specific clause as under: “Condition No.4: The tender shall become invalid if the rate quoted by the tenderer is less than the upset price fixed by T.T.D.” 21. The specific case of T.T.D. that all the tenderers that had participated in response to the tender notice dated 31.01.2011, including the writ petitioners, had quoted less than the upset price could not be disputed by the petitioner. That being so, the tenders of the petitioners as well as the other tenderers were invalid. It is true that Rule 118-A(2) of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 09.04.1990, contained a deeming clause and as per the said Rule the sale shall be deemed to have been confirmed if the confirmation order is not received by the purchaser within one month from the date of the sale. However this is a case where the tenders of all the tenderers were admittedly invalid. All the petitioners had participated in the negotiations held on 17.02.2011 and all of them were aware that the prices quoted by them were less than the upset price. Though it is contended by some of the petitioners that in the negotiations held on 17.02.2011 they had expressed their willingness to quote higher prices, the said plea has been categorically denied by the T.T.D. and no other material could be placed before this Court to substantiate the claim of the petitioners that they expressed their willingness to quote higher prices. Hence this Court has to go by the admitted fact that all the participants had quoted less than the upset price fixed. In the absence of valid tenders the entire proceedings pursuant to the tender notice dated 31.01.2011 became redundant and therefore the question of deemed confirmation of sale under Rule 118-A(2) did not arise at all. 22. In view of the finding that Rule 118-A(2) has no application, the action of T.T.D. in issuing the impugned Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011 for the very same purpose cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that the tenders received pursuant to the earlier tender notice dated 31.01.2011 were not finalized. Question No.3: 23. 22. In view of the finding that Rule 118-A(2) has no application, the action of T.T.D. in issuing the impugned Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011 for the very same purpose cannot be held to be illegal on the ground that the tenders received pursuant to the earlier tender notice dated 31.01.2011 were not finalized. Question No.3: 23. Conditions 11 & 12 of the impugned tender notice providing for allotment of additional quantities apart from tender quantities to the bidders on a written request made by them read as under: “(11.) The TTD reserves the right to allot the remaining tender quantity of all varieties of Human Hair to the Tenderers/Companies/Persons whoever taken part in the tender. On the written request made by the Company/Person/Tenderer for the said quantity at the rates approved by TTD, confirmation orders will be placed on them. (12.) The bidder/tenderer has to pay 20% cost of the additional quantity as deposit on the price quoted by him within (7) seven days from the date of requisition of the tenderer concerned failing which the request for such allotment will be cancelled and the firm will be blacklisted for a period of (5) five years. The balance 80% cost for such additional quantity has to be paid within 30 days from the date of confirmation order and to take delivery, failing which 20% amount so paid for allotment of remaining quantities will be forfeited.” 24. The contention of the petitioners is that the said conditions which enabled T.T.D. to sell additional quantities much more than the tender quantities, particularly at the same rate offered for the tender quantities are arbitrary and irrational. 25. The law is well-settled that unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, the tender conditions are unassailable. The tender conditions cannot normally be subjected to judicial scrutiny unless they are so arbitrary or irrational or ex facie in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 26. It is also relevant to note that there are inherent limitations in exercise of the power of judicial review of contractual transactions by Government bodies. As held in TATA CELLULAR v. UNION OF INDIA ( AIR 1996 SC 11 ) the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies primarily in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. As held in TATA CELLULAR v. UNION OF INDIA ( AIR 1996 SC 11 ) the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies primarily in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. It was reiterated in ASIA FOUNDATION AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v. TRAFALGAR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ( (1997) 1 SCC 738 ) that the judicial review of contractual transactions by Government bodies is permissible to prevent arbitrariness, favouritism or use of power of collateral purposes. It was further made clear in RAUNAQ INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. IVR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND OTHERS ( AIR 1999 SC 393 ) that the Court must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining a writ petition challenging the award of a contract by a public authority. In TATA CELLULAR’S case (2 supra) while enumerating the principles with regard to scope of judicial review of administrative decisions and exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies, it was held that the terms of the Invitation to Tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the Invitation to Tender is in the realm of the contract. It was also observed that the State or its instrumentalities can choose their own terms of invitation to tender and that the right to choose cannot be considered as an arbitrary power. 27. In the light of the settled legal position noticed above, I do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners that Conditions 11 & 12 of the impugned tender notice are arbitrary and irrational. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the benefit under Conditions 11 & 12 is available to all intending tenderers alike and it is not as if the petitioners are denied of the said benefit. It is also relevant to note that the additional quantities are allotted by T.T.D. at the highest quoted rate by the tenderers and therefore no prejudice can be said to have been caused either to T.T.D. or to the petitioners or any other intending bidder. In fact the same procedure was followed in the previous tenders and some of the writ petitioners had admittedly participated and availed the benefit of additional quantities. In fact the same procedure was followed in the previous tenders and some of the writ petitioners had admittedly participated and availed the benefit of additional quantities. Hence Conditions 11 & 12 which cannot be held to be arbitrary or irrational or without any nexus with the object sought to be achieved, particularly in the absence of any material to infer any mala fide design on the part of T.T.D. to eliminate the petitioners herein do not warrant judicial interference. Question No.4: 28. It is to be noticed that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 97 read with Section 153 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘Endowments Act, 1987’), Rules were made under G.O.Ms.No.311, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, dated 9.4.1990, providing for the powers and functions of T.T.D. Board. Chapter-XVI of the said Rules deals with sale of movable properties. Rules 116 to 118-A which are relevant for the purpose of the present writ petitions read as under: “(116.) All sales of movables properties other than perishable belonging to the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams shall be made by public auction held either at Tirupathi or Tirumala or at the place of the temple or institution of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams or at the place where the properties are situated. (117.) The Executive Officer or any other officer authorized by him shall decide the terms and conditions of the sale such as the division of the properties into lots. The amount of initial deposits to be made by the bidders, the place, date and hour of sale, the security to be furnished by the highest bidder and the period within which the sale of price is to be paid. (118.) A copy of the sale notice shall be published not less than seven days before the date fixed for sale : (a) By affixture :- (i) on the notice board or on of the front door of the institution of endowments concerned and on the front door of the village Chavadi or in some conspicuous public place in the locality where the properties proposed to be sold are situated and at the place fixed for sale; and (ii) on the notice board of the Office of the Executive Officer. (b) by publication in the language of the locality in one or tow of the local daily newspapers; if the expected sale proceeds exceed Rs.10,000/-; and (c) by beat of tom-tom in the locality where the properties proposed to be sold are situated and at the place fixed for sale. (118-A.) (1) Every sale of movable property shall be confined by the Executive Officer, if, however the amount involved is more than Rs.One lakh per lot such sale shall be confirmed by the Board of Trustees. (2) If within one month from the date of sale, no order confirming the sale is received by the purchaser, the sale shall be deemed to have been confirmed. (3) If for any reason the sale is not confirmed by the Executive Officer or the Board of Trustees as the case may be, a fresh sale shall be conducted after following the procedure prescribed above.” 29. On a reading of the above provisions, it is clear that all sales of movable properties shall be by public auction and the Executive Officer or any other officer authorized by him shall decide the terms & conditions of sale including the amount of initial deposits to be made by the bidders, the security to be furnished by the highest bidder and the period within which the sale of price is to be paid. It is also clear that the sale notice shall be published not less than seven days before the date fixed for sale. As per Rule 118-A(1), the Board of Trustees shall be the competent authority to confirm the sale of movable property where the amount involved is more than one lakh per lot; if it is less than one lakh the Executive Officer is the competent authority. Rule 118-A(2) further made it clear that if no order confirming the sale is received by the purchaser within one month from the date of sale, the sale shall be deemed to have been confirmed. Admittedly the amount involved in the sale under both the Tender Notices dated 31.01.2011 and 23.03.2011 is more than Rs.1 Lakh, and as such the Board of Trustees is the competent authority to confirm the sales. 30. Admittedly the amount involved in the sale under both the Tender Notices dated 31.01.2011 and 23.03.2011 is more than Rs.1 Lakh, and as such the Board of Trustees is the competent authority to confirm the sales. 30. The term of the Board of Trustees of T.T.D. which was constituted vide G.O.Ms.No.1057, dated 25.08.2008, expired on 24.08.2010 and therefore in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 137 of the Endowments Act, 1987, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.904, Revenue (Endts.III) Department, dated 25.08.2010 appointing the Specified Authority comprising three members for a period of one year or till the constitution of Trust Board whichever is earlier. The Specified Authority so constituted was discharging the powers of the Board of Trustees by the date of issuance of the Tender Notices, dated 31.01.2011 and 23.03.2011. Therefore the Specified Authority is the competent authority for confirmation of the sales under the above said tender notices. 31. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the decision for reduction of EMD from 20% to 2.5% of the upset price for the tender quantities was not that of the Specified Authority and therefore the same ought not to have been inserted in the terms and conditions of the impugned Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011. While pointing out that the said decision was taken by the Negotiations Committee in the meeting held on 18.03.2011 under the Chairmanship of V. Nagi Reddy, who is only a member of the Specified Authority, Sri E. Manohar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.9838 of 2011 vehemently contended that in the absence of the approval by the Specified Authority the said decision taken in the meeting dated 18.03.2011 is not legal and valid. 32. A reading of Rule 117 of the Rules shows that the Executive Officer alone is the competent authority to decide the terms and conditions of the sale, the amount of initial deposits to be made by the bidders, the security to be furnished by the highest bidder and etc. The Specified Authority which has been discharging the powers of the Board of Trustees is the competent authority only for the purpose of confirmation of sale where the amount involved is more than one lakh per lot as provided under Rule 118-A(1). The Specified Authority which has been discharging the powers of the Board of Trustees is the competent authority only for the purpose of confirmation of sale where the amount involved is more than one lakh per lot as provided under Rule 118-A(1). So far as the terms and conditions of sale are concerned, it is the Executive Officer who is competent to decide and the Specified Authority has nothing to do with the same. 33. The record placed before this Court by the learned counsel for T.T.D. reveals that the decision of the Negotiations Committee in the meeting held on 18.03.2011 to collect the EMD at the rate of 2.5% instead of 20% was placed before the Executive Officer for orders and the same was approved by the Executive Officer on 22.03.2011. Hence the insertion of the said condition in the impugned Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011 cannot be found fault with. 34. The next contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that there was no valid confirmation of sale of tender quantities in respect of the successful bidders and therefore the allotment of tender quantities by allotment letters dated 7.4.2011 is illegal. It is alleged by the petitioners that the recommendations of the Negotiations Committee in the meeting held on 31.03.2011 for allotment of the tender quantities for each variety as approved by the Executive Officer was ratified by Resolution No.384, dated 13.04.2011 by the Chairman alone but not by all the members of the Specified Authority. 35. A perusal of the original record placed before this Court by the learned counsel for T.T.D., shows that the above allegation is unfounded. The record reveals that the matter was placed before the Specified Authority for ratification of the action taken by the Executive Officer in having ordered to allot the quantities recommended by the Negotiations Committee to the successful bidders and the same was ratified vide Resolution No.384, dated 13.04.2011 which contained the signatures of all the three members of the Specified Authority. 36. 36. The record also shows that the minutes of the Negotiations Committee dated 31.03.2011 recommending allotment of the tender quantities to the successful bidders at the rate agreed were placed before the Executive Officer seeking permission to dispose of the human hair as recommended by the Negotiations Committee pending approval of the Specified Authority since the meeting of the Specified Authority proposed on 6.4.2011 was cancelled and the date of next meeting was not fixed. Having considered the same, the Executive Officer accorded approval with a direction to obtain ratification of the Specified Authority. Basing on the said note order of the Executive Officer, dated 6.4.2011, the allotment letters dated 7.4.2011 were issued to all the successful bidders. Subsequently, the action of the Executive Officer was ratified by the Specified Authority by Resolution No.384, dated 13.04.2011. 37. From the above it is clear that there was valid confirmation and therefore the tender process and the sale of tender quantities, cannot be held to be vitiated by any legal infirmity. Question No.5: 38. Coming to the additional quantities, as noticed above, Condition-11 of the impugned Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011 enabled T.T.D. to sell additional quantities in addition to the tender quantities, to the tenderers that have taken part in the tender on a written request made by them at the rates approved by T.T.D. However, as per Condition-12 the tenderers are required to pay 20% cost of the additional quantity as deposit on the price quoted by them within seven days from the date of requisition failing which the request for such allotment shall be cancelled and the firm shall be blacklisted for a period of five years. It is also necessary for the bidders who sought allotment of additional quantities to pay balance 80% cost for such additional quantity within 30 days from the date of confirmation orders failing which 20% amount already paid shall be forfeited. 39. In the instant case, the respondents 5 to 10 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011 who are arrayed as the respondents 2 to 7 in W.P.No.9838 of 2011 had requested for allotment of additional quantities in terms of Condition No.11 and the same was accepted by the Negotiations Committee after opening the tenders on 31.03.2011. Thus they were obligated to pay 20% cost of the additional quantity as deposit within seven days from 31.03.2011. Thus they were obligated to pay 20% cost of the additional quantity as deposit within seven days from 31.03.2011. However they had admittedly paid only 2.5% cost of additional quantity as deposit instead of 20%. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the allotment of the additional quantities in favour of the respondents 5 to 10 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011 (respondents 2 to 7 in W.P.No.9838 of 2011) shall be cancelled and they shall be blacklisted for a period of five years. 40. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of T.T.D., it is explained that during the course of negotiations on 31.03.2011 the tenderers made a request for reduction of EMD on the cost of the additional quantity from 20% to 2.5% as was done in the case of tender quantities. The said request was considered and the Negotiations committee agreed to reduce the EMD on the additional quantity subject to approval of the competent authority. Subsequently the decisions taken by the Negotiations Committee were placed before the Specified Authority and the same were ratified by Resolution No.384, dated 13.04.2011. In view of the said decision of the Specified Authority to reduce the EMD amount from 20% to 2.5%, the successful tenderers paid the reduced EMD amounts within the stipulated time. Thus it is contended that the allotment of additional quantities was properly made and the question of cancelling the said allotment of additional quantities and blacklisting the allottees did not arise. 41. The above said action of the T.T.D. in accepting 2.5% cost of the additional quantities as EMD has been assailed by the petitioners firstly on the ground that the Negotiations Committee has no power or authority to reduce the EMD and secondly that the reduction of EMD after opening the tenders during the course of negotiations is impermissible under law. 42. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision in K. MANJUSREE v. STATE OF A.P. ( (2008) 3 SCC 512 ) wherein it was held by the Supreme Court that introduction of requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. The same principle has been reiterated in STATE OF ORISSA v. MAMATA MOHANTY ( (2011) 3 SCC 436 ). 43. The same principle has been reiterated in STATE OF ORISSA v. MAMATA MOHANTY ( (2011) 3 SCC 436 ). 43. The said contention has been rebutted by Sri Challa Sitharamaiah the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.6 in W.P.No.9838 of 2011, and respondent No.7 in W.P.No.9860 of 2011 by relying upon the decision in G.J. FERNANDEZ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA ( (1990) 2 SCC 488 ). It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel that in view of Rule 117 of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.311, dated 09.04.1990, which gives power to the Executive Officer to change the terms and conditions, the respondents were justified in reducing the EMD for additional quantity. 44. Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, the learned Standing Counsel for T.T.D. while submitting that the petitioners cannot challenge the reduction of EMD for the additional quantity since they did not ask for additional quantity, contended that as the decision of the Negotiations Committee was ratified by the Specified Authority by Resolution dated 13.04.2011, the reduction of EMD for the additional quantity cannot be questioned on any ground whatsoever. 45. Admittedly as per Condition No.12 of the impugned Short Tender Notice dated 23.03.2011, it is mandatory to pay 20% cost of additional quantity as deposit on the price quoted by the tenderers. The said condition was relaxed on 31.03.2011 after the tenders were opened by reducing the deposit for additional quantity from 20% to 2.5%. 46. Though the said decision was initially taken by the Negotiations Committee, the minutes of the meeting dated 31.03.2011 shows that the said decision was subject to approval by the competent authority and such approval was subsequently approved by the Executive Officer and the same was also ratified by the Specified Authority by Resolution dated 13.04.2011. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention that the decision taken for reducing the EMD for additional quantities was without jurisdiction. 47. Coming to the question whether the reduction of EMD from 20% to 2.5% which amounted to relaxation of Condition No.12 after opening the tenders is legally permissible, as held in G.J. FERNANDEZ’S case (7 supra) the law is well settled that the party issuing the tender can deviate from conditions and stipulations in a tender notice, however such deviation should not result in arbitrariness or discrimination. It was also held in the said decision that the Court would interfere where the non-conformity with or relaxation from the prescribed standards resulted in some substantial prejudice or injustice to any of the parties involved or to public interest in general. 48. As per Condition No.11 of the tender conditions the remaining tender quantity of all varieties of human hair can be allotted to the tenderers whoever taken part in the tender as per the request made them at the rates approved by T.T.D. Thus it was made clear in the tender notice itself that there is possibility of allotment of additional quantities to the persons participated in the tender process. The petitioners are very well aware of the fact that the persons who participated in the tender process quoting their price for the tender quantities alone will be entitled to make a request for allotment of the additional quantities. Despite the same, they did not choose to participate in the tender process and as such they are not eligible to make any claim for additional quantities. Since they cannot be placed on par with the persons who submitted their bids for tender quantities and thus became eligible for allotment of additional quantities, the question of discrimination or arbitrariness does not arise at all. Consequently it cannot be said that any prejudice or injustice has been caused to them by reducing the EMD for additional quantities. 49. It is also relevant to note that the relaxation of Condition No.12 by reducing the EMD for additional quantities has been extended to all the tenderers who made a request for additional quantities and it is not as if the T.T.D. had shown favouritism in favour of any particular tenderer. Therefore the action of T.T.D. in reducing the EMD for additional quantities after opening tenders cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is satisfied that the action of T.T.D. in relaxing Condition No.12 is only for the purpose of ensuring sale of large quantities of human hair at the best price available. Moreover no allegations are made in any of the writ petitions attributingmala fides to the officials of T.T.D. and no element of public interest is involved warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 50. Moreover no allegations are made in any of the writ petitions attributingmala fides to the officials of T.T.D. and no element of public interest is involved warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 50. In K. MANJUSREE’S case (5 supra) the Court was dealing with a case where minimum qualifying marks for interview were introduced for recruitment to the post of District & Sessions Judge Gr.II after the interviews were over. The said action was held to be bad by the Supreme Court on the ground that the introduction of requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is clearly impermissible. The ratio laid down in the said decision cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the settled law that there is no absolute bar as such from deviating the tender specifications. 51. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned allotment of additional quantities cannot be held to be illegal on any ground whatsoever. 52. So far as the contention of the petitioners that the action of T.T.D. in forfeiting the EMD amounts of the petitioners pursuant to the tender notice dated 31.01.2011 is arbitrary and illegal is concerned, it is brought to my notice that the decision of the T.T.D. was communicated to all the petitioners by order dated 15.04.2011 and challenging the same some of the petitioners filed writ petitions and the same are pending. Hence it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion as to the validity of the forfeiture of the deposits made by the petitioners pursuant to the tender notice dated 31.01.2011. 53. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.