Judgment :- This Court on 09.3.2012 has passed the following order:- Petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for issuance of writ, in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order rejecting the auction proceedings in favour of the petitioner. 2. The Housing Board had invited tenders for sale of commercial plots. The petitioner submitted his tender, and as per the terms of the tender the reserve price of the commercial plots were fixed at Rs.52,69,000/-(Rupees Fifty two lakhs sixty nine thousand only). 3. The petitioner gave a bid of Rs.60,70,000/-(Rupees Sixty lakhs seventy thousand only), which was highest bid. The petitioner on demand deposited Rs.17,00,850/-(Rupees Seventeen lakhs and eight hundred and fifty only) as per terms and conditions of the auction. 4. The case of the petitioner is that after six months of the auction, the impugned order, has been passed rejecting the auction and refunding the amount deposited by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, on the ground that impugned order is violation of Tamilnadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. Section 10 of the Act reads as under: 10. Evaluation and acceptance of tender:-(1) The Tender Accepting Authority shall cause an objective evaluation of the tenders taking into consideration the schedule of rates as mentioned in the tender document and the prevailing market rate for procurement and comparison of the tenders in accordance with the procedure and criteria specified in the tender document. (2) After evaluation and comparison of tenders as specified in sub-section (1), the Tender Accepting Authority shall accept the lowest tender ascertained on the basis of objective and quantifiable factors specified in the tender document and giving relative weights among them. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that in view of the Section 10 of the Act, it is duty of the authority to accept the tender in terms of Section 10(2), the impugned order being contrary to Act cannot be sustained in Law. 6. This contention of the face of it is misconceived. The Act is applicable only to Government auction, and not to the auction by the Tamilnadu Housing Board. 7. It is clear from the words used under Section 10(2), that the lowest tender to be accepted. 8. 6. This contention of the face of it is misconceived. The Act is applicable only to Government auction, and not to the auction by the Tamilnadu Housing Board. 7. It is clear from the words used under Section 10(2), that the lowest tender to be accepted. 8. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order is without jurisdiction as according to the terms of the tender, it was the confirmation committee which was take to final decision, where as in this case decision has been taken by the Board, which was not competent to reject or accept the tender. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand referred to para 5 of the counter, to contend that the impugned order is merely for refund of amount deposited in view of the decision by confirmation committe to cancel the tender in favour of the petitioner. 10. The actual decision to reject the tender was taken by the confirmation committee, and not by the Board. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of the cancellation of tender place reliance of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this court, in W.A.No.854 of 2007, The Executive Engineer & ADO (I/C) and another vs. The E.Easu. 12. However in view of the fact that in para 3 in the counter, it has been mentioned that the decision was taken by the Board, it becomes necessary to summon the file showing the consideration of the tender by the confirmation committee. 13. Adjourned to 15.03.2012. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to produce the original file showing consideration of tender by confirmation committee. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record the proceeding of the sale confirmation committee held on 06.6.2011, which shows that the offer of the petitioner was rejected. 3. The finding of the Committee reads as under: 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the decision of the sale committee is arbitrary, as it was not open to the respondents to reject the offer as offer being over and above the reserve price, fixed by the respondent. 5. Further more all the procedure in accordance with law was followed, therefore, rejection of the tender is totally arbitrary, thus not sustainable in law. 6. 5. Further more all the procedure in accordance with law was followed, therefore, rejection of the tender is totally arbitrary, thus not sustainable in law. 6. It is not in dispute that, as per the terms of the tender, the respondent reserved absolute right to reject the tender without assigning any reason. 7. Admittedly, tender was not confirmed in favour of the petitioner, as in terms of the auction it was required to be confirmed by the Committee, which did not approve. 8. Therefore, in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.854 of 2007 in the case of The Executive Engineer and ADO (I/C) and another vs. Basu, no interference is called for with the order rejecting the tender. 9. No merit. Dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.