Judgment 1. The petitioners are Cable TV Operators. Pursuant to the tender floated by the 1st respondent Tamil Nadu Arasu Cable TV Corporation vide their Notification dated 30.04.2012, the petitioners also submitted their bid. As per the Re-tender-cum-Auction Notice issued by the 1st respondent Corporation relating to Tiruvarur District, even out of Thiruvarur District, separate Towns are given and the petitioner was interested in Mannargudi Town and in respect of Mannargudi, the upset price was fixed at Rs.10,400/- and the number of channels available were six. 2. It is the admitted case that the petitioners went for the auction held by the Corporation and they were unable to match with the other bidders. The petitioners remained silent and did not quote any higher figure. Subsequently, on the scrutiny of all the applications, four persons were selected. 3. The contention raised by the petitioners was that the procedure conducted by the 1st respondent Cable TV Corporation was illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998. It must be noted that under Section 10(3) of the Act, if the Tender Accepting Authority decides that the price of the lowest tender is higher with reference to the prevailing market rate or the schedule of rates, he may negotiate for a reduction of price with that tenderer. The same thing was also set out in the Tender Notice in Paragraph No.2.11. It is stated that if the number of bidders willing to match the highest price during auction is more than the available vacant channels, the allotment will be made on lot system. The highest quoted price during the auction will be fixed as the price for all the channels and the other bidders willing to match this price will be allotted one channel each. 4. It is contended by the petitioners that the persons who submitted the tender forms were not qualified and in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit, he gave instances of certain persons including one Shaik Mohamed of Asian Cable Net Work. The petitioners stated that he did not have the experience certificate. Admittedly the said person was not selected for awarding of the contract. Though Mr.N.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very presence of the ineligible persons will vitiate the process, on that ground no attack can be made. The petitioners stated that he did not have the experience certificate. Admittedly the said person was not selected for awarding of the contract. Though Mr.N.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very presence of the ineligible persons will vitiate the process, on that ground no attack can be made. On the other hand in respect of the allegations made by the petitioner that some persons not submitted appropriate certificate, such allegation was denied in paragraph NO.20 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent. 5. The Writ filed in the nature of prohibition is clearly not maintainable as the issue is relating to the selection of the tenderers on the basis of re-tender Notice issued and it is not the case of the petitioners whether the 1st respondent do not have any power to award contract in respect of highest bidder. It is not clear as to how such a Writ Petition is filed. Even if there are any discrepancies or any illegalities, under Section 11 of the above Act, an appeal is provided for the aggrieved tenderer. The petitioners have also not chosen to file any statutory appeal provided under the Act. On the other hand in paragraph NO.7 of the affidavit, he himself stated that tender bids have been made with far excessive amount, which are impractical and non-profitable. It is the ground which the petitioner cannot raise. It is the person who bid for the auction has to consider when they were bidding for highest price in respect of the channel. This Court do not find any case is made out to entertain the Writ Petition. The allegations made are vague and it is not contended that the selected persons were not highest price bidders in the bid floated by the first respondent Corporation. Hence, the Writ Petition is misconceived and bereft of legal reasoning and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.