Judgment Harish Tandon, J. The challenge to Notice Inviting Tender published on October 17, 2012 is made in this writ petition on a solitary point that by virtue of Government Notification dated June 25, 2012, all tenders having value of Rs.50 Lakhs and above is required to be published in a Centralized Etender Portal in addition to the publication in print media. The Respondent No.1 published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) for dredging the river “Muriganga” and “Kachuberia” before the Ganga Sagar Mela, 2013 where the estimated value of the work was shown at Rs.779/- Lakhs in daily newspaper ‘Statesman’ and ‘Pratidin’ on 19th October, 2012. The said NIT further provides that the application can be made by an offerer on/or before 31st October, 2012 when the tender document shall be handed over on November 2, 2012 and the last date for receiving the tender was fixed on November 6, 2012. The petitioner made an application on/or before the specified date for the tender document as indicated in the NIT. The tender committee on scrutiny found that out of six applicants, four applicants have qualified with credential certificate and thereby rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the action of the tender committee rejecting an application filed by the petitioner on the plea that the entire tender process is vitiated as the respondent no.1 has not published in a tender portal. At the time of admitting the writ petition, this Court did not pass any interim order and directed the parties to exchange affidavits. It would appear from the order dated 5th November, 2012 passed in this writ petition that a stand was taken by the State- Respondent that the Notification dated June 25, 2012 does not apply to the present tender. Such stand having taken, the Court refuses to pass an interim order. The petitioner now submits that the respondent authorities have taken a stand diametrically opposite to, what was taken on November 5, 2012. According to the respondents, though the aforesaid notification provides that it is mandatory on the part of the Government Department/Autonomous/Corporation/Public Sector Units to publish the tender inviting notice on E-tender Portal, if the value of the tender is Rs. According to the respondents, though the aforesaid notification provides that it is mandatory on the part of the Government Department/Autonomous/Corporation/Public Sector Units to publish the tender inviting notice on E-tender Portal, if the value of the tender is Rs. 50 Lakhs or above, but the said directive was to take effect from July 9, 2012 before which the various wings of the Government are required to get the digital signature certificate which is one of the prerequisite condition for E-tendering from National Informatic Centre (NIC-CA). The respondent further says that for obtaining the digital signature certificate, various formalities are required to be completed which takes longer time and to mitigates the emergent situation, a memorandum dated 1st August, 2012 by the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal is issued to seek for an exemption from publishing on the E-tender Portal. The department says that since the removal of silt to improve the navigability of river “Muriganga” before Ganga Sagar Mela, 2013, was to be done on emergent basis, the post facto approval for exemption was sought. From the respective stands of the parties, it is abundantly clear that the NIT is required to be published in an E-tender Portal in the event, the valued of the work is shown at Rs.50 Lakhs and above in addition to the publication in print media. The respondent themselves have admitted that all NITs, after the present one, having a value of more than 50 Lakhs, are being published in the E-tender Portal in addition to the print media. Indisputably the said notification dated June 25, 2012 is not followed by the respondent authorities while publishing the NIT in the print media only. Mr. Mainak Bose, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently submits that the entire tender process should be scrapped and/or declared null and void. In view of an admitted stand of the respondent authorities, I do not think that any further time should be invested on the issue whether the said notification dated June 25, 2012 are to be strictly adhere to or not but the only point which is required to be considered it, what relief could be given to the petitioner after the completion of a time bound project. The respondent authorities have tried to offer an explanation for non-adherence the mandatory requirement of publication in the E-tender Portal. The respondent authorities have tried to offer an explanation for non-adherence the mandatory requirement of publication in the E-tender Portal. The respondent says that an application was made for obtaining the digital signature certificate from the NIC which they did not receive before a decision was taken to invite the tender for the aforesaid emergent work. The clarifactory memorandum dated 1st August, 2012 which permits the exemption from publishing in E-tender Portal was communicated belatedly and actually received on September 20, 2012. The department subsequently approached to obtain the post facto exemption and it would further appear that the post facto approval was sought on December 6, 2012, though the communication was made relating to an exemption on September 20, 2012. There is no explanation forthcoming between the period when the NIT was published in the daily newspaper till its finalization as to what step was taken seeking an exemption, which came to the knowledge of the respondent authorities on September 20, 2012. This Court have no hesitation to say that there has been a gross lapses negligence on the part of the respondent authorities in not seeking an exemption before a decision to publish the NIT is made. The other point taken by the respondent authorities is also required to be dealt with. The respondent says that the petitioner participated in the tender process by making an application. After the application filed by the petitioner got rejected, the petitioner took a rebound and challenged the NIT on the plea that Publication is not made in an Etender Portal. Admittedly the petitioner participated in the tender process and it is only after his application is rejected, he approached this Court challenging the entire tender process. A person who voluntarily participated in the tender cannot turn around and say that the entire tender process is bad. The reference can be made to this judgment in case of Ramesh Chandra Shah –v- Anil Joshi reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 in this regard: “18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. 24. The reference can be made to this judgment in case of Ramesh Chandra Shah –v- Anil Joshi reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309 in this regard: “18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome. 24. In view of the propositions laid down in the abovenoted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents.” This Court, therefore, does not find that the petitioner is entitled to any reliefs claimed in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.