JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 20/08/2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 318 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Parishads and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 has been rejected. 2. The facts relevant for adjudicating the challenge as raised are that on 01/11/2014 a public advertisement was published in the matter calling e-tenders for various works by the respondent No.3 Municipal Council. As per clause-4 of the terms of the tender notice, various documents required to be filled along with the bid were specified. Said documents included original demand draft towards earnest amount, income tax returns for the year 2013-14 and sales tax registration certificate. Two bids were received pursuant to said tender notice. With regard to the bid submitted by one M/s Pokale Constructions, the petitioner raised an objection that instead of a demand draft for the earnest amount, a fixed deposit receipt had been submitted. Another objection was that the income tax returns for the year 2012-13 and sales tax certificate for the year 2012-13 had been submitted. The Chief Officer noticed that instead of a demand draft for the earnest amount, a fixed deposit receipt had been submitted and it was therefore opined that there was no due compliance with the terms of the tender. A reference was made to the Collector, Amravati by the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council on which the Collector expressed opinion that as there were other objections also, fresh tenders may be called. Thereafter on 17/07/2015, the Municipal Council passed a resolution for calling fresh tenders. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed revision petition under Section 318 of the said Act and by the impugned order, the same has been rejected. 3. Shri A. Parchure, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bid submitted on behalf of M/s Pokale Constructions could not have been opened in view of the fact that various conditions prescribed in the tender notice had not been complied with. He submitted that instead of a demand draft for the amount of earnest money deposit, a fixed deposit receipt had been submitted. Similarly the income tax return of the previous year and sale tax registration of the previous year were submitted. He submitted that instead of a demand draft for the amount of earnest money deposit, a fixed deposit receipt had been submitted. Similarly the income tax return of the previous year and sale tax registration of the previous year were submitted. He submitted that the fact that the bid submitted by said M/s Pokale Constructions was defective was also found by the Additional Commissioner in the impugned order but despite said finding, fresh tenders had been called. He referred to the observations made in the impugned order in that regard and submitted that on account of the unwarranted action of the Chief Officer of opening the bid of M/s Pokale Constructions, the petitioner could not be faulted. He placed reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in W. B. State Electricity Board Vs Patel Engineering Co. Ptd. and ors (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 451 and judgment of Division Bench in Royal Power Turnkey Implements Pvt. Ltd. Pimpri Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Mumbai and ors 2014(5) Mh. L. J. 399. 4. Shri S. Ahirkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Shri N. S. Bhelkar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 supported the impugned order. Shri Bhelkar, learned counsel submitted that after obtaining necessary legal opinion, it was found that a fixed deposit receipt could be taken into consideration instead of a demand draft. As even the Collector had opined regarding conducting fresh tender process, no fault can be found with the resolution passed by the Municipal Council for calling fresh bids. He placed reliance upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. National Highways Authority of India and ors 1997 Vol. 90 Company Cases 372 to urge that no interference was called for. 5. I have given due consideration to the respective submissions and I have gone through the documents filed on record. Perusal of the tender notice and especially condition No.4 thereof indicates that it was clearly stipulated that the original demand draft, income tax returns for the year 2013-14 and sales tax registration were necessary. It was further stated that the bid complete in all respects be submitted by 21/11/2014 failing which the bid would not be opened. Perusal of the tender notice and especially condition No.4 thereof indicates that it was clearly stipulated that the original demand draft, income tax returns for the year 2013-14 and sales tax registration were necessary. It was further stated that the bid complete in all respects be submitted by 21/11/2014 failing which the bid would not be opened. The documents submitted by M/s Pokale Constructions included a fixed deposit receipt instead of a demand draft for the amount of earnest money deposit, income tax returns for the year 2012-13 and sales tax registration for the year 2012-13. In the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner has given a clear finding that the technical bid of M/s Pokale Constructions was not as per the stipulated requirements and there were various shortcomings in the same. This finding of fact recorded by the Additional Commissioner is not under challenge. It is therefore obvious the bid of M/s Pokale Constructions was not liable to be opened in the wake of various defects in terms of the tender notice itself. 6. The question that deserves to be considered is having recorded said finding, whether the Additional Commissioner was justified in directing fresh tender process to be followed. The Division Bench in Royal Power Turnkey Implements Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that though no party has a right to enter into contract, the body calling the tenders cannot arbitrarily cancel the tender process and exclude the bidder remaining in the race for irrelevant considerations. In W. B. Electricity Board (supra) it has been observed that when the bid as submitted is not as per the tender notice, same is required to be ignored even if the bid submitted by such party is a lowest. The requirement of compliance with rules and conditions cannot be ignored. 7. In the light of aforesaid position therefore, the bid of the petitioner being the only one remaining in the fray, same was liable to be accepted. The action on the part of respondent No.3 of passing fresh resolution for holding another tender process despite noting various shortcomings in the bid submitted by M/s Pokale Constructions therefore cannot said to be in accordance with law. The decision relied upon in the case of Hindustan Construction Co. The action on the part of respondent No.3 of passing fresh resolution for holding another tender process despite noting various shortcomings in the bid submitted by M/s Pokale Constructions therefore cannot said to be in accordance with law. The decision relied upon in the case of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. (supra) does not support the case of the respondent No.3 as the Supreme Court in said case held that the action of awarding the contract was not vitiated. 8. The matter can be viewed from another angle in as much as condition No.4 of the tender notice contained various essential terms of the tender which could not have been ignored. They were not collateral terms that could have been dispensed with. As observed by the Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal Vs. Union of India 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 675 , if Non-fulfilment of a requirement results in rejection of a tender, said requirement would be an essential part of the tender. 9. In that view of the matter therefore, the Additional Commissioner was not justified in directing fresh tender process especially when said Authority had also found that the bid submitted by M/s Pokale Constructions to be defective. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the following order is passed : (i) Order dated 20/08/2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati in the revision petition is set aside. (ii) The revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (i) of the writ petition with no order as to costs.