JUDGMENT : Jayant M. Patel, J. 1. The petitioner by this petition is seeking appropriate writ to declare the work order for doing work of collection and transportation of solid waste in east zone of the city of Vadodara issued by the respondent No. 4-Corporation as illegal and arbitrary. Second prayer made by the petitioner is that the respondent-Corporation be directed to issue work order for doing the work of collection and transportation of solid waste in east and north zone of city of Vadodara to the petitioner in capacity as L1. We have heard Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Niral Mehta, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. As such, following aspects have transpired from the record: "(A) The tenders were invited by the respondent-Corporation pursuant to the notice dated 16-8-2013 for collection of solid waste from door/gate by closed body vehicles and transportation and disposal of the same at identified site. Such tenders were invited per zone. Condition No. 1 of the said tender document also provided that tender/offer should be submitted separately for each zone. (B) The interested party including the petitioner herein submitted tender for respective zone. But the relevant aspect is that the petitioner submitted offer for more than one zone. It is true that one of other tenderers, M/s. P. Gopinath Reddy as well as Swachhata Corporation also submitted tenders for more than one zone. (C) At the time when the tenders were considered, the Corporation decided that offer could be accepted of the tenderers for a particular zone only i.e. one zone and not more than one zone. Ultimately, the decision was taken to accept the offer of the petitioner for south zone at Rs. 950/- per M.T. but the offer of the petitioner per M.T. in respect of other offer submitted by the petitioner for south zone was not considered. (D) As per the respondent, since the interim arrangement was to be made, the respondent No. 4 was allowed to continue with the collection of solid waste at the earlier rate prevailing so far as east zone is concerned." 3. Under the circumstances, the petitioner approached to this Court seeking aforesaid relief. 4. (D) As per the respondent, since the interim arrangement was to be made, the respondent No. 4 was allowed to continue with the collection of solid waste at the earlier rate prevailing so far as east zone is concerned." 3. Under the circumstances, the petitioner approached to this Court seeking aforesaid relief. 4. At the outset, we may record that the work assigned to the respondent No. 4 for east zone, pending petition no more has continued and the said aspect is admitted by both sides. Therefore, the relief prayed by the petitioner to that extent can be said as having become infructuous by efflux of time. 5. Only prayer which may be required to be considered now is as to whether the directions deserves to be issued to issue work order for collection and transportation of solid waste for east and north zone to the petitioner or not. 6. It is hardly required to be stated that the tenderer, who submitted the offer, has no vested right to get tender but has right for fair consideration of his tender. If any arbitrariness arises in consideration of the tender, the Court may exercise the power of the judicial review but in case, where the fair consideration is made without making any departure from the material condition of the tender, such would not be interfered with by this Court. On the aspect of alteration of the material condition, if altered, consequence may arise to invite fresh tender unless there is allegation that alteration in the material condition is with mala fide purpose or to create a situation that a particular tenderer's offer is accepted or a particular tenderer is sought to be kept outside the zone of consideration. At this stage, we may also refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Maa Binada Express Carrier v. North East Frontier Railway, reported in 2014 (3) SCC 760 and more particularly the observation made by the Apex Court at Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9, which reads as under: "8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contract by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by along line of decisions of this Court. 8 and 9, which reads as under: "8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contract by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by along line of decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly recognize that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invite dare not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor-made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So also the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process. 9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of contracts, the Government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at all points of time. To that extent, the tenderer has an enforceable right in the Court who is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. (See : Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies, 2009 (6) SCC 171 and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., 2000 (1) SCR 505)." 7. (See : Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies, 2009 (6) SCC 171 and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., 2000 (1) SCR 505)." 7. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined in light of the aforesaid legal position under the scope and ambit of judicial review, only aspects which may be required to be considered by the Court in the present matter is whether the decision taken by the Corporation for acceptance of the offer of the tenderer for only one zone could be said as arbitrary or not. 8. The reasons recorded in the decision of the respondent-Corporation shows that the decision has been taken in order to see that one contractor may be permitted to render services effectively. Such rational, if considered, cannot be said to be on extraneous aspect nor it can be said that the decision would be arbitrary. The aforesaid aspect needs to be considered keeping in view that the tenderer cannot assert as a right that his tender must be accepted. 9. On the aspect of consideration of the tender of the petitioner, it may be recorded that when the impugned decision was taken, one of the offers of the petitioner for acceptance of the tender for a particular zone was also accepted. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner by an implied conduct accepted such conditions and accepted the decision of the authority for acceptance of his tender for one zone only and it is also undisputed position that based on such decision, contract is awarded to the petitioner and the petitioner as on today is performing such contract. 10. The attempt to contend that additional disqualification is added by subsequent decision of the Corporation when one contractor has given tender for more than one zone cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that it is not a matter pertaining to disqualification, but the matter is rather pertaining to consideration of the tender. It is not a matter where the case of the petitioner was also not considered in a fair manner with the other tenderer. But it appears that rather in public interest, the Corporation decided to consider the tender of the contractor for one zone only. It is not a matter where the case of the petitioner was also not considered in a fair manner with the other tenderer. But it appears that rather in public interest, the Corporation decided to consider the tender of the contractor for one zone only. When fair consideration of the tender/offer submitted by the petitioner is already made and there is no discriminatory approach, the decision cannot be said as arbitrary or unreasonable. 11. In any case, as observed by us hereinabove, no vested right can be said to have been created merely because the tender is submitted for the purpose of acceptance of the tender. When the consideration of the tender of the petitioner is not in any unfair or unreasonable manner, we do not find that the interference would be called for. The aforesaid aspect is coupled with the fact that after having considered the tender of all the contractors, so far as east zone is concerned, for which the petitioner is asserting right, the statement has been made by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that the policy decision is taken that the tender for east zone shall be re-advertised and thereafter, the decision shall be taken. Hence, it cannot be said that the decision to re-advertise would not meet with the test of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the relief as prayed for by the petitioner for directing the respondent to offer work order cannot be granted. 13. Hence, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.