Judgment 1. The prayer in the Writ Petitionis for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the entire records relating to the auction cum tender notification issued by the respondent dated 09.01.2015 in Na.Ka.No.2198/2014/C2 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent herein to conduct auction alone after following all the procedures contemplated under law. 2. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The petitioner alleges that he is one of the participants in the tender in question. According to him, if tender-cum-auction is called for, it is the violation of the rules and regulations. Further, he would contend that this Court has already directed the respondent to conduct auction alone in W.P.(MD).No.2065 of 2012. In this connection, he would also rely upon a Division Bench judgment made in W.A.Nos.1489 and 1490 of 2003 dated 19.02.2008. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief stated supra. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that notification was issued on 09.01.2015 and the publication was made in the news paper on 19.01.2015. Therefore, he has come before this Court at the eleventh hour. He being one of the participants and well aware of the procedures, if at all he is aggrieved, he should approach this Court with clean hands in time. Further, there are more than seven items are mentioned in the notification dated 09.01.2015. He does not state in the affidavit that for which item he would participate in the auction. Therefore, according to the respondent, he is only a set up party with a view to drag on the proceedings in some way or the other. In this connection, he drew the attention of this Court that in respect of the very same issue, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition in W.P.(MD).No.1490 of 2009 by following the Supreme Court order in Air India Ltd Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd, ( 2000 (2) SCC 617 ). Eventually, he would content that in order to fetch more revenue for the Government and in the interest of public at large, the tender-cum-auction is indented for, which cannot be found fault by the petitioner by citing some reason or the other. 5. Cochin International Airport Ltd, ( 2000 (2) SCC 617 ). Eventually, he would content that in order to fetch more revenue for the Government and in the interest of public at large, the tender-cum-auction is indented for, which cannot be found fault by the petitioner by citing some reason or the other. 5. Without going into the merits or otherwise, first of all, this Writ Petition has to be dismissed in limine for the simple reason that the petitioner has not even stated in the affidavit to which item he is going to participate in the auction. Secondly, when the notification is issued as early as 09.01.2015 and the publication is made on 19.01.2015, what prevented the petitioner from approaching this Court well in time?. Thirdly, in respect of the very same issue, this Court has already rejected the request of the petitioner in W.P.(MD).No.1490 of 2009 dated 22.04.2009 by following the Supreme Court cited judgment. 6. In view of the fact that there is no bona fide on the part of the petitioner and also in view of the fact that he approaches at the last minute to circumvent the very tender process itself, this Writ Petition is dismissed only on the ground of laches. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition Nos.1&2 are closed.