Judgment 1. This Writ Petition has been filed on the short ground that inspite of the lowest price being offered by the petitioner, he was not awarded with the contract. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the participation in the tender, he was given a letter by the respondents stating that he has quoted the lesser prices and he was even asked to pay the necessary amount in this regard. Later on, the present impugned order has been passed stating that since he has not quoted in the tender schedule against column No.4, his offer was summarily rejected by them. According to the petitioner, there is total discrepancy in the process of the tender, which has to be looked into by this Court. 3. When the matter is taken-up for hearing, the learned Additional Government Pleader has produced the relevant original files in the case on hand. 4. After perusal of the files, it is clear that the petitioner has not filled up column No.4. Therefore, the very apprehension that his offer has not been considered, cannot be countenanced in law. The peculiar circumstances that has happened in this case is that the petitioner is S.Sundararaj. Unfortunately, the person who succeeded in the tender in question, his name also happens to be S.Sundararj. The authorities by mistake communicated the letter which is supposed addressed to the successful Sundaraj, was wrongly communicated to the petitioner. Since there was miscommunication, the petitioner has taken advantage over the wrong letter issued by the authorities. In fact, the successful Sundaraj has quoted the price lesser price than the estimate amount fixed by the authority. Therefore, rightly, the tender has been awarded to the successful Sundararaj. A perusal of the files would indicate that there three more Sundararj has quoted in this tender. In any event, soon after realizing the mistake committed by the respondents, a letter dated 29.01.2015 has been addressed to the petitioner about the wrong communication sent to him. 5. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents. In the name of Sundaraj, more than three persons were available and they had quoted the tender against the tender notice dated 19.01.2015, the confusion has taken place in this case. 5. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity committed by the respondents. In the name of Sundaraj, more than three persons were available and they had quoted the tender against the tender notice dated 19.01.2015, the confusion has taken place in this case. Therefore, The petitioner's offer was rightly rejected by the respondents, which cannot be found fault with, especially, he did not even fill up the tender form, as required by the respondents. 6. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.