ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court who is a dealer of Heavy Duty Earth Movers which are being manufactured by a particular Company, has filed present petition being aggrieved by tender issued by Ratlam Municipal Corporation dated 19.11.2016 and 27.1.2017 issued for procurement of Tendem Vibratory Roller, capacity 9 Ton. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that in the tender, the respondents have specified the name of the Company in order to favour a particular Company namely Escort and Volvo Company and there are better Companies doing business in India manufacturing the same machine to be more specific JCB India Ltd. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that in the NIT, mentioning of specific Company resulted in procurement of machines only from one particular Company and the same has been done only to favour two particular Companies as mentioned in the NIT. A prayer has been made for quashment of NIT and to issue fresh NIT permitting all Companies/dealers to participate in the NIT. 4. A reply has been filed in the matter and the stand of the respondent- Corporation is that in order to purchase better product, they have named particular Companies in the NIT and earlier also they have floated tender in respect of some machines and could not get competent rate in the market and therefore, Tender No.1919/2016, 26822 was cancelled. The respondents have stated that by mentioning a one particular Company, they have not committed any error and in light of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2012)8 SCC 216 , the petition deserves to be dismissed as the apex Court in the aforesaid case has held that authority issuing the tender should be given latitude and should have a free hand in determining the terms of a tender and no one can force an issuing authority to consider the claim of a particular person/Company and to do business with it. 5. This Court has carefully gone through the impugned NIT and the judgment delivered by the apex Court on the subject. It is true that the authority issuing tender has got every right to frame terms and conditions of the “Notice Inviting Tender” but the issuing authority does not have a power to single out a particular Company or to favour a particular Company/particular Companies. It is true that the authority issuing tender has got every right to frame terms and conditions of the “Notice Inviting Tender” but the issuing authority does not have a power to single out a particular Company or to favour a particular Company/particular Companies. 6. The authority issuing tender can certainly specify specifications of machines but they cannot specify that they want machines from a particular Company. The judgment delivered by the apex Court is distinguishable on the subject. In the NIT, names of specific Companies were mentioned and the petitioner is also a dealer of a Company of international repute. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court. Resultantly, the NIT issued by the respondent- Corporation dated 19.11.2016 and 27.1.2017 are hereby quashed. However, the respondents-Corporation shall be free to issue fresh tender without restricting it to a particular Company or to particular Companies. 8. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed. Satish Tomar for petitioner; Tarun Kushwaha for respondents.