JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J —The Petitioner Has Prayed For The Following Reliefs: "(a) That the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may be directed to consider and allow the technical bid of the petitioner and allow the petitioner to participate in the financial bid by opening the Financial Bid of the petitioner. (b) That the respondents be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the case before this Hon''ble Court for its kind perusal. (c) That any other relief as may be deemed just and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner." 2. We Have Heard The Learned Counsel For The Parties, As also perused the records so made available before us. 3. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Learned Senior Additional Advocate General invites our attention to Clause 4.A of the General Rules and Directions of the Tender Document uploaded by the Department, which reads as under: "4.A (applicable in offline mode to percentage rate tender only PWD7) in case of percentage rate tender, tenderer shall fill up the usual printed form stating at what percentage below/above (in figure as well as in words) the total estimated cost in schedule of quantity with tender document, he is willing to execute the work. Tenderers which propose any alteration in the work specified in the said form of invitation to tender or in the time allowed for carrying out the work, or which contain any other conditions of any sort including conditional rebates, will be summarily rejected, no single tender shall include more than one work, but contractors who wish to tender for more works shall submit separate tender for each tenders shall have name and number of works to which they refer, written on the envelopes." 4. In The Writ Petition, The Petitioner Fails To Disclose That while uploading the Tender Document, in Column No. 12, he had laid a condition, which reads as under: "Bitumen VG10 will be provided by the department in bulk failing which same will be arranged by us with our own resources and nothing shall be allowed to be recovered from us." 5. The Contract In Question Is With Respect To Tarring Of roads in and around Shimla town. It is the case of the respondentDepartment that bitumen was to be provided by the Department, be it in bulk or in drums. The Contract In Question Is With Respect To Tarring Of roads in and around Shimla town. It is the case of the respondentDepartment that bitumen was to be provided by the Department, be it in bulk or in drums. The writ petitioner has laid a condition that such bitumen be supplied "in bulk, failing which, the same would be arranged by him from his own resources and nothing shall be allowed to be recovered from him." This, in our considered view, is a condition, which is contrary to Clause 4(a) of the conditions stipulated in the document. 6. Mr. Sumeet Raj Sharma, Learned Counsel States That such condition was uploaded considering the past practice. Well this, in our considered view, cannot be a reason to overlook the conditions of the tender. 7. As Such, In Our Considered View, No Case For Interference Is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, so also miscellaneous applications, if any.