JUDGMENT : A. Abhishek Reddy, J. 1. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 6446 of 2019, dated 09.09.2019, whereby the Writ Petition field by the appellant was dismissed, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Company, which is engaged in the business of laundry services including supply and installation of mechanized laundry machine and related infrastructure, participated in the tender process along with all the relevant documents, which supported its case, in response to the tender No. CM-C&W-36-12T-Boot-SC-18-19, dated 11.10.2018. But in spite of the same, its tender was rejected without assigning any reasons. Questioning the same, the petitioner had filed writ petition viz., W.P. No. 6446 of 2019 before this Court. After going through the pleading and also the record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition duly taking into consideration the stand taken by the respondents-railways that the petitioner did not submit a valid Past Performance Certificate, and thus it has not fulfilled clause 1.3(i) of the tender conditions. 4. Heard Sri B. Nalin Kumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 6, and Sri Sourabh Agarwal, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 7. 5. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant since the petitioner fully complied with the criteria laid down for technical bid, rejection of its tender, that, too, without assigning any reasons, is per se illegal and arbitrary. He further pleads that clause 1.9 of the tender conditions, which empowers the respondents-Railways to reject the tender without assigning any reasons is circumscribed by rule of law, and is against the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the rejection of the tender bid is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Railways has submitted that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender document. The tender submitted by the petitioner-Company was rejected at the time of opening of the technical bids. For, it did not fulfill clause 1.3 (i) laid down in the tender conditions. And subsequently, financial bids were opened; the successful bidder was already granted contract. 7. The tender submitted by the petitioner-Company was rejected at the time of opening of the technical bids. For, it did not fulfill clause 1.3 (i) laid down in the tender conditions. And subsequently, financial bids were opened; the successful bidder was already granted contract. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7, which was the successful bidder, and in whose favour the contract was knocked, has submitted that after meeting the eligibility criteria in the technical bid, they were declared qualified. Subsequently, being the lowest bidder, they were declared as lowest bidder. The letter of acceptance was also submitted by them; the work has already commenced. 8. In order to appreciate the facts in controversy, it is necessary to extract relevant clauses of the tender conditions, which are as follows: 1.3 (i) PAST performance of tenderer(s) in other BOOT Tenders of Indian Railways like-Time taken to commission a BOOT Laundry Project will be considered for technical evaluation of the tender. The Bidders should submit information as per ANNEXURE XVI for this purpose. 1.9 The Railways reserves the right of not to invite tenders for any of railway services when tenders are called, to accept a tender in whole or in part or reject any tender or all tenders without assigning reasons for any such action. The authority for acceptance of the tender will rest with the Railway. It shall not be obligatory on the said authority to accept the lowest tender and no tenderer/tenderers shall demand any explanation for the cause of rejection of his/their tender nor the Railway assign reasons for declining to consider or reject any particular tenders. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner had not filed any documents to show that it had past performance certificate to buttress its contention, that it complied clause 1.3(i) of the tender conditions. It is the specific contention of the respondents-Railways, in its counter, that the petitioner failed to submit Past Performance Certificate, inconsonance with clause 1.3(i) of the tender conditions. No reply is coming forward from the petitioner in this regard. Hence, the stand taken by the petitioner, in this regard is not sustainable. 10. Coming to clause 1.9 of the tender conditions, the petitioner were fully aware of the tender conditions, and having submitted its tender, the petitioner cannot turn around and take a stand that the said condition is against the principles of natural justice. Hence, the stand taken by the petitioner, in this regard is not sustainable. 10. Coming to clause 1.9 of the tender conditions, the petitioner were fully aware of the tender conditions, and having submitted its tender, the petitioner cannot turn around and take a stand that the said condition is against the principles of natural justice. If the petitioner were really aggrieved by the said tender condition, it ought to have challenged the same at the earliest point of time. But, having participated in the tender, it is not left open to the petitioner to contend that a particular condition is against the principles of natural justice. Hence, this contention of the petitioner is untenable. 11. As regards the other allegation made by the petitioner that the respondents-Railways erred in considering the Life Certificates submitted by respondent Nos. 7 and 8, this allegation also cannot be sustained. For, the respondents-Railways has asserted that the case of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 was considered based on the Life Certificates issued by Jiangsau Sealion Machinery Company Ltd., and Transferon Laundry Machine Asia Company Limited. Their cases were not considered on the basis of the Life Certificate issued by Jensen Asia Pvt. Limited, as alleged by the petitioner. 12. Furthermore, it is stated, across the Bar, that subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition, necessary work contract has already been issued to respondent No. 7 herein; they have also commenced the work. 13. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, there are is merit in the present writ appeal. For, there are no grounds for interfering with the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal fails; the same is, hereby, dismissed accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.