ORDER : 1. The petitioner-Shree Ahmedabad Matsya Udhyog Sahkari Mandli Ltd. by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has approached this Court for the following reliefs: “(A) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit the petition. (B) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the communication dated 17.03.2020 issued by the respondent No. 2 returning back the amount of earnest money deposit and rejecting the tender offer of the petitioner on the ground that it is number then the highest bidder and in turn by quashing and setting aside the order awarding tender to the respondent no. 3 this Hon. Court be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 take into consideration the relaxation stipulated under condition 15 B of the tender document and Everhart the tender of carrying out fishing activity in the site Lake situated in Taluka- Daskroi, District-Ahmedabad. (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition this Hon. Court be pleased to state the operation of the communication dated 17.03.2020 addressed by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioner refusing to award the tender of carrying out fishing activity and in turn be pleased to further restrain the respondent No. 2 from awarding the tender to the respondent No. 2 for carrying out fishing related activities in the site Lake situated in Taluka Dashkroi, District Ahmedabad till this petition is finally heard and decided by this Hon'ble Court. (D) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant such other and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (E) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to award cost of the petition from the respondents.” 2. The broad facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under: 2.1 The tender inviting bids from interested parties for cultivating Vasai Irrigated Lake situated in Taluka-Daskroi, District-Ahmedabad and for carrying out fishing activity came to be published by way of public advertisement. The petitioner being interested had applied for the same in the prescribed format. The petitioner had offered Rs. 3 lakhs per year. According to the petitioner, the bid of the petitioner was the second highest and the highest bid was for a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- offered by the respondent No. 3 herein. The petitioner being interested had applied for the same in the prescribed format. The petitioner had offered Rs. 3 lakhs per year. According to the petitioner, the bid of the petitioner was the second highest and the highest bid was for a sum of Rs. 3,40,000/- offered by the respondent No. 3 herein. 2.2 However, by way of communication dated 17.3.2020, the respondents have returned back the demand draft of Rs. 30,000/- which was submitted by the petitioner as Earnest Money Deposit i.e. 10% of the bid of the petitioner. The reason, so assigned therein that the bid of the petitioner was found lower than that of bid of the respondent No. 3 herein. 2.3 Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication dated 17.3.2020, the petitioner-society has approached this Court, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 11.5.2020 issued Notice upon the respondents. The Coordinate Bench of this Court was appraised by the Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions. 2.4 Upon receipt of the Notice, the respondent No. 2-Assistant Director, Department of Fisheries submitted its Affidavit-in-Reply affirmed on 2.7.2020, denying, inter-alia, the contents of the writ petition. 3. Mr. Zubin Bharda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-society, submitted only contention before this Court that the bid of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by ignoring the Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions. 4. Per contra, Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable unless the petitioner substantiates that the authority has acted in arbitrary and frivolous manner. Mr. Dave further submitted that the present petitioner-society is consisting of 28 members, out of which only 4 members are residing at Vasai, Taluka-Daskroi and rest of the members are residing in Ahmedabad city. It was further pointed out that those 4 members residing at Vasai have been enrolled as member of the society only in the month of April, 2019. It was further pointed out that the area of work and the scope of the society is mainly of Ahmedabad city and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to take the benefit of Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. It was further pointed out that the area of work and the scope of the society is mainly of Ahmedabad city and thus, the petitioner is not entitled to take the benefit of Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. No other submissions have been put-forth by the learned counsel appearing for the parties except stated above. 6. The case in hand is in a narrow compass whether the petitioner is entitled to avail the benefit as mentioned in Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions. It would be relevant, at this stage, to reproduce the translated version of Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions: “The tender submitted by the District level/local/registered Fisheries Co-operative Societies/Association which are having all local members offered 20% less than higher bid, shall be accepted on priority basis. The Fisheries Cooperative Societies possessing Grade “B” Audit, shall be entitled for this benefit.” 7. Having perused the Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions carefully, we find that the said condition in unequivocal terms states that in case of Cooperative Mandli/Sangh, all the members should be local residents. Thus, in our considered opinion, to avail the benefit of Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions, all the members of the Cooperative Mandli/Sangh must be the resident of local area, whereas admittedly, majority members of the petitioner-society are residing in city of Ahmedabad. 8. In view of aforesaid, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner-society does not satisfy the pre-requisite Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions that all the members of the society are to be local residents. Having not satisfied the pre-requisite condition, therefore, the petitioner-society is not entitled the benefit flowing from Condition No. 15(B) of the tender terms and conditions. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merits in the present case and thereby, the same is dismissed accordingly, with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged.