ORDER : The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- (I) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued for quashing the impugned notice inviting tender dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) & Annexure P-4, dated 28.05.2022 and the entire tender process And in case the respondents succeed in awarding the tender in faovur of the respondent No. 4 in such situation the award of tender in favour of the respondent No. 4 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents for directing the respondent No. 2 to re-conduct the tender process. 2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 3 issued notice inviting e-tenders for providing/distribution of cooked diet to the indoor patients of respondent No. 3-Institution. 3. According to the petitioner, the entire process of inviting tender has been vitiated firstly on the ground that Clause-IV of the tender document relating to the turn over is delightfully vague and secondly that the tender process itself contravenes the office memorandum dated 17.12.2002 issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (for short 'CVC') We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the documents placed on record. 4. At the outset, we need to observe that the instant petition has been filed only to stall the tender process on the failure of the petitioner to qualify and further there is nothing on record to suggest that the process of inviting tender and thereafter processing the same was not done or conducted in fair and transparent manner. Rather, we are of the considered view that the petitioner having participated in the tender process cannot at this belated stage challenge the same, especially, when the terms and conditions of the tender documents were specific and clear from the very beginning and not subject to any further interpretations or meaning as the petitioner claims or seeks to project. 5. As observed above, the petitioner is clearly estopped from challenging the tender after having participating in the tender process and becoming unsuccessful. In coming to such conclusion, we are duly supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authroity vs. Association of Management Studies and Anr. 5. As observed above, the petitioner is clearly estopped from challenging the tender after having participating in the tender process and becoming unsuccessful. In coming to such conclusion, we are duly supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meerut Development Authroity vs. Association of Management Studies and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 171 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated it must be unconditional; must be in the proper form, the person by whom tender is made must be able to and willing to perform his obligations. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. However, a limited judicial review may be available in cases where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process. The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from hidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the above stated grounds, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the Authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations.” 6. The aforesaid judgment, in turn, then has been relied upon by this Court in Dogra Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others AIR 2022 HP 8. 7. The Court would have dismissed this petition on this sole ground alone, however, we would still deal with the contention of the petitioner that the Clause-IV of turn over being vague. 8. Clause-IV of the Essential Conditions of the Tender Document provides as under:- “Turn Over: The average turn over of the last three Financial Years should be more than Rs. 3 Cr. 8. Clause-IV of the Essential Conditions of the Tender Document provides as under:- “Turn Over: The average turn over of the last three Financial Years should be more than Rs. 3 Cr. (Three Crore) from the similar activities and should have positive, profitability and net worth for the last three financial years 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21. C.A. Certificate (duly notarized) for annual turn over along with CA Certificate for positive net worth for past 3 years.” 9. The petitioner had understood the clause and only thereafter had submitted certificate from the Chartered Accountant to show that his annual turn over for the past three years was more than Rs. 3 crores. However, since there was no clarification regarding the turn over being from the similar activities, the respondent No. 3 issued notice dated 28.05.2022 (Annexure P-4), which reads as under:- To Sh. Manoj Thakur, Manager, M. D. Utility Services, Pathania Niwas, New Shimla-171009. Subject: Cooked Diet for indoor patient Tender Reference NO HFW-(AIMSS)(G) 7-1/2021-710 dated 22.04.2022 clarification thereof. Sir, I am to refer to the subject cited above and to say that during the pre-qualification scrutiny of the tender documents your firm/company it has been found that you have submitted Gross Average Turnover for last three years at page-67 of your tender documents, whereas, in terms of clause 10(iv) of the Tender Documents it is required to be from similar activities. You are therefore, requested to clarify as to whether the turnover certificate submitted by you is from the similar activities or not? Reply to the above clarification should reach us via return e-mail by 6th June, 2022 till 5:00 PM. Reply received thereafter shall not be considered and undersigned shall have every right to disqualify you from the bidding process. 10. In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner did not choose to give a straight reply but rather raised irrelevant issues as is evident from the reply, relevant portion whereof reads as under:- “This refers to the above subject and your letter dated 28.05.2022 regarding clarification of turn over of our firm from similar activities. In the continuation of the same we are pleased to submit our reply that our turn over is from cooked diet and similar outsourced services. In the continuation of the same we are pleased to submit our reply that our turn over is from cooked diet and similar outsourced services. We are the nearest agency who is providing our cooked diet services in Shimla DDU Zonal Hospital (more than 300 bedded capacity equal to your upcoming prestigious Hospital/Institute bedding capacity) in Shimla since many years. We are/have also proving/provided the same services to may other civil hospitals in H.P. Our agency who is permanently based in Shimla and providing our professional services in nearby Hospitals since long time and having effective resources to provide the similar services in Shimla Similar services mean other outsources services are being provided by the agency to their other clients and this similar word without any clarification is normally used in tenders at many times. If your goodself institute would have specially mentioned that the turnover of Rupees Three Crores amount should be particularly from cooked diet services or definition/meaning of Similar Services would have clarified as “Cooked Diet Services” than none of other whatsoever similar services turnover is considerable in this matter. Moreover, the meaning/definition of similar services has not defined/clarified in your good self tender document, which is normally required to clarify ins uch cases and many institutes made it clarified if they need to ensure applicability any specific condition/s. Thus, we request your good self that we as a professional locally based agency is qualifying all the tender terms and conditions, kindly do the needful to avoid any inconvenience to either side. We have no objection if the institute recall the tender with more clarity by clarifying the definition/meaning of any specific word/condition/s. 11. Not only this, on a pointed query by this Court, the petitioner was reluctant to answer as to how much of the amount out of the total turn over of more than Rs. 3 Crores was on account of distribution of cooked items and from the so-called “similar work”. The counsel for the petitioner was not in a position or was rather reluctant to answer the same, constraining us to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner as these details are even otherwise not disclosed in the writ petition. 12. 3 Crores was on account of distribution of cooked items and from the so-called “similar work”. The counsel for the petitioner was not in a position or was rather reluctant to answer the same, constraining us to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner as these details are even otherwise not disclosed in the writ petition. 12. As regards the terms in Clause-IV pertaining to turn over being vague as contended by the petitioner, we find this contention to be fallacious as any one in the business would definitely know what 'similar activities' means. 13. The expression "Similar" does not mean identical but it means corresponding to or resembling to in many respects; somewhat like; or having a general likeness. (Ref:-NAT Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector Of Central Excise AIR 1988 SC 631 ). 14. The “Similar” meaning as given in Oxford English Dictionary, reads as under:- Having marked resembles or likeness: of a like nature or kinds. In words and phrases, Volume 39, this word has been defined as under: “Similar” means nearly corresponding; resembling in many respects; somewhat like having a general likeness. (Royer vs. Brown, NH 93-A 2nd 667, 668). The word “similar” in its primary sense means nearly corresponding, resembling in many respects, somewhat like having a general likeness (Robenstein vs. Filements Fund Ins. Co., NE 2nd 289, 291, 339 III App 404). The term “Similar” does not mean “identical” as respects degree of similarity that must exist between property sold and that condemned to make evidence of the sale admissible but means having a resemblance and property may be similar though each possesses various points of difference.” (City of Chicago vs. Vaccarro. 97 NE 2nd 766, 773, 408 III 587: Shyam Das vs. Financial Commissioner, Revenue, Punjab, AIR 1973 Punj 50 at 52). 15. Now, the moot question is whether the engagement in manpower supply can be considered to be a business similar to supply of cooked diet. The answer obviously is in negative. Both the businesses are poles apart and have no similarity whatsoever and even the sanitation, cleaning and housecleaning services, which are the other businesses of the petitioner as per his pleaded case, can also not be considered to be similar to supply of cooked diet. 16. The answer obviously is in negative. Both the businesses are poles apart and have no similarity whatsoever and even the sanitation, cleaning and housecleaning services, which are the other businesses of the petitioner as per his pleaded case, can also not be considered to be similar to supply of cooked diet. 16. Now, adverting to the claim of the petitioner that the tender issued is contrary to the CVC guidelines, we find the claim of the petitioner to be an after thought because it is only after being unsuccessful in the bidding process, the petitioner has raised this issue. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not been able to point out how and in what manner the tender in question violates or contravenes the guidelines issued by the CVC vide memorandum dated 17.12.2002. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.