WP(C) 5862/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI Heard Mr. A. K. Hussain, learned counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. R. K. Bora h, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4. Also heard Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on beh alf of respondent No.5. By a notice inviting tender published on 20th April, 2010, respondent No.3, name ly, the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur, Tezpur, called for tender for settlement of, amongst others, Ghiladhari Naduar Meen S.S. Ltd., the last date for submissi on of tender papers being 5th May, 2010 at 3.00 P.M. The petitioner did not, ad mittedly, submit its tender papers along with requisite earnest money, which was to be deposited by way of, amongst others, bank draft. The petitioner, however, made a representation to the respondent No.3 stating, inter alia, that within t he time fixed by the NIT, the petitioner could not obtain the bank draft. The pe titioner accordingly requested to allow him to deposit the earnest money by way of bank draft on the following day. The permission being granted, the requisite bank draft was deposited on the following day i.e. on 11.5.2010. From the order, dated 20.10.2010, granting settlement in favour of the responden t No.5 herein, who was the third highest bidder, it transpires that though the p etitioner was the second highest bidder, the petitioner’s bid was not considered as the petitioner had failed to deposit the earnest money within time. Aggrieve d by the fact that the petitioner’s bid had not been considered and the settleme nt has been made in favour of the respondent No.5, who is the 3rd highest bidder , the petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitu tion of India, seeking appropriate relief. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that the last date for submission of tender papers along with requisite bank draft was 5th May , 2010, at 3 P.M. and the petitioner, admittedly, failed to deposit the earnest money within the time so allowed. In such circumstances, respondent No.3 cannot be said to have any power to relax the condition of depositing earnest money by extending the time fixed under the NIT. Situated thus, it becomes clear that notwithstanding the fact that the petitione r had been allowed to deposit the earnest money on the following day i.e. on 11. 5.2010, the tender papers, offered by the petitioner, with earnest money on 11th May, 2010, could not have been accepted. Hence, mere acceptance of the tender p apers by the respondent No.3 cannot be said to have vested any right in the peti tioner to be considered as an eligible tenderer. What logically follows from the above discussion is that the petitioner being n ot qualified to participate in the selection process, the petitioner cannot chal lenge the order of settlement made in favour of the respondent No.5. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition is not adm itted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to cost.