IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 24 OF 2009 Parinee Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another .. Petitioners Vs. National Textile Corporation Ltd. and others .. Respondents Mr. M.D. Siodia with Mr. Rohan Mahadik and Ms. Raina Bhagatwala i/by M/s. Rustamji & Ginwala for the petitioners. Ms. M.H. Doshi for the respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 19TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pray that directions be issued to the respondents to give an opportunity to all valid tenderers to improve upon their offers and submit their revised offers in accordance with clause 2.7(iii) of the tender terms and conditions and thereafter, the respondents be further directed to award tender to one of them. Further it is prayed that they be restrained from canceling tender process and inviting fresh tenders for the work in question. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, at the very outset, argued that all the contentions raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Nine Paradise Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and another v. National Textile Corporation Ltd. (Western Region)(Finally Mills) and another, Wit Petition (Lodging) No.2904 of 2008 decided on 15th January, 2009. 3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made an attempt to show that the facts and circumstances of that judgment are different and the prayer in present case is justifiable on the facts of present case and the principles of law stated in that judgment would not be applicable even on merits in this case. 4. The objections raised and principles of law argued on the facts of the case are quite similar to the one dealt with in that judgment. Clause 2.7(iii) is only an enabling clause and it provides right to the Corporation to invite offers for submitting tenders and for further negotiations if it is so found proper in the business interest of the Corporation. Here firstly, the petitioners are not highest bidders which makes the case of the petitioners even worse than the petitioners in Nine Paradise Hotels Pvt.Ltd. (supra). Secondly, there is no subsisting right much less an indefeasible legal right in favour of the petitioners. In any way, submitting an offer does not give any legal right in favour of the petitioners either on facts or law in the present case. The Corporation has taken a decision on commercial basis and found that all the tenders submitted were substantially lower even than the reserved price and, therefore, decided to cancel the entire tender process taken earlier and decided to invite fresh tenders in accordance with its policy. Clause 8 of the terms and conditions of the tender in any case, give them power to reject the tenders invited. Of course, such a power must not be exercised arbitrarily and as a matter of fact we find in the present case that exercise of power is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.