SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner participated in the tenders floated for four sections for maintenance of optical fiber cable network of the respondent/RailTel Corporation of India Limited. The petitioner participated for three of the four sections and it is the case of the petitioner that it was the L -1, while respondent No. 3, the only other participant was the L -2. The offer of the petitioner was, however, declared as invalid. It is the case of the petitioner that such declaration of invalidity of the tender of the petitioner is wrongful which is sought to be assailed in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are three aspects of the disqualification of the tender of the petitioner, as is available from the minutes of the Tender Committee meeting held on 13.09.2013 and 18.09.2013, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder: - "7.1.2 The deviation given by the contractor in the Clause No. 21 and 22 and 2.8.22 has no financial implications. The deviation in the clause No. 2.7.1, 2.8.23 and 2.10.1 has the financial implications for RailTel and hence cannot be accepted. However, as per the tender clause No. 4 of the instructions to tenderers and conditions of tendering (GCC), the Executive Director reserves the right to accept or reject these deviations and his decision thereon shall be final. 7.1.3 M/s Sunny Electronics has not signed on pages No. 1,2,30,52,53,60 and 61 of the tender document. Page No. 38,39,48,83,84 and 85 of the tender document are missing in the Bid submitted by M/s Sunny Electronics. As per the point No. 1 of the check list, the contractor is required to sign and stamp every page of the tender document. Failure to comply, the offer of the contractor shall be rendered invalid and liable to be rejected. 7.1.4 M/s Sunny Electronics has sent a scanned letter (dated 23.08.2013) by mail on 18.09.2013 to ED/NR. The print out of this letter is placed at SN -269. In this letter, the contractor has stated that he may withdraw the deviations, if not acceptable to RailTel. The contractor has written this letter of his own and RailTel has not sought any clarification from him. This letter cannot be considered by the TC as the contractor is changing his stand after the opening of the tender which shows that the intention of the contractor is not clear about the work. It is also observed by the TC that this letter has been dated 23.08.2013 but sent by mail on 18.09.2013 which also shows the wrong intention of the contractor. Based on the deviations given by the contractor, not submitting the full tender paper as well as not signing and stamping on the every page of the tender document, the offer of the M/s Sunny Electronics may not be considered and hence not discussed further." Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to contend that the deviations were in the nature of only suggestions and the petitioner had sought to withdraw the same, albeit post opening of the financial bid vide its letter dated 23.08.2013. He submits that the letter dated 23.08.2013 was also sent by ordinary post on the same date and was subsequently scanned and sent by e -mail on 18.09.2013. He further submits that the pages which are stated to be unsigned are only the index pages and the pages which are stated to be missing pertain to the fourth section of Muradabad in which the petitioner did not participate. He, thus, submits that all the three reasons are not sustainable. In our view, the crucial aspect is the deviations put -forth by the petitioner in its bid which have financial implications. These pertain to clauses 2.7.1, 2.8.23 & 2.10.1. The relevant portions are extracted as under: - JUDGEMENT_5_TLP&H0_2014.htm JUDGEMENT_5_TLP&H0_20141.htm The aforesaid, in our view, undoubtedly have a financial implication and to permit the petitioner to alter the terms and conditions would not be permissible. The fact that the petitioner withdrew the same ultimately post opening of the financial bid also does not assist the petitioner as that would amount to altering the bid itself. The petitioner cannot make its own terms and conditions to participate in the bid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to emphasize that even in the past the petitioner had been permitted to withdraw the deviations suggested, as would be apparent from the averments made in para 9 of the written statement of respondents No. 1 and 2. However, in our view, this is an issue which will vary from tender to tender and there is nothing binding on the respondents in this behalf. In fact, this should have put the petitioner to caution that such deviations suggested would not be acceptable. We find no perversity or impropriety with the analysis of the bid of the petitioner by the respondents so as to interfere in extra -ordinary writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. The interim order dated 29.10.2013 stands vacated.;