SHETHNA, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner had prayed to declare the condition No. 13 of the impugned notice dated 30. 4. 99 (Annex. 1) published in Rajasthan Patrika in its Edition dated 12. 5. 99 as illegal and the same may be quashed. It is further prayed that the respondent No. 2 be directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for being empanelled as a Printer and Publisher for publishing Tourism Literature for the department of Art and Culture, Government of Rajasthan and till the final disposal of this petition, they be restrained from finalising the penal of Printers and Publishers.
(2.) THE petitioner is Indian Maps Service, which is a proprietorship concern and registered as Small Scale Industrial Unit. It is doing work of publication of maps, literature pertaining to Tourism department. As per the averments made in the petition, it provides the services of the Department of Tourism of State of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation, Life Insurance Corporation, Department of Science and Technology of Government of India, Maharastra Tourism Development Corporation, Mc Milan India Ltd. for publication of literature pertaining to tourism, maps, directories etc. Notice dated 30. 4. 99 (Annex. 1) was issued by the respondent department which was published in Rajasthan Patrika in its edition dated 12. 5. 99 inviting tenders for printing and publishing of Rajasthan Tourism Publication. The tenders were invited from the Agencies/publishers having annual turn over of atleast Rs. 5 crores. The petitioner also applied and submitted its tender to the respondent department and also deposited earnest money of Rs. 1 lac. It may be stated that as per the condition No. 13, the tenderer should have annual turnover of atleast Rs. 5 crores which was admittedly not in case of the petitioner. Still the petitioner submitted its tender and also deposited the earnest money. However, the respondent department returned the earnest money to the petitioner by letter dated 11. 8. 99 (Annex. 2) because it was not eligible as per Condition No. 13. Against that the petitioner submitted representation dated 16. 8. 99 (Annex. 3) to the respondent No. 2 wherein it was pointed out that such condition No. 13 would discourage the small printers like the petitioner and the panel prepared by them consists of five printers from Delhi but no one is from this State. It was also pointed out that the petitioner was earlier on panel and did substantial work for tourism department and its work was also appreciated by the department. However, the same remained unreplied. Therefore, the petitioner served a notice for demand of justice dated 9. 9. 99 (Annex. 4) through its counsel to the respondent No. 2. The same also remained unreplied, therefore, as a last resort the petitioner filed this petition on 28. 9. 99 under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was pointed by learned counsel Mr. Mathur for the petitioner that the condition No. 13 in notice at Annex. 1 is arbitrary. He submitted that in the past, no such condition was incorporated in the notice and such condition No. 13 in the notice that the applicant should have an annual turnover of atleast Rs. 5 crores is unjust and having no rational nexus with the object of the work which is sought to be done under the notice at Annex. 1. He also submitted that the petitioner was already on panel of the respondents for printing and publishing the tourism literature, therefore, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that it will be treated as eligible for printing and publishing the tourism literature for respondent No. 2 but by putting up such condition No. 13, the respondents have acted against the petitioner. Thus, in this case, the doctrine of legitimate expectation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Hindustan Development Corpn. and others (1), will apply and the impugned condition No. 13 should be quashed. Reply affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents and learned counsel Mr. Sodha appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no question of applicability of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation applying in this case. He has also raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this writ petition on the principle of Waiver. It was submitted that knowing full well that there is a condition No. 13 in the notice at Annex. 1, the petitioner though having less turnover than Rs. 5 crores per year, applied and also deposited the earnest money and when it was returned to it, it had started objecting about the condition No. 13 of annual turnover of not less than Rs. 5 crores. It was submitted by them that if at all the petitioner was aggrieved, it should have challenged the condition No. 13 when the notice was issued but having applied and not found to be included in the panel because of the turnover of less than Rs. 5 crores per year, the petitioner has filed this petition. It was also objected on the ground that it is purely a contractual matter where no writ lies. On merits, it was submitted that though the annual turnover of the petitioner was less than Rs. 5 crores, the tender of the petitioner was considered with other tenderers looking to their experience and the reason for dis-allowing the petitioner's tender was not that its annual turnover was less than Rs. 5 crores but its products were not found suitable in the exhibition/demonstration in comparison to the other firms by the State Level Committee consisting of experts in the respective fields. In Hindustan Development Corporation's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not give scope to claim relief straightway from the administrative authorities as no crystallised right as such is involved. It has also been held that even if substantive protection of such expectation is contemplated that does not grant an absolute right to any person. It has further been held that a case of legitimate expectation would arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it would be within its power to fulfil. The protection is limited to that extent and a judicial review can be within those limits only. It is further held that a person who has based his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the first instance, must satisfy that there is a foundation and thus has locus standi to make such a claim.
(3.) COMING to the facts of the present case, it is clear that though there was a condition No. 13 in the notice at Annex. 1, the petitioner preferred to submit its tender along with others and it challenged such condition only after its tender was not accepted and the earnest money deposited by it was returned. Thus, a person who has waived his right cannot later on challenge that such a condition was unwarranted and uncalled for and it is against his legitimate expectation. Secondly, from the reply affidavit, it is clear that though there was a condition No. 13 that a tenderer should have a turnover of atleast Rs. 5 crores per year, the tender of the petitioner was considered by the respondents along with others and in comparison of others, it was not found upto the mark, therefore, the tender of the petitioner was not accepted and the earnest money was returned to it. In view of the above categorical statement made on oath by the respondents in their reply, I do not see any reason to entertain this petition. ;