ORDER

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

1. This Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the judgment dated 15.10.2008 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.14998 of 2004.

2. The relevant facts very briefly are that the petitioner is a private limited company carrying on inter alia the business of construction. In April 2004, respondent No.2 published a notice inviting tenders for construction of married accommodation at Shankar Vihar-II, Pocket, Delhi Cantonment, at an estimated cost of Rs.40 crores (for short "the Notice"). Clause 6 of the Notice stipulated that the tenderer shall furnish earnest money of Rs.40 lacs in the form of FDR from a nationalized bank drawn in favour of the Director General, Married Accommodation Project, Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg, New Delhi. Clause 6 also stipulated that if the firm revokes its offer during the validity period, the earnest money furnished by the firm shall be forfeited. In response to the Notice, the petitioner submitted its offer along with earnest money of Rs.40 lacs. When the tenders were opened on 05.05.2004, the offer of the petitioner was found to be the lowest at Rs.32 crores for the work. On 06.05.2004, however, the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent No.2 making a correction of a figure in its tender to read as Rs.32,76,000/- instead of Rs.23,76,000/-. As a result of this correction, the offer of the petitioner for the work increased from Rs.32 crores to Rs.41 crores. Respondent No.2 treated this correction made by the petitioner in its tender as revocation of its offer and forfeited the earnest money of Rs.40 lacs furnished by the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (C) No.14998 of 2004 under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Delhi, but by the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition after holding that the correction of the bid made by the petitioner amounted to revocation of its original offer and hence the respondent No.2 was entitled to forfeit the earnest money furnished by the petitioner in terms of Clause 6 of the Notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court failed to appreciate that the tender of the petitioner was initially defective in as much as the earnest money, which was furnished by the petitioner, was not in accordance with Clause 6 of the Notice. He explained that Clause 6 of the Notice provided that the earnest money was to be in the form of FDR from a nationalized bank, but the FDR of Rs.40 lacs furnished by the petitioner was from UTI Bank, which was not a nationalized bank. He further submitted that the petitioner had to make the correction in the figure so as to read as Rs.32,76,000/- instead of Rs.23,76,000/- because a mistake had been committed by the petitioner while calculating the figure and, therefore, soon after the tender was opened on 05.05.2004 the petitioner submitted the letter dated 06.05.2004 to the respondent No.2 correcting the aforesaid mistake in the calculation of the figure. He submitted that the respondent No.2 ought not to have treated the letter dated 06.05.2004 as revocation of the offer of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in any case the entire Notice was recalled and a fresh Notice was issued by respondent No.2 inviting tenders at a revised estimated cost. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since the tender process in respect of which the petitioner had furnished the earnest money was cancelled, respondent No.2 should have refunded the earnest money to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment of the High Court and relied on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the High Court as well as in this Court.

6. We find that Clause 6 of the Notice clearly stipulated that "if any firm revokes its offer during the validity