( 1 ) RULE. Mr Munshaw waives service of Rule for respondent no. 1 and Mr Jagirdar waives service of Rule for respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the petitioner, an advertising agency, has challenged the tendering process adopted by the respondent-Corporation under which the eligible parties who have submitted their tenders in response to the notice dated 23. 1. 2006 are not called for inter-se bidding but only respondent No. 2 is called for revising its bid in the matter of contract to be awarded by respondent No. 1- Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation for providing spaces for advertisement on buses, bus depots and bus shelters.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to filing of this petition, broadly stated, are as under:- (1) The present petitioner is the existing contractor in whose favour the contract providing spaces for advertisements on bus, bus depots and bus shelters of the respondent-Corporation was awarded for the three year period from 15. 12. 2002 to 14. 12. 2005. Since the contract period was going to expire by efflux of time in December 2005, the respondent-Corporation initiated the process for inviting fresh tenders for the subsequent period. (i) The first tender notice for that purpose was issued on 6. 4. 2005 inviting separate tenders for buses and bus depots/bus shelters. It is the petitioner s case, and no disputed by the other side, that the petitioner s offer was the highest in the matter of contract for providing space for advertisements on buses, which is the major component of the contract and was the second highest in the other category of bus depots/bus shelters. However, the corporation discharged the said tender notice. (ii) The Corporation issued the second tender notice in August 2005 with certain modifications in the tender conditions. However, no tenders were received pursuant to the said notice. (iii) The Corporation issued the third tender notice in October 2005. The sealed tenders were opened on 18. 10. 2005 but again the corporation took the decision on 21. 10. 2005 to discharge the tender notice. At the negotiations held on 10. 11. 2005, the bidders suggested that only one contract be awarded for 5 years and for both the segments. (iv) Accordingly, the Corporation issued the fourth tender notice dated 12. 12. 2005. Tenders were invited for the contract for providing space for advertisement for a five year period instead of the three year period for which the contracts were awarded earlier and the single tenders were invited for all the spaces for advertisement i. e. the buses and bus depots/bus shelters as against the previous method of awarding separate contracts for the three segments. The tenders received in December 2005 were asunder:-

Sr. No Tenderer Tender Amount for five year in Rs.

1. M/s. Krishna Communication (Outdoor), (Petitioner) 10,86,60,000/-

2. M/s. Sambhav Media Ltd. 10,54,00,000/-

3. M/s. Pioneer Publicity 10,51,00,000/-

4. M/s. Chitra Publicity (Respondent No. 2) 6,96,00,000/-

However, the Corporation again decided to discharge the tender notice. (v) The Corporation issued the fifth tender notice on 23. 1. 2006 inviting fresh single tenders for the five year period for all the segments. As on previous occasions, the tenders were invited in the two bid system, one being the technical bid and the other being the price bid. (2) Before the tenders received pursuant to NIT (Notice inviting Tenders) dated 23. 1. 2006 were to be opened on 10. 2. 2006, the present petitioner filed Special Civil application No. 1940 of 2006 challenging the decision of the Corporation not to consider the tenders received pursuant to the tender notice dated 12. 12. 2005 and submitted that in the past whenever the petitioner s tender was the highest, the Corporation decided to discharge the tender notice and that the petitioner apprehended that the Corporation would take the decision to award the contract only when some other party would quote the h