R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. Since the issues involved are similar in the captioned writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment and Special Civil Application No. 3513 of 2015 is treated to be the lead writ petition.

2. The basic issue involved in these writ petitions is, whether any deviation from tender conditions is permissible after floating the tender and after issuing work order, without giving opportunity to all interested persons.

3. The circumstances which have given rise to the filing of these writ petitions in a nutshell are as under:-

3.1 The petitioners are in the business of outdoor advertising in the city of Ahmedabad, since last many years. The respondent No. 3, Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service floated tender notice bearing No. 12/13 x 14 for putting up advertising boards and/or hoardings of 4 ft. (15 x 4 ft dimension) over bus shelters for a period from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2017 along with several specifications and other conditions. Respondent No. 4 was the highest bidder and after negotiations, they agreed to raise the offer to Rs. 2,85,00,000/- per annum and ultimately work order was issued to respondent No. 4 on 4.3.2014.

3.2 It is the say of respondent No. 3 that as per the standard drawings, respondent No. 4 would get 160 square feet of clear place to exhibit advertisement. However, after issuance of work order, development plan, i.e. General Development Control Regulation ("GDCR" for short) came into force and clause 20.1.3 of the said GDCR stipulated minimum ground clearance of 10 feet (3 meters) for permitting advertisement of bill board and as a result, respondent No. 4 was entitled only for 60 square feet from above the roof of the bus shelter (15 feet x 4 feet) and they were not entitled to exhibit advertisement below the roof of the shelter. Respondent No. 4 demanded refund of proportionate amount considering the deduction of display area from 160 sq.ft. to 120 sq.ft. and in the alternative requested to permit 20 feet x 8 feet above the bus shelter so as to satisfy total requirement of 160 sq.ft. as per the tender notice. After negotiations, permission to erect board of 20 feet x 6 feet on the roof of the shelter was granted to respondent No. 4. The above proposal was also offered to other tenderer, i.e. Krishna Communication, who declined to accept the said proposal.

3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that since the tender conditions were rigid and not feasible; they refrained from participating in the above tender process. However, after floating the tender, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 clearly altered and tailored material conditions of the contract so as to help respondent No. 4 in earning substantial benefits at the cost of public exchequer. Respondent No. 4 offered an amount of Rs. 2.85 crores for putting up advertisement boards of 15 x 4 ft. dimension and thereafter, he is permitted to put up the advertisement boards of 20 x 6 ft. dimension without any additional amount on pro-rata basis. Thus, such permission given by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is completely arbitrary and has deprived opportunity to persons like the petitioner who are interested to submit their tender with said relaxation.

3.4 It is also the case of the petitioner that the tender was floated for a period of 3 years, i.e. with effect from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2017. However, the work order issued to respondent No. 4 on 4.3.2014 is for a period of 4 years, i.e. with effect from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2018. Further, respondent Nos. 2 & 3 erred in giving grace period of 150 days more vide order dated 26/29.12.2014 contrary to tender condition No. 1.16 which clearly stipulates that there will be no grace period in any eventuality.

3.5 Thus, the above said action on the part of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 is clearly illegal and arbitrary. The same is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Alteration of the basic and material condition of the contract, not only after floating the tender but also awarding the work will result in