No right flows from such offer.

In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of the respondent dated 12-3-1998 under which the bid amounts of the petitioners were rejected.

2. The petitioners pursuant to the notification in the newspaper dated 19-12-1997 of the respondent, calling for tenders proposing to purchase the commercial plots at Pallikkaranai Site and Service Scheme adjoining the Velachery -Tambaram Highway, the petitioners submitted tenders or participated in the auction held on 22-1-1998. Since the petitioners are the highest bidders, they paid 25% of the bid amount, apart from the Earnest Money Deposit. According to the petitioners, the payment of the said 25% of the cost was made by way of cheque within the time stipulated and the same has been realised by the respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that accepting the highest bid the respondents realised the said 25% of the bid amount, the part of the consideration, they cannot now pass the impugned order, cancelling the bid amounts.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that, admittedly, the petitioners are the highest bidders, and by accepting the said bid amounts the respondent received the portion of the consideration. Having accepted so, the respondent has no right to revoke the contract and so the order impugned cannot be sustained.

4. The conditions mentioned in the notification calling for the tenders, and the conditions of the tender are more or less similar. The persons who are submitting sealed tender also have to pay Earnest Money Deposit of 1% of the value of the plot the persons who are willing to participate in the auction has to pay the Earnest Money Deposit. Clause (6) of the conditions, it is specifically stated that "the highest amount in the sealed tender will be taken as the upset price for tender and the highest amount in the auction/sealed offer will be taken into consideration for acceptance".

From a reading of the said clause it is very clear that merely because the petitioners bid was the highest either in the auction or among the tenderers, it cannot be said that the same would amount to acceptance. As stated in the said clause, the said highest amount will be taken into account for acceptance.

5. As per clause (8), the successful bidders should deposit 25% of the plot cost at the auction site. Merely because the successful bidders are directed to deposit 25% of the plot cost, it cannot be said that the bid has been accepted and the contract has been concluded. To sustain their arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that since the said amount of 25% had been realised and utilised, it has to be construed that the bid had been accepted under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, and the contract had been concluded, and so thereafter the respondent has no right to cancel the same, and the reasons stated also are arbitrary.

6. It is well settled that a decision, not to give contract or to reject all the tenders, must be a fair and just decision, informed by reasons. Judicial scrutiny of such a decision in the exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot be set out, merely, on the ground that there was power in the Government or public authority to reject all the tenders and that in exercise of this power all tenders have been rejected.

7. So, I have to appreciate the arguments raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on merits. The main submission of the learned counsel is that 25% of the plot cost paid by the petitioners was not only received but also realised and utilised and so it amounts to acceptance under the provisions of the Contract Act. I am not able to accept the said submission. Under S. 7 of the Indian Contract Act, the acceptance must be absolute and unqualified. In the present case, it cannot be said that the confirmation is a formal one. Mere reading of clauses 8 and 9 of the conditions, we can safely come to the conclusion