1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 2 and 3 from considering the fourth respondent for the award of contract for "Licensing for Display of Advertisement on the rear side panel board, rear side of driver cabin, passenger view glasses (one side view) and in the vacant space below rooftop and above the windows on both sides along with intensive cleaning of 1400 buses pursuant to the Tender Notification issued by the second respondent and consequently award the said tender to the petitioner being the highest qualified bidder.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are as follows:

Petitioner-advertising agency is engaged in the business of advertising and has generated a lot of goodwill in the Advertising Sector. It is carrying out advertisements by way of publications in all modes, namely, Railway Advertisements, erection of signboards and advertisement panel with proper license and approval from the authorities concerned. The Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Limited (hereinafter called as "MTC) invited tenders from the eligible persons for "licensing of display of advertisement on the rear side panel board, rear side of driver cabin, passenger view glasses (one-side view) and in the vacant space below roof top and above the windows on both sides along with intensive cleaning of 1400 buses" through a tender notification published in "The Hindu" newspaper dated 13.7.2011. The tender was scheduled to be opened on 30.7.2011 at 15.30 hours and last date for submission of tenders was fixed as 30.7.2011 at 15.00 hours.

3. According to the petitioner, in January, 2011 and June, 2011, similar tenders were called for and the petitioner participated in the tender by paying EMD of Rs.5 lakhs on each occasion. However, the said tenders were not acted upon and the EMD, paid were also not refunded. The petitioner participated in the present tender pursuant to the Notification dated 13.7.2011 by submitting three bids (a) technical bid (b) commercial bid for advertising and (c) commercial bid for carrying out intensive cleaning, in three separate sealed covers, duly superscribed in the covers and dropped the same in the tender box at the office of MTC. The petitioners bid was submitted in three separate covers and all the three are put in one sealed cover and dropped in the box.

4. On 30.7.2011, the Tender Opening Committee of MTC opened all the tenders at 15.30 hours and it was informed that there were four participants, namely, the petitioner, fourth respondent and two others. The Tender Opening Committee opened the tenders one by one and read out the names of the participants and number of covers submitted by each of the participants. After opening the covers, it was noticed that the fourth respondent had submitted only two sealed covers as against the required three sealed covers specified in the notification. The fourth respondent had only submitted the technical bid and one commercial bid instead of two commercial bids as stipulated in the tender conditions. According to the petitioner, all the participants expected that the tender of the fourth respondent will be summarily rejected as per the notification, which clearly states that if tender applications are not submitted in three separate sealed covers, the same will be rejected summarily.

5. According to the petitioner, the above procedure was also pointed out before the Tender Opening Committee at the time of opening of the tenders and it was assured that the same will be noted and a decision will be taken in accordance with the Rules, Regulations and Notification. The authorities, in violation of the tender conditions, chose to open the commercial bid of the fourth respondent on 10.8.2011 and found that the fourth respondent has quoted Rs.2,200/-per bus per month for display of advertisement in 1400 buses and the petitioner had quoted Rs.2,103/= per bus per month. According to the