Vijender Jain ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the non-consideration of the price bid of the petitioner. It was contended before me by Ms. Ansuya Salwan, learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the tender documents and terms of the tender, the technical bid as well as price bid was given in two envelops A and B. Various other contentions were raised before me by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to size of LT panels the details of which was not given in the tender. It was also argued that in past in similar circumstances the respondents have allowed petitioner to submit revised bids. It was further contended that after asking the petitioner to keep its, bid offer valid, the respondents ought to have considered the price bid of the petitioner. . It was further argued that the respondents had no right in not considering the price bid as the said bid was not withdrawn and no revised price bid was submitted by the petitioner to the respondents. ( 2 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Y. K. Kapur, learned counsel for respondents/airport Authority of India has contended that the petitioner has sought change in the. price bid by loading the component of additional sales-tax which was not permitted by the respondents and vide its letter dated 30/3/2000 it was made clear that the same was not agreeable,to the respondents and if the petitioner did not confirm compliance of the said letter, the price bid of the petitioner shall be rejected. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER, a letter was written by the petitioner (which is at page 44 of the paper-book), wherein the petitioner has reiterated its stand that on account of statutory levies, the statutory increase announced by the Government, the petitioner had a fundamental-right to revise its rates. ( 4 ) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel appearing for both the parties. In view of the letter dated 29/3/2000 of the petitioner (which is at page 41 of the paper-book) wherein it has been stated that on account of uncertainty with regard to payment of sales-tax as to whether any sales-tax form would be issued to the petitioner or not, the petitioner has to pay full CST. In view of the letter dated 29/3/2000 of the petitioner (which is at page 41 of the paper-book) wherein it has been stated that on account of uncertainty with regard to payment of sales-tax as to whether any sales-tax form would be issued to the petitioner or not, the petitioner has to pay full CST. The petitioner had to do loading of the sales-tax as under in place of 4% : cst on Biecco Lawrie Panel @ 10% cst on Alstom Panel @ 10% cst on Transformer @ 10% local Sales-tax: 8% ( 5 ) IN the above letter, the petitioner further wrote as under :- "keeping ,in view the above changes such as due to the confirmation as desired by yourself and as,well as the change in make of ACBs and MCCBs, Bus Ducting and due to CST and Contract Tax we will have to revise our rates, a sufficient time be given for submitting the revised price - bid. " ( 6 ) THAT demand of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 30/3/2000 (which is at page 43 of the paper-book ). It was mentioned in the said letter : "further, it is observed that you now intend to revise, the Sales Tax/cst components and also the price bid which are not agreed to. You are requested to confirm your compliance to above without any revision in price bid failing which your bid is liable to be rejected. " ( 7 ) INSTEAD of agreeing to the original price bid, the petitioner vide its letter dated 31/3/2000 reiterated. its right to be compensated on account of statutory increase. ( 8 ) IN view of these facts to say that no revised bid was submitted by the petitioner is not correct. It was for the respondents to have agreed for the revised bid or not. Respondents could not have been compelled for, agreeing to revised bid. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, I do not see any infirmity in the; stand of the respondents in not calling the petitioner when the price bid was opened. The counter offer of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent on 30/3/2000. No ground to interfere. Interim order stands. vacated.