Also h eard Mr. I. Choudhury v. Nos

. Having noticed the requirement of Rule 254 of the Assam Financial Rules, it ca nnot be said that the publication of the impugned notice in the daily newspaper (cid:28)Eastern Chronicle (cid:29) has violated the provisions of the aforesaid rule in any man ner. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity i n the impugned SNIQ in so far publication of the same in the newspaper (cid:28)Eastern Chronicle (cid:29) and the duration of time provided to the intending bidders for submis sion of their bids are concerned.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Business Link Vrs. A.S. Advertising C ompany and Others; reported in (2003) 10 SCC 258. In the said case, the High Cou rt had set aside the award of contract on the ground that the Notice Inviting Te nder was published in two newspapers, which according to the High Court were not well-known newspapers having wide circulation. The High Court took the view tha t an advertisement in an unknown newspaper stands on the same footing as no adve rtisement at all. The Apex Court while setting aside the said decision of the Hi gh Court, stated as under : (cid:29)8. It appears that along with the written submissions, the parties have filed certain documents. Our attention is invited to p.32 of the SLP paper-book. It is a letter written by the Circulation Officer to the Publisher, Meerut Samachar ( Hindi dainik) with regard to circulation of the said paper. A perusal of the let ter shows that the said paper had a circulation of about 39,600 copies per day. With regard to the other newspaper, Dainik Hira Times (Hindi dainik), a letter d ated 19-5-1997 was filed to show that the said paper had a circulation of about 30,000 copies per day. We may also note that the first-mentioned newspaper, Meer ut Samachar, has been in circulation for about half a century though the second- mentioned newspaper, Dainik Hira Times, has been in circulation for about eleven years. Be that as it may, we are unable to find any support for the finding rec orded by the High Court that Meerut Samachar and Dainik Hira Times are not well known newspapers having wide circulation. The High Court did not advert to the m aterial placed before it. The first finding recorded by the High Court might as well adversely affect the newspapers so it ought not to have been recorded witho ut relying upon sufficient material to justify the finding. The material which w e have adverted to above rebuts the finding so recorded. Further, the very fact that twelve persons responded to the advertisement suggests that the said two ne wspapers had wide circulation in Meerut city. Therefore, that fact militates aga inst the first finding recorded by the High Court. If the first finding goes, th e second finding cannot stand on its own. (cid:29)

11. ision instead of coming to their aid, goes against the petitioners. I am afraid, in the facts of the present case, the aforesaid dec

12. Now, coming to the petitioners themselves, though they have clai med to be engaged in the business of dealing with scrap materials, nothing has b een placed on record to substantiate the said claim except a bald statement made in paragraph-4 of the writ petition. They have not furnished a single instance where they had previously participated in a tender of similar nature or they wer e awarded a contract relating to lifting of scrap materials.

13. In the absence of the same and for the reasons indicated above, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismi ssed. The interim order passed on 23-09-2011 shall stand vacated.

14. Parties to bear their own cost.