as also Ext.P4 notifications. The contention of the petitioner is that it was not properly published and therefore, he had no opportunity to respond to those notifications. The documents produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition would belie the said contention as the very contention of the petitioner is that Exts.P3 and P4 notifications were published. When that be the contention, there is incongruity in the stand taken in that matter on behalf of the petitioner orally and in writing. In the said circumstances, especially taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not responded to Exts.P3 and P4 notifications and further the fact that pursuant to the notification issued under Ext.P4 the bid was finalised in favour of the 7th respondent and he has been conducting the sale of pooja articles on the strength of being selected as the successful bidder, pursuant to Ext.P4 from 1.4.2021, we are of the view that the prayer of the petitioner to grant him an opportunity to submit a tender cannot be accepted. We have also considered the contention of the petitioner that the notification regarding the auction of the right to sell pooja articles was not issued properly in the light of the decision in Sreekumar's case (supra). The petitioner has extracted the relevant paragraphs in Sreekumar's case carrying the guidelines in the matter of tender notification, in ground 'A' as hereunder:-
