6. After elaborately hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully perusing the materials placed on record, we find that there is no challenge made by the petitioner as regards the procedure adopted by the Tender Scrutiny Committee. Though certain averments have been made, they are not sufficient to hold that there is an error in the tender process. The sum and substance of the objection is that the revenue earned by the respondent Municipality at Rs.6,200/- per day is ridiculously low. Considering the fact that the sixth respondent has invested a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/-, put up a construction with a condition to transfer the property as it is to the respondent Municipality after ten years, in addition the sixth respondent has to pay Rs.6,200/- per day as rent irrespective of the fact that whether the Marriage Hall is occupied or not, thus the respondent Municipality is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- per year as per the terms and conditions of the contract, we are of the view that the petitioner has not been able to point out any arbitrariness in the decision making process and considering the investment of Rs,5,00,00,000/made by the sixth respondent, we are of the view that the decision taken by the respondent Municipality cannot be held to be either illegal or arbitrary. Therefore, we find no reason to grant the relief sought for in the writ petition.
