the same with open eyes. However, in order to avoid full compliance of Clause-8 of auction notice, the respondent went on to file a civil suit. Having participated in the tender proceedings with open eyes, the respondent challenged the Clause-8 of the auction notice in the civil Court and thereby, stalled the issuance of the work order. The matter was taken to the High Court and the appellants gave a clear indication before the High Court that they were proposing to hold a fresh auction. However, during pendency of appeal before the High Court, an order dated 7th May, 2010 came to be passed whereby, the appellants were directed to award the work to the respondent being L-2. 21. We feel that once the respondent-writ petitioner had participated in the tender process being fully conscious of the terms and conditions of the auction notice, he was estopped from 13taking a U-turn so as to question the legality or validity of the terms and conditions of the auction notice. By dragging the