JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J. 1. The U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') opposite party no. 1, floated a tender for supply of prestressed cement concrete poles (hereinafter referred to as 'PCC Poles') in the year 198687, for 2.5 lacs in numbers fixing 21.2.86 as the date for closing and opening of tenders. This date was later on extended to 12.3.86 (vide Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition). The tender papers contain the specifications of the poles and usual terms relating to earnest money etc. On 12.3 86 all the 31 tenders were opened; the names of all the tenders are arranged as per Annexure2 giving out the necessary particulars like the tendered rate, including excise, and the total tendered amount. It took sufficiently long time to finalise the matter. The meeting of the Central Store Purchase Committee (hereinafter referred to as CSPS), constituted according to the regulations of the Board for the purpose, held its meeting on 28.8.86 to finalise the matter. The rates tendered by the tenders were not uniform. The Committee adopted resolution in the matter and copy of the minutes of the Committee is contained in Annexure4 to the writ petition. 2. As would appear from this decision, the lowest tender was not accepted and nearest realistic offer of Rs. 470 inclusive of maximum excise duty of 12% quoted by the petitioner firm and another firm was taken to be the reasonable fate and it was decided to place orders with the various firms at this rate. The tentative requirements for eastern and western area of the State were worked out and it was decided that orders be placed for 43% of the quantities offered by the firms for the eastern areas and 50% of the quantities offered by the firm for the western area. So far as the petitioner is concerned the committee decided that no order be placed on this firm because according to the information provided to the committee supply of 19363 poles was yet pending on the petitioner's firm as on June 30, 1986, against an earlier order. So far as the petitioner is concerned the committee decided that no order be placed on this firm because according to the information provided to the committee supply of 19363 poles was yet pending on the petitioner's firm as on June 30, 1986, against an earlier order. The petitioner is aggrieved by this decision of the committee in so far as the petitioner was ignored in the matter of placing of order for any quantity of PCC Poles even though the petitioner's rate was found to be reasonable and was adopted for purpose of settlement of price with other tenders. The action of the opposite parties in depriving the petitioner of the benefit of the order for supply has been challenged both on facts and in law and the plea raised is that the petitioner has been discriminated against without any justifiable basis and the order of the Board is arbitrary and unreasonable. 3, According to the petitioner the orders placed on the various firms as per the minutes for the meeting of the committee did not meet the total requirements of the Board and that the Committee sent counter offers to the firms mentioned at serial Nos. 19 to 31 of the list contained in Annexure3 and that this course was adopted against the stipulations of the tender notice and with a view to helping these firms as an undue favour. It is also stated that the said firms at serial nos. 19 to 31 of Annexure3 quoted exactly the same rate and this fact supports the inference that the matters were not aboveboard and these firms were favoured ones. It is also alleged that the quantity specified in the tender notice was increased from 2.5 lacs to about 5 lacs and this was also done, with a view to help these firms. The petitioner denied that he was defaulter in the matter of supply of poles. According to him the delay occurred in the supply of poles was caused because of the Board having failed to provide cement for manufacture of poles as per his requirements and that it was necessary for the board to have made available requisite quantity of cement for the purpose of manufacture of poles. 4. According to him the delay occurred in the supply of poles was caused because of the Board having failed to provide cement for manufacture of poles as per his requirements and that it was necessary for the board to have made available requisite quantity of cement for the purpose of manufacture of poles. 4. The Board has justified its action in, depriving the petitioner of any order of any quantity and eliminating the petitioner from the list to whom the orders for supply of pole; were placed on the ground that petitioner's performance in the matter of supply on earlier occasions was poor. In this regard the order placed in the years 1979 and again in the year 1985 have been referred to. On behalf of the Board Shri B.S. Chhabra, Executive Engineer of the Board in the Steel Cell at Lucknow has filed counteraffidavit dated29.9.86. In paragraph 9 thereof it has been stated 19,000 poles were yet to be supplied by the petitioner which related to the previous contract and that the committee decided that the petitioner will be considered for further orders only after he had made complete supplies relating to the old contract. Regarding supply of levy cement it was submitted in paragraph 11 of this counter affidavit that release of levycement was allowed commensurate to supply of poles by the various suppliers and the firms who had made supplies more than 75% of the stipulated quantity were naturally given preference in the matter of release of levycement. In regard to the charge of arbitrariness and favoritism shown to some firms it has been submitted that the decisions for placing orders to the various firms are taken by the Central Store Purchase Committee which is composed of Chairman, two members of the Board and the Joint Secretary, Finance, of the U.P. Government and all the tenders are carefully scanned by the committee. The decision to eliminate the petitioner was taken as a policy measure because the petitioner had not made supplies of the previous contract and that it was in keeping with the interest of the Board that orders were placed with various firms. The decision to eliminate the petitioner was taken as a policy measure because the petitioner had not made supplies of the previous contract and that it was in keeping with the interest of the Board that orders were placed with various firms. It was also stated that the quoting of rates; is a matter in the hands of the tenderers and the Board has no say about it and that the Central Purchase Committee decides the matter on the basis of overall factors, including performance of the tenders and the rates quoted by them It was not denied that orders were placed beyond quantity covered by the tender in question but this action was sought to be justified on the basis that the decision to take more poles was taken by the said committee considering overall interest of the Board like requirement, supply position and the trend of increase of prices all round, In this way, the allegation about favoritism in the case of firms at serial nos. 19 to 31 of Annexure3 are denied and it is submitted that the decisions are taken by a High Powered Committee upon consideration of all relevant factors and in the best interest of the Board. 5. First, we would consider whether the petitioner's performance in the matter of supply of poles was poor in regard to the previous orders and whether it justified the petitioner's exclusion from being placed any order in regard to this tender. In the counteraffidavit dated 29.9.86 filed by Shri B.S. Chhabra, Executive Engineer it was stated that in the year 1979 the Board had given a contract to the petitioner for supply of 24000 poles which he could supply iii halting manner upto August, 1986. It was also submitted in, this connection that the Board was not required to provide levy cement for manufacture of poles. It was conceded on behalf of the Board that barring a few suppliers all others did not keep up the time schedule in the matter of supply of poles in regard to 1979 tender but it has been explained that the extent of default and delay was much higher in the case of petitioner as compared to other parties. It was conceded on behalf of the Board that barring a few suppliers all others did not keep up the time schedule in the matter of supply of poles in regard to 1979 tender but it has been explained that the extent of default and delay was much higher in the case of petitioner as compared to other parties. In para 10 it was stated that the Board provided facility to supply of levy cement to the petitioner to the extent of 4300 M.T. upto third quarter of 1986 and against such supply of cement only 35157 poles were supplied by the petitioner and the balance of poles against 7S4.3 M. T. of cement remained still unsupplied. 6. On behalf of the petitioner supplementary affidavit of the managing partner of the petitioner's firm was filed on 17.10.86. Annexure 8 to 15 to the affidavit being copies of the letters of the Board have been relied upon in support of the submission that the petitioner was required to manufacture the poles only by using levy cement and that the supply of levy cement was not commensurate with the need of the petitioner for this purpose. Annexure10 is the letter dated 20.3.82 of the Superintending Engineer of the Board clearly mentioning that no poles manufactured with the nonlevy cement shall be acceptable and necessary action had already been initiated by the Board to get the required quantity of cement for purpose of manufacture of the poles. Through letter dated 5.11,79 Annexure 8, the petitioner was advised to limit its production to approximately 400500 poles per month and in case more poles are required at any stage the petitioner shall be given a reasonable time for extending the facilities. Again, by letter dated 19.5.82, Annexure11, petitioner was informed that there was no requirements of poles upto September, 1982 and necessary rescheduling for supplies to be received in 198283 was being done. Delivery schedule was amended by letter dated 29.5.82 Annexure13 and again by letter dated 16.3, 83 Annexure14. Through this letter dated 16.3.83 the requirements for supply of poles was specified and it was indicated that action to allot levy cement to the required extent shall be taken in due course. By letter dated 17.4.84 Annexure15 rescheduling was again done and the requirement was also specified in regard to the supply of the poles by the petitioner. Through this letter dated 16.3.83 the requirements for supply of poles was specified and it was indicated that action to allot levy cement to the required extent shall be taken in due course. By letter dated 17.4.84 Annexure15 rescheduling was again done and the requirement was also specified in regard to the supply of the poles by the petitioner. There is then a letter dated 3.7.85, Annexure16, from the Superintending Engineer addressed to the Regional Cement Controller, New Delhi, with a copy to the petitioner, mentioning that M/S Satna Cement Works had intimated that it was not possible to despatch cement in validity period and the validity period was sought to be extended upto 31.8.85. There is a letter dated 6.5.86 from the Director, TOL 3/4 11 New Delhi, addressed to the Superintending Engineer of the Board, with a copy to the petitioner, clearly mentioning that on account of acute shortage inthe availability of cement from the factories located in the Northern Region during the last 34 quarters it was decided by the Development Commissioner for cement industry that all authorisations issued for third quarter of the year 1985 shall be treated as lapsed and extension of validity period will be allowed only in respect of said authorisations as were issued on or after. 2.10.85. These documents support the petitioner's case that petitioner was required to manufacture the poles only from the levy cement which was being arranged with the help of the Board and further that the position of availability of levy cement was somewhat uncertain and this factor naturally affected the process of manufacture and resultant capacity of the petitioner to supply the poles within the period stipulated in the tender documents. There was also a stage when the Board indicated to the petitioner that the petitioner should limit the production and made the supplies as per the specified quantity of the poles. In this situation, the petitioner cannot be held responsible, atleast wholly, for any delay which was caused in the matter of supply of the poles within the contracted time schedule under the order placed in the year 1979. 7. In regard to the order relating to the year 1985 the petitioner's submission is that he could not get supply of levy cement even under the allotments made by the Board. 7. In regard to the order relating to the year 1985 the petitioner's submission is that he could not get supply of levy cement even under the allotments made by the Board. On behalf of the Board reliance was placed on the statement of cement allocations filed as AnnexureA to the counteraffidavit dated 29.9.86, by Shri B.S. Chhabra, Executive Engineer. According to this statement 610 + 500 M.T. cement was allotted in the 4th quarter of 1985. In the first quarter of 19861000 M.T. of cement was allotted and another 500 M.T. was allotted in the second quarter of 1986. In para 3 of the rejoinderaffidavit filed by the Managing Director of the petitioner dated 3.10.86 it was staled that no cement allotted at item nos. 15 &16 was received by the petitioner upto June 30, 1986 and that the total quantity of cement received by the petitioner upto June 30, 1986 was only 1100 M.T. against order of Steel CellI and that the petitioner supplied more than 11000 poles against this supply of cement. The factual position as regards the actual receipt of the cement by the petitioner could not be controverted and the only explanation furnished on behalf of the Board is that the petitioner, it appears, did not take necessary and timely steps to obtain cement against the allotment issued in his favour. In the absence of any definite material it is difficult to infer that the petitioner himself did not take necessary steps like the payment of price or follow up of the matter in getting the cement against the allotments made in his favour and the broad picture that appears to be emerging is that the petitioner did not receive the required supply of cement in time and that naturally affected his capacity to manufacture the poles and supply the same within the stipulated period. In order words, the delay in the matter of supply of the poles has been explained to a reasonable extent and in the overall picture, exclusion of the petitioner from consideration for placing orders under the tender in question was not well justified on the ground of delay relatable to the previous order. In order words, the delay in the matter of supply of the poles has been explained to a reasonable extent and in the overall picture, exclusion of the petitioner from consideration for placing orders under the tender in question was not well justified on the ground of delay relatable to the previous order. The submission of the petitioner's learned counsel that at no stage it was intimated to the petitioner that the Board was in urgent need of the poles and that an adverse view as to the performance of the petitioner would be taken in case of petitioner's failure to make supplies as per the requirements has some force. In any case, it was necessary for the Board or the Central Store Purchase Committee to have given an opportunity to the petitioner to explain any justifiable reasons, for the delay in the matter of supply of the poles. It is further relevant that no such condition was contained in the Board's notice or in any other connected papers that the tenders who had failed to make supplies of poles within the stipulated period under the previous order could be kept out of consideration for placing orders under the instant tender. If such a condition had been contained in the tender documents or an opportunity of explanation had been allowed to the petitioner the explanation could be furnished by the petitioner and would have been duly considered by the Central Store Purchase Committee while taking decision in the matter. 8. The other aspect raised on behalf of the petitioner is of discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner. The case of another firm, namely, Calcutta Construction and Investment Co., Bareilly has been cited in this connection. According to the petitioner this firm (Calcutta Construction and Investment Co.) was a defaulter to the extent of 100% upto 30.6.86 and yet this firm was not excluded from consideration for placing order under the tender in question. Relevant in this connection is the statement of supplies of old firms filed as AnnexureC2 to the counteraffidavit dated 3.8.87 of Shri U.S. Purohit, Assistant Engineer, in the Steel Cell of the Board, According to his statement the percentage of poles supplied upto June, 1986 of the petitioner was 35.45% while the percentage of M/S Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. Relevant in this connection is the statement of supplies of old firms filed as AnnexureC2 to the counteraffidavit dated 3.8.87 of Shri U.S. Purohit, Assistant Engineer, in the Steel Cell of the Board, According to his statement the percentage of poles supplied upto June, 1986 of the petitioner was 35.45% while the percentage of M/S Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. has been shown to be cent percent because according to the statement tie quantity ordered was 12000 and this was supplied upto June, 1986. In the remarks column it has been mentioned that 6000 poles were supplied through the sister concern, namely, Adarsh Cement, Ghaziabad shown at serial no. 11 in this statement. Some other connected papers have also been filed on behalf of the Board, being AnnexuresC3 to C7. Factual position of the quantity ordered and the quantity supplied by this firm appears to be like this. An order for supply of 12000 poles was placed, on this firm and as per annexuresC4 and C6 to the said counter affidavit, this firm had not started production till Feb. 1986 even though 2000 M.T. of levy cement had been allotted to this firm prior to Feb. 1986 and the firm was asking for more levy cement. This firm being new one, failed to start its production, and arrangement for making supply of the poles was made through its sister concern M/S Adarsh Cement Products. The sister concern undertook to supply 6000 poles as against the supply of Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. as per the terms relating to transport of the poles as contracted with Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. This proposal was accepted by the Board and 6000 poles supplied by Adarsh Cement Products, Ghaziabad was accepted on behalf of Calcutta, Construction and Investment Co, This proposal was treated to be generous and in placed(sic) on Adarsh Cement Products, Ghaziabad and the quantity of 12000 poles required to be supplied by Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. was rescheduled. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly argues that this arrangement on the face of it indicates that an undue concession was shown to both the firms, namely, Adarsh Cement Products, Ghaziabad and the defaulting firm Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. was rescheduled. Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly argues that this arrangement on the face of it indicates that an undue concession was shown to both the firms, namely, Adarsh Cement Products, Ghaziabad and the defaulting firm Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. Both the firms, though sister concerns, have independent legal entity and had submitted separate tenders which were accepted and the contractual liability of both the firms was independent and their liability could not be mixed up. Admittedly, Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. failed to make supplies as per the stipulated schedule even though it had received 2000 M, T. of cement against this supply. M/S Adarsh Cement Products, Ghaziabad, no doubt, offered to make supplies of 6000 poles in lieu of the default committed by its sister concern but this supply nevertheless was made to the account of M/S Adarsh Cement Products and the payment was to be made to Adarsh Cement Products and not to Calcutta Construction and, Investment Co. as is clear from Clause (c) of the Note AnnexureC6. The fact that the sister concern came to the rescue of Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. and offered to make the required supply of poles to the Board bad hardly any legal sustenance to cover the default. Clearly this cannot wipe off the fact that in so far as Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. is concerned it was defaulter to the extent of 100% upto June, 1986 and in any case upto February, 1986. The offer of Adarsh Cement Products could reasonably be appreciated and this firm was rewarded with an additional order of 6000 PCC poles. The fact remains that in so far as Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. is concerned it remained a defaulter to the extent of 100% and even if the contention of the Board is accepted, to the extent of 50%. Purely from legal aspect the default of Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. was obviously 100% & yet a fresh order under the tender in question was placed for supply of 30,000 poles as is clear from Aanexure3 to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the Board could not in any way explain as to how the default made by Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. was obviously 100% & yet a fresh order under the tender in question was placed for supply of 30,000 poles as is clear from Aanexure3 to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the Board could not in any way explain as to how the default made by Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. could be treated to be wiped off on the strength of the supply of 6000 poles by the sister concern Adarsh Cement Products for which they were duly paid and as a reward whereof they were given an Additional order for 6000 poles. It appears the projection of the matter of default of Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. as per the notes of the Officers of the Board in AnnexureC5 and C6 was misdirected and somewhat indefensible. The petitioner has thus succeeded in showing that the petitioner's case was not considered in the right perspective and he was discriminated against when compared with the case of Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. 9. It has been submitted that the petitioner is not engaged in any other business except for manufacture of PCC poles. Correctness of this assertion could not be assailed on behalf of the opposite party. If a firm is established only for the purposes of manufacture of PCC poles, the purchaser whereof in the state of Uttar Pradesh is only U.P. State Electricity Board, the decision to altogether exclude such firm from being placed any further order would naturally hard hit the concern. This was a relevant consideration while taking decision to exclude a firm completely, because to starve,' an industry adversely affects the economy of the concern as also the interest of the labour. If the Committee could be indulgent in favour of a new concern, Calcutta Construction Co., a strict view in regard to the petitioner was unjustified. In any case an opportunity was required to be afforded to the petitioner to explain the delay and default in the matter of supply of the poles under the previous order. This approach was all the more called for when there was m condition incorporated in the tender documents that delay and default in supply of poles under the previous orders could disqualify a tenderer from being considered for the instant tender. 10. This approach was all the more called for when there was m condition incorporated in the tender documents that delay and default in supply of poles under the previous orders could disqualify a tenderer from being considered for the instant tender. 10. We broadly accept the plea raised on behalf of the Board that the decisions in tenders of this nature are taken by the Central Store Purchase Committee which is a high powered committee and further that the decisions are taken on the basis of overall factors. In the instant case, however, the petitioner appears to have had a reasonable explanation for the delay in the, matter of supply of the poles and the petitioner is hard hit by the decision of, the Board having been completely excluded from being placed with an order for supply of the poles despite his being otherwise qualified and his raters being also found to be reasonable and acceptable. The petitioner has not alleged any malafides on the part of any functionaries of the Board or a bias against the petitioner and the only thing alleged is that in placing of orders the Board has shown undue favour to certain firms named at serial nos. 19 to 31 in Annexure3 to the writ petition. It has also been alleged that the petitioner has been excluded from consideration on extraneous grounds. Upon consideration of the factual position as a whole we are unable to record a conclusion that the members of the Central Store Purchase Committee were actuated by any malice against the petitioner or that they acted malafide in placing the orders on the various firms. Likewise, we are unable to accept that the performance of the suppliers in the supply of the poles within the stipulated period was not a relevant consideration for purpose of taking a decision in this matter Only thing we would like to record is that in the facts and circumstances the complete exclusion of the petitioner from being placed with an order of supply was improper and unjustified because the petitioner had a reasonable explanation for delay in the making of supplies under the previous contracts and the relevant factors underlying this delay were neither considered by the functionaries of the Board nor an opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation in this regard. The decision for complete exclusion of the petitioner was all the more unfortunate and unjustified because it appears the petitioner is not engaged in any other business except for manufacture of PCC poles and complete exclusion of the petitioner in the matter could result in virtual cksure of the venture atleast for the period when there is no pending order and the labour remains idle. On behalf of the Board it is undenied that within U.P. the Board is the only purchaser of the PCC poles. It is difficult to appreciate the stand of the Board that it could be open to the petitioner to manufacture and supply poles to the Electricity Boards in other States or that the petitioner would be considered again for future tenders. It is relevant that the functionaries of the Board were indulgent in favour of another firm, namely, Calcutta Construction and Investment Co. and condoned the default of this firm. Only explanation to be put forward was that the Board was interested in getting timely supplies. If the Board in its anxiety to get supply of poles could be indulgent in favour of one firm a similar approach was justifiably called for in the petitioner's case also. 11. Undeniably, the U.P. State Electricity Board is instrumentality of the Government and is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In a welfare state the Government is the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits including contracts quotas, licences and jobs etc. The Government is not and should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients of such benefits. Whatever its activity the Government will be subject to restraint inherent in its decision in a democratic society and it cannot lay down arbitrary standards in the choice of persons in this respect. The position of law in this regard in well settled. Reference may be made to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 489) and Chaitanya Kumar and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (1986) 2 Supreme Court Cases 594. The position of law in this regard in well settled. Reference may be made to the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 489) and Chaitanya Kumar and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (1986) 2 Supreme Court Cases 594. In R. D. Shetty's case it was observed as follows: It is a well settled rule of administrative law that an executive throaty must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its action to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards cm pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them...............................Today with tremendous expansion of welfare and social service functions, increasing control of material and economic resources and large scale assumption of industrial and commercial activities by the State, the power of executive Government to affect the lives of the people is steadily growing....................... This renders it necessary to structure and restrict the power of the executive Government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise ............ It is indeed unthinkable that in a democracy governed by the rule of law the executive Government or any of its officers should possess arbitrary power over the interests of th6 individual. Every action of the executive Government must be informed with reasons and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence of the rule of law and its bare minimal ''requirement And to the application of this principle it makes difference whether the exercise of the power involves affection of some tight or denial of some privilege. [Para 10] 12. In the famous Chaitanya Kumar's case (popularly known as 'Arrack' it was observed as follows We agree with Mr. Venugopal. But simultaneously, the court cannot close its eyes and persuade itself to uphold publicly mischievous executive actions which have been so exposed. When arbitrariness and perversion are writ large and brought out clearly, the court cannot shirk its duty and refuse its writ. Advancement of the public interest and avoidance of the public mischief are the paramount considerations. As always, the court is concerned with the balancing of interests. [Para 10] 13. When arbitrariness and perversion are writ large and brought out clearly, the court cannot shirk its duty and refuse its writ. Advancement of the public interest and avoidance of the public mischief are the paramount considerations. As always, the court is concerned with the balancing of interests. [Para 10] 13. In the instant case the Factual position has been analysed above and what comes out is that there was no condition in the tender documents that a tenderer could be excluded from consideration on the ground of default or delay caused in relation to any previous supply and in the absence of the provision to that effect it was not open to the Board to exclude the petitioner altogether from consideration from placing an order and in any case this could not be done without affording an opportunity of explanation as to the previous default or delay. Further the petitioner had justifiable case to explain this delay or default in respect of the previous supplies. The Board dealt with the petitioner's case rather discriminately when compared in the context of the attitude and manner in which some others or atleast one tenderer was dealt with. Accordingly, the action of the Board has to be held unreasonable, unfair and suffering from vice of arbitrariness. The action in completely excluding the petitioner from this tender was clearly not in advancement of public interest. 14. Lastly, about the relief. The petitioner's main prayers are that the decision of the Central Store Purchase Committee in its meeting dated 218.87 insofar as it disqualifies the petitioner be quashed, that a writ of mandamus be issued, commanding the oppositeparties to accept the tender of the petitioner in respect of 50,000 PCC poles and that the oppositeparties be directed not to Accept any counteroffer pursuant to the decision of the Central Store Purchase Committee in the said meeting. No case has been nude out in respect of the relief claimed for direction to the oppositeparties to not to accept any counteroffer in pursuance of the decision of Central Store Purchase Committee. The other two relief's claimed are interconnected. The writ was filed on 15.9.86. An interim order was passed on 19.8.86 providing that till further orders of the court the oppositeparties shall not settle and issue orders for purchase of 25,000 PCC poles. The other two relief's claimed are interconnected. The writ was filed on 15.9.86. An interim order was passed on 19.8.86 providing that till further orders of the court the oppositeparties shall not settle and issue orders for purchase of 25,000 PCC poles. The first counter affidavit on behalf of the oppositeparties is dated 29.9.86 of one Shri B.S. Chhabra, Executive Engineer of the Board. In para 25 thereof it was stated that even if the petitioner had not been a major defaulter to the extent of 65%, the quantity for which order could be placed on the petitioner would not have been for more than 21,000 poles. This figure appears to have been worked out on the basis of the decision taken by the Committee that orders to the extent of 43% of the tender offer be placed insofar as the supplies in the eastern districts of the State. The submission of the petitioners learned counsel inregard to this stand is that the Board by adopting the method of counter offers has placed orders with the firms at serial nos. 19 to 31 of Annexure3 to the writ petition beyond the notified quantity of 2.5 lacs poles. In para 8 of the rejoinderaffidavit dated 29.9.86 the petitioner has alleged that the enhancement of the quantity of poles to the tune of 3,22,725 is not within the terms of the tender. Another counteraffidavit of the same officer, namely, Shri Chhabra, Executive Engineer was filed on 10.10.86. No direct reply was given in this supplementary counteraffidavit explaining beyond the notified quantity of 2.5 lacs in the tender notice. Only thing mentioned in para 5 of this supplementary counteraffidavit is that the Board has not given any contract at the rate more than Rupees 419 per pole besides actual excise duty paid and that the counter offers were extended on 3.9.86 which have also been communicated. It was also, added that since the oppositeparties were directed to reserve 25,000 poles under the interim orders the selected parties have been intimated for proportionate reduction of supply of contracted poles till the interim order continues. A plea was raised that the rights of the approved contractors were affected and they are necessary parties. It was also, added that since the oppositeparties were directed to reserve 25,000 poles under the interim orders the selected parties have been intimated for proportionate reduction of supply of contracted poles till the interim order continues. A plea was raised that the rights of the approved contractors were affected and they are necessary parties. From the perusal of the statements contained in the affidavit exchanged between the parfies, it appears that the Board by way of counter offers placed orders beyond the quantity notified in the tender notice and it is out of this quantity that 25,000 poles were reserved in terms of the interim orders of this court. Since the additional orders placed with some parties were beyond the quantity notified in the tender notice it was not considered necessary to implead any party which incidentally was not mentioned in the counteraffidavit nor in our opinion the legal rights of any party are affected in case any order is directed to be placed to the petitioner. 15. As is observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Chaitanya Kumar's v. State of Karnataka (Arracks case) the court is concerned with the balancing of interests. In the totality of facts we are of the view that the interest of justice require that the oppositeparties be directed to place forthwith order with the petitioner for supply of 25,000 PCC poles which quantity lies in reserve in accordance with the orders of this Court. The petitioner has already stated in the petition that he is not engaged in any other business except that of manufacture of PCC poles and as such his work Appears to be standstill and the labour and other staff sitting idle. The Board as per the submissions raised before us are in dire need of supply of poles. Over all, the public interest would be served and it would be consistent also in| the interest of justice, if a direction is issued to the oppositeparties to place orders for 25,000 poles with the petitioner. 16. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed partly and it is directed that the oppositeparties shall place an order with the petitioner for the supply of 25,000 PCC poles in acceptance of his tender in question. 16. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed partly and it is directed that the oppositeparties shall place an order with the petitioner for the supply of 25,000 PCC poles in acceptance of his tender in question. The order shall be placed without loss of time, say, within a period of fifteen days from the date when a copy of this judgment is placed before the Secretary of U.P. State Electricity Board or Superintending Engineer, Steel Cell, oppositeparty no. 2. The order shall be placed on terms and conditions on which such order would have been placed had the petitioner not been disqualified for the purpose by the Central Store Purchase Committee. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.