SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE acceptance of the tender of and entrustmcnt of the works pertaining to station building and miscellaneous works to, the 4th respondent, by the 2nd respondent (referred as 'the Corporation') is under challenge in this writ petition. The construction to be put up under the impugned contract is stated to be of Station building and Miscellaneous Works such as providing panel walls, false-ceiling, insulation works, etc. , for Unit-Ill, which is a component of the Raichur Thermal Power Station, Stagc-II, with an installed capacity of 210 MW. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the 2nd respondent, the draft tender specifications for the works were formulated by M/s. Tata Consulting Engineers, who were the consulting engineers by the second respondent. These were scrutinised by the Chief engineer (Civil Designs) of the 2nd respondent corporation and with his note, were, further considered by the Civil Committee of the Corporation. The brief tender notification dated 27-12-1988 was thereafter issued by the chief Engineer concerned, as per the approval of the aforesaid Committee. Initial estimated cost of work was Rs. 180 lakhs; period for completion was twenty months. The petitioner, who submitted his tender, is aggrieved by the acceptance of the 4th respondent's tender on several grounds. ( 3 ) THE contentions urged by Sri Sundara swamy, learned counsel for the petitioner, are:i. The 4th respondent was not eligible or qualified to be furnished with the tender books and the awarding of contract in terms of the tender notification. II. The date on which qualification/eligibility has to be dptermincd, was 17-1-1989 which was the last date for acceptance of application form for issue of tender books and the 4th respondent failed to produce the certificates in proof of its qualification. III. The 2nd respondent, in the guise of seeking clarification, extended the time to prove the qualification and thus varied the terms of tender notification. This clarification varying the tender notification was not given due publicity, and only, the four persons who submitted the tenders were informed of it. The extension of lime given to prove the eligibility/qualification was done, only to favour the 4th respondent, in view of the differences that existed between the petitioner and the Managing director of the 2nd respondent (who is a party as 3rd respondent ). IV. The 2nd respondent has not acted fairly and reasonably while considering the tenders. The extension of lime given to prove the eligibility/qualification was done, only to favour the 4th respondent, in view of the differences that existed between the petitioner and the Managing director of the 2nd respondent (who is a party as 3rd respondent ). IV. The 2nd respondent has not acted fairly and reasonably while considering the tenders. There has been no comparative evaluation of the respective lenders of the petitioner and of the 4th, respondent. ( 4 ) TO a large extent, these contentions overlap each other and the respective contentions and replies could be considered by formulating two main points, as arising for consideration: (I) Whether the 2nd respondent acted fairly, reasonably and properly while inviting and considering the various tenders submitted in respccl of the works in question? (II) Whether the 4th respondent was qualified at all for the award of the contract in question? ( 5 ) THE tender notification inviting tenders were issued on 27-12-1988. Tenders were invited from registered contractors as stated therein. Nature of the work, estimated cost of work, brief details of the work etc. , were also stated therein. Thereafter the para-I bearing the marginal heading "minimum qualifying requirement" gives three requirements:"1. Should have executed civil and architectural works including insulation in a power plant/industrial complex, preferably in power plant, 2. Should have executed atleast 1000 m /month of concreting and atlcasl 300 M /per month of brick work at one site. 3. The annual turnover for each of the preceding three years should be 1 crorc. " para-II referred to the period of completion of work. Para-III refers to the particulars of issue and receipt of icndcr, which rcads:- " (a) Last dale for receipt of application form for issue of blank lender books. . 17-1-1989 (b) Period of issue of blank lender books. . 23-1-1989 lo 27-1-1989. (c) Last date and lime for receipt of completed lender books. . 6-2-1989 upto 3. 00p. M. "para-IV pertains to the requirement of financial soundness etc. , of the tenderer. Para-V states that the intending tenderers shall furnish the information stated therein along with the application for issue of blank tender books, i. e. ,-" (a) Audited balance sheet/certificate from chartered accountant for preceding three years; (b) Latest Income-tax Clearance Certificate. (c) Copy of the Rcgislration Certificate. , of the tenderer. Para-V states that the intending tenderers shall furnish the information stated therein along with the application for issue of blank tender books, i. e. ,-" (a) Audited balance sheet/certificate from chartered accountant for preceding three years; (b) Latest Income-tax Clearance Certificate. (c) Copy of the Rcgislration Certificate. (d) Annual output of the works of the above nature at any site accompanied by a certificate from the organisation for whom the tenderer had carried out the works furnishing details such as rate of pouring of concrete, manufacturing of hollow concrete blocks, precast, concrete blocks. . . . . . (not clear) etc. ,, and period of completion scheduled/envisaged, equipments and their deployment, i. e. , man, months etc. . "para-XII is also relevant, which reads:"corporation also reserves the right to verify any information/documents furnished, inspect the works carried out by the party and also to carry out assessment of the capability and capacity of the tenderer should the circumstances warranl such assessment in the overall interest of the Corporation. "5. There is no dispute that the petitioner applied for tender books on 13-1-1989 along with all the required certificates, information etc. The 4lh respondent also applied on 11-1-1989. According to the 2nd respondent six applications were received, out of whom, except the petitioner, other five applicants did not furnish some of the requisite certificates/information. It is slated by the 2nd respondent in its objection statement at para-12, that, since the Corporation had knowledge about the good performance of these five applicants in the past and desired better competitors for the work, the Corporation decided to seek information through clarifications from the applicants for tender books. Accordingly, 4th respondent and two other tenderers were informed by a letter dated 25-1-1989. All applicants were individually intimated of he extension of lime for further information/clarification, issue of tender forms, receipt of completed tenders etc. Annexure-E dated 25/27-1-1989 is the letter informing all the applicants of the changes effected in the tender notification and they arc: "1. Last date for receipt of clarifications. . 10-02-1989 2. Period of issue of blank. , 13-02-1989 tender books to 16-02-1989 3. Last date and time for. . 27-02-1989 receipt of completed upto 3 P. M. tender books 4. Annexure-E dated 25/27-1-1989 is the letter informing all the applicants of the changes effected in the tender notification and they arc: "1. Last date for receipt of clarifications. . 10-02-1989 2. Period of issue of blank. , 13-02-1989 tender books to 16-02-1989 3. Last date and time for. . 27-02-1989 receipt of completed upto 3 P. M. tender books 4. The Part I of the Tender containing the technical and commercial conditions will be opened on 27-2-1989 after 4 P. M. if possible, or on any subsequent date, in the presence of available tenderers or their authorised representatives. Other terms and conditions remain same. " ( 6 ) ON 25-2-1989 petitioner submitted his tender. The 4th respondent also submitted its tender within the time fixed as per the changed timings. On 27-2-1989 Part-I of the tenders were opened and Part II were opened (containing the rates) on 10-4-1989. They reflected the position as follows; ( 21 ) IF, only the petitioner was to be given the tender books, nothing remained in the tender process. Public interest would be seriously damaged, by confining the consideration of the tender of the petitioner only. Competition amongst competent tenders is an essential requirement of awarding the contract, so as to safeguard the public interest. Hence, it is not possible to accept the petitioner's contentions that tender-books should have been given only to the petitioner and that the extension of time to submit the tenders with requisite clarifications as per Annexure-E was illegal. I don't find any unfairness or unreasonableness in the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent. A ground, attributing motives to the 3rd respondent and his bias against the petitioner was also raised. The allegations in this regard were specifically denied by respondents 2 and 3, supported by the affidavit of the 3rd respondent (who is an Officer belonging to I. A. S. cadre ). The relevant material in the statement of objection found in para-36 thereof reads as follows, which speaks for itself:"respondcnt-3 specifically denies every one of the allegations made against him personally in this para. The statement sought to be attributed to him at the Board Meeting and in the report submitted to the Government is misleading, mischievous and wholly incorrect' A factual statement was made by him in the course of an inter-departmental official communication in the discharge of his official duty. The statement sought to be attributed to him at the Board Meeting and in the report submitted to the Government is misleading, mischievous and wholly incorrect' A factual statement was made by him in the course of an inter-departmental official communication in the discharge of his official duty. The remarks contained in the statement are neither uncalled for nor false nor scandalous. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the alleged false remarks made against him. The petitioner has indulged in unnecessary, uncalled for and unfounded personal attacks against respondcnt-3 due to sheer despair and frustration as a result of his failure to secure the work in spite of all his efforts and pressure. The petitioner was all praise for respondenl-3 when the latter turned down the request of respondent-4 to pre-qualify him for R. C. C. /c. W. /system and helped the petitioner to secure justice in some pending contracts in Stages I and II of Raichur Thermal Power Station. But he has suddenly turned a volte-face against respondcnt-3 only after his disappointment in securing the work in question and the work relating to C. W. System. " ( 22 ) IT is also necessary to note here that, all tenders were initially processed and evaluated by an independent consultant - Tata Consulting engineers - which recommended the acceptance of the tender of 4th respondent. Thereafter, these materials were considered by the Chief Engineer and the Civil Sub-Committee and finally by the Board of the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, it is difficult to infer that the alleged prejudice/bias of the 3rd respondent against the petitioner, would have weighed effectively against the petitioner, in the process of evaluating the various tenders. Consequently I do not find any merit in the writ petition. ( 23 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .