ORDER U.L. Bhat, C.J. 1. Petitioner is a young man aged 25 years. The writ petition does not give his occupation. He is present today in Court and he has told us that he owns a factory and till 1988 he was undertaking the work of civil contracts. The dispute in this case relates to award of contract for construction of masonry dam of Manikheda, which is a part of Sindh Dam Project. The work has been awarded to 6th respondent. Petitioner has filed this petition praying that the State of Madhya Pradesh and its officers may be directed not to enter into contract with 6th respondent or other respondents pursuant to their tenders. Return has been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 5, 6th respondent has filed separate return. 2. The tender notice was published on 2-5-1992. A copy of that is Annexure P-1. The tender-notice relates to construction of masonry dam as well as the road-side earthen dam. We are not concerned here with the earthen dam. The dispute relates only to the masonry dam. The tender-notice indicates three things, namely, the estimated value of the work was Rs. 8685 lacs and the period of completion of work was indicated as 39 months and mobilisation advance indicated as 10 lacs. By a corrigendum published on 6-7-1992 the. estimated value was reduced to 8530 lacs and period for completion of work was increased to 60 months. 10 tender-forms were purchased and 10 tenders were submitted. 10 persons including respondents Nos. 6 and 7 submitted tenders. Some other tenderers filed Writ Petitions namely, Misc. Petitions Nos. 1430 of 1992 and 1431 of 1992, raising certain grievances. These petitions were dismissed on 8-12-1992. The petitioner filed Misc. Petition No. 153 of 1993 against consideration of the tenders submitted by respondents Nos. 6 and 7, without impleading them. The Court dismissed the Writ Petition observing that bid has to be finalised by a Review Committee and it is open to the petitioner to raise his objections before the Committee. The petitioner submitted his representation to the Committee. 3. The tenders were opened. 8 tenderers were disqualified. Respondents No. 6 and 7 were, declared qualified. Their bids were opened on 10-12-1992. It was found that they offered Rs. 13,669.60 lacs (59.70% more than the estimated value) and Rs. 13,625.77 (59.19% more than the estimated value) respectively. The petitioner submitted his representation to the Committee. 3. The tenders were opened. 8 tenderers were disqualified. Respondents No. 6 and 7 were, declared qualified. Their bids were opened on 10-12-1992. It was found that they offered Rs. 13,669.60 lacs (59.70% more than the estimated value) and Rs. 13,625.77 (59.19% more than the estimated value) respectively. Chief Engineer recommended these tenders to the Progress Review Committee. The matter ultimately reached the Major Project Control Board. Negotiations followed. Project Review Committee directed negotiations to be conducted with respect to respondents Nos. 6 and 7. Accordingly, they submitted their revised tenders. They made revised offer of Rs. 13,271.37 lacs (55.05% above) and Rs. 13,243.19 (54.71% above) respectively. The committee which met on 21-7-1993 directed to state and analyse after collecting data of similar works and agreements. On 20th September 1993 the Committee considered the data of Baan Sagar agreement of the year 1980 and the agreement regarding recently sanctioned Jobart Dam Project. It was found that the tender-rates in these cases were 47% above the tender rates of Jobart Dam. The Committee also suggested that mobilisation advance be increased from Rs. 10 lacs to Rs. 100 lacs to enable rates to be further reduced. Mobilisation advance was accordingly increased and fresh negotiations were conducted with respondents Nos. 6 and 7. 6th respondent made an offer of Rs. 12,793.60 (49.46% above). The 7th respondent declined to make fresh offer. The Review Committee further indicated that meanwhile the date from which escalation is to be reckoned was changed from 9-9-1992 to 25-2-1993. The Review Committee felt that this may persuade further reduction of rates. Ultimately, 6th respondent agreed to take the contract at Rs. 12,281.80 lacs is 43.49% above the value shown in the tender notice. This was accepted and the contract was awarded to 6th respondent. 4. At the present stage neither the original tenderers nor even 7th respondent have any grievance. The petitioner has approached this Court to safeguard the State financially and in public interest. According to him the amount for which the contract was awarded to 6th respondent is excessively high and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the amount agreed upon is arbitrarily high, there was no justification in increasing the mobilisation advance and fresh tender notice has to be published ignoring the tenders received. According to him the amount for which the contract was awarded to 6th respondent is excessively high and arbitrary. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the amount agreed upon is arbitrarily high, there was no justification in increasing the mobilisation advance and fresh tender notice has to be published ignoring the tenders received. Learned counsel also took us through Annexure R-2, which is a copy of the minutes of 54th Meeting of Major Projects Control Board to show that the reasons urged in support of the award of contract to 6th respondent are untenable. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for 6th respondent and learned Government Advocate, Shri K. N. Gupta. 5. There are no materials before the Court to show that the "final amount agreed upon at Rs. 12,281.80 lacs is excessive or is arbitrarily high. We are told by learned counsel for the petitioner that this is 43.49% more than the value shown in the tender-notice, and the increase of 43% is abnormal in comparison to increase in relation to certain other projects, namely, Baan Sagar Project and Jobart Dam Project. Baan Sagar Project is of the year 1980 which cannot afford any basis for comparison. The date on which the agreement for Jobart Dam was finalised is not disclosed. All other terms and conditions of that contract are not before us. All that, we are told by learned counsel is that the tender amount relating to Jobart Dam is 23% above the value shown in the tender-notice. This is met by respondents by projecting a variety of considerations, such as difference in height of the two dams, the difference in catchment areas of the two dams, the difference in availability of labour, quality of labour and law and order situations at the sites of two dams. It is pointed out to us that the availability of cement for the disputed dam is also to be considered as the cement factories are beyond 500 kilometres from the site of the dam in question while cement is available for Jobart Dam at a much shorter distance. It is pointed out to us that the availability of cement for the disputed dam is also to be considered as the cement factories are beyond 500 kilometres from the site of the dam in question while cement is available for Jobart Dam at a much shorter distance. Counsel for the petitioner contradicts this statement and states that there are two cement factories within 150 kilometres from the site of the dam in question; The learned Government Advocate pointed out that there is a Government's order to the effect that cement can be purchased for dam work only from factories having production capacity of more than 400 metric tons and there is no such factory within a radius of 500 kilometres from the disputed site of the dam. We find that the Major Project Control Board has specifically adverted to most of these considerations before arriving at a decision that the final offer made by 6th respondent has to be accepted. It is true, that the Board at one stage thought it may be appropriate to call for fresh tenders, but the Board itself realized that fresh tender-notice may not fetch lower rates and on the other hand, it may further delay the award of contract and commencement of the work and the date from which escalation would commence. 6. It is true that while Government has discretion in the matter of award of contracts and settling of terms and conditions of the contract, discretion cannot be exercised arbitrarily. The discretion is subject to reason and public interest. There is no initial presumption that award of any contract is arbitrary or unreasonable. It is for the challenger to make out the allegations in each case. We have adverted to the submissions made before us in the course of arguments. We are not satisfied that relevant considerations were ignored. There is nothing to indicate that irrelevant considerations were taken into account before arriving at a decision. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the State or its officers desired to confer undue favour on any of the tenderers. The challenge of the petitioner fails. We also find that there was another unsuccessful challenge with regard to the same matter in Misc. Petition No. 4606 of 1993 at the main seat by way of a public interest litigation. That petition was dismissed summarily. 7. The challenge of the petitioner fails. We also find that there was another unsuccessful challenge with regard to the same matter in Misc. Petition No. 4606 of 1993 at the main seat by way of a public interest litigation. That petition was dismissed summarily. 7. In the result, we dismiss the petition, but in the circumstances of the case, we pass no order as to costs.