( 1 ) BY this petition filed under Atricle 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a dealer in gun metal, brass, copper, bross-ware, etc. , seek a writ, order, or direction to the respondents restraining respondents 1 and 2 from issuing and letter awarding the contract in question in favour of the third respondent. Respondent No. 3 is also a similar dealer as the petitioner. Second respondent is the Sock-Holder, Air Force Station, Pathankot (Punjab ). ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 floated a tender for sale of surplus stores by various lots. The present dispute concerns lot No. 17 which consisted of aluminium, copper, ferrous and brass scrap. Only two parties, i. e. , the petitioner and the third respondent, gave their offers to purchase this lot. While the petitioner quoted Rs. 5,61,640, the third respondent s figure was Rs. 5,92,786. The tender was to be accompanied with 20% of the bid value per lot and it was specifically mentioned that tenders not accompanied by required earnest money would be ignored straightaway. The petitioner was required to furnish Rs. 1,11,894 as earnest money with his tender, but he furnished an earnest money of Rs. 1,10,000 only which was, thus, short by Rs. 1,894. ( 3 ) PETITIONER says he was called for negotiations on 8th July, 1994 for onward revision of his tender and he quoted a price of Rs. 7,51,051. 51 which offer of the petitioner was made by his authorised representitive, and that a letter of the same date was also banded over to the authorities to that effect. The third respondent, it is stated, gave an offer of Rs. 6,50,786. Petitioner, thus, says that he had offered to purchase the scrap at a price which was over rupees one lakh of the price quoted by the third respondent. He complains that in spite of that respondents 1 and 2 are going ahead to accept the tender of the third respondent which would cause loss to the national exchequer. He says there could be no ground as to why his tender for a higher amount could not be accepted, and that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner was illegal, unjust, improper and discriminatory and violalive of Article 14 of the Constitution. He says there could be no ground as to why his tender for a higher amount could not be accepted, and that the action of respondents 1 and 2 in rejecting the tender of the petitioner was illegal, unjust, improper and discriminatory and violalive of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 4 ) WE issued notice to show cause to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued. Both the first respondent and the third respondent have filed separate affidavits in reply. For decision of the present petition we need not consider the affidavit of the third respondent. We examined the relevant record of Respondents 1 and 2 and gave an offer to the counsel for the petitioner to examine the same if he so chose. He did not go through the record. What we find is that the afidvit filed by respondents 1 and 2 is in accordance with the notings on the file. There appears to be no basis for the petitioner to allege that there was any collusion between the respondents to accept the tender of the third respondent. First respondents says as the earnest money payable with the offer by the petitioner was short of 20% as required in the tender document, his tender was not considered at all. It says that it was due to inadvertence and mechanically that a letter was addressed to the petitioner inviting him for "negotiations", and that at that time the petitioner was told of the error and informed that his bid had already been rejected, and, thus, there- was no question of any negotiations being held with him. It is also denied that any negotiations were held with the petitioner or that he gave any revised offer as alleged. It is, however, accepted that the petitioner had sent a telegram on 9th July. 1994 giving an offer of Rs. 7,51,051. 51, but the first respondent says that this telegraphic offer was unsolicited and could not be entertained. That being the position we do not find any error on the part of Respondents 1 and 2 in accepting the tender of the third respondent for the amount of Rs. 6,50,786. We, thus, find no merit in this petition. It is dismissed in limine. --- *** --- .