Honble SHETHNA, J–The petitioner M/s Khokhar Construction Co. alongwith respondent no.4 M/s Surya Construction Co. and three others applied in a bid for a contract for construction of rural roads in District Sriganganager. The bid of the petitioner company was the lowest i.e. Rs. 2,50,44,312/-, whereas, the bid of respondent no.4 was the second lowest bid i.e. Rs. 2,64,94,329/- which has been accepted on the opening of the tender on 30.5.97 by the respondent no.1 State which is under challenge in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is based on several grounds mentioned in the petition as well as rejoinder and sir rejoinder etc. One more grievance made in this petition at the time of oral arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that on what ground the petitioner was ousted has not been disclosed and no such order is forthcoming on the record which they were bound to disclose atleast to the Court for its objective consideration. On behalf of the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3, State and its authorities, learned counsel Shri R.P. Vyas raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that when there are several disputed questions of facts involved in this writ petition then this Court cannot go into the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner had better alternative remedy by way of suit before the competent civil Court. The said argument was adopted by learned counsel Shri Bhoot appearing for the respondent no.4. Both the learned counsel Shri Vyas and Shri Bhoot appearing for the respective respondents placed reliance upon the latest Supreme Court Judgment in case of Asia Foundation Construction Limited Vs. Trafalgar House Construction (P) Ltd. and others (1). (2). Apart from the fact that there are several disputed question of facts involved in this matter, learned counsel Shri Vyas for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 was called upon to satisfy the Court as to why the claim of the petitioner, which was though lowest, was not accepted and second lowest claim of respondent no.4 was accepted. In reply to this, learned counsel Shri Vyas submitted that considering the bid capacity of the present petitioner, which according to their calculation was Rs. 2.6 crores, whereas, that of respondent no.4 was Rs. In reply to this, learned counsel Shri Vyas submitted that considering the bid capacity of the present petitioner, which according to their calculation was Rs. 2.6 crores, whereas, that of respondent no.4 was Rs. 3.6 crores, therefore, the claim of the respondent no.4 was accepted, though it was second lowest. This was objected to by learned counsel Shri Rajpurohit, who tried to submit that calculation arrived at by the respondents was on a wrong consideration. It must be stated that when the authority takes such decision then this Court will not act as an appellate authority and sit in appeal over such decision. This Court is exercising its extra or- dinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is very well settled law that when disputed question of fasts are involved and were the parties have better, alternative and efficacious remedy available then the party should be relegated to the same. At this state, one more fact I would like to mention that as per the contract the work is almost on the verge of completion. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was made subject to the result of this writ petition, therefore, it was tried to be submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court can certainly go into the claim of the petitioner. Mr. Rajpurohit vehemently relied upon two Supreme Court Judgments reported in AIR 1952 S.C. Page 16 (2) and AIR 1978 S.C. page 851 (3) and submitted that when the validity of public order has been challenged then the respondent State cannot shirk its responsibilities by not bringing to the notice of the Court and it cannot substitute the same by way of affidavit. I am in complete agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but the question is whether it can be said to be a public order. When the tenders were invited, only five persons applied and there is no question of disclosing the reasons when the claim of anyone is reje- cted by the State Govt. With greatest respect to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid judgments cited by him have no relevance to the facts of this case. First case is where the permission was granted by the Commissioner, which was subsequently cancelled, and the second case is a famous case of election petition filed by M.S.Gill. With greatest respect to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid judgments cited by him have no relevance to the facts of this case. First case is where the permission was granted by the Commissioner, which was subsequently cancelled, and the second case is a famous case of election petition filed by M.S.Gill. That apart, I must state that no such prayer was made in this petition by the petitioner calling upon the respondents no.1 to 3 to produce such order of rejecting his claim and accepting the claim of respondent no.4. However, Mr. Rajpurohit tried to submit that by way of rejoinder such prayer was made. Be that as it may. In view of the above discussion, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the remedy of writ petition is not a proper remedy, the petitioner, if he is so adviced, can always file a suit for damages or for any other relief before the competent Court. With these observations, this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.