JUDGMENT K.S. Kumaran, J. - The Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Corporation), advertised on 6th August, 2000 about their need of 20,000 M.T. Covered Godown space under 7 year Guarantee Scheme at Gidderbaha, in pursuance of which the petitioner-firm wrote a letter on 21st August, 2000 to the first respondent about their willingness to construct the same as per the terms and conditions and quoted Rs. 2.98 square feet (vide Annexure P.1). The second respondent informed Mukhtiar Singh, partner of the petitioner, requesting him to attend the meeting of the Negotiation Committee of the Corporation on 29th August, 2000, for negotiation of the rent, rate of the godown/plinth to be constructed. The petitioner contends that the partners of the petitioner-firm appeared before the Negotiation Committee on 29th August, 2000 and that negotiations took place. The further contention of the petitioner is that on that date no other party was present for negotiations. The petitioner claims that after negotiation, the petitioner-firm offered a rate of Rs. 2.74 per square foot and was assured that the petitioner will be informed about the same later on. The petitioner claims that since no information was received, the partners of the petitioner-firm enquired and found out that the offer of some other party (the 4th respondent herein), who has quoted Rs. 2.70 per square foot has been accepted. According to the petitioner-firm, when the partners of the firm enquired as to how the offer of some other party could be accepted when none, except them was present, no satisfactory reply was given and, therefore, the petitioner issued a legal notice on 18th September, 2000. 2. The petitioner also claims that on enquiries, the partners of the petitioner-firm came to know that the Managing Director of the Corporation vide his order dated 15th September, 2000, accepted the tender of the order party (4th respondent), and that General Manager of the Corporation vide his letter dated 19th September, 2000, sent the copy of the acceptance of the tender to the District Manager of the Corporation, who in turn informed the party whose tender has been accepted, telegraphically on 21st September, 2000. The petitioner also claims that the request of its partners for a copy of the order from the 3rd respondent was not complied with. The petitioner also claims that the request of its partners for a copy of the order from the 3rd respondent was not complied with. The petitioner also claims that an advertisement was published on 16th September, 2000, from which the petitioner came to know that tender of the 4th respondent has been accepted. The petitioner contends that while the 1st respondent has accepted the offer of the 4th respondent on 15th September, 2000 and when the General Manager sanctioned it on 19th September, 2000, and sent it to the 3rd respondent, on 21st September, 2000, and when on 21st September, 2000 the 4th respondent was telegraphically informed about the acceptance of the offer, the advertisement given by the 4th respondent calling for the tenders from the contractors for the construction of the godown on 16th September, 2000 itself shows that there is some hanky-panky, and that the respondents are bent upon helping the 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was even prepared to reduce the rate still further, regarding which the petitioner had sent a letter on 15th September, 2000 (Annexure P.6). 3. On the basis of these allegations, the petitioner has approached this Court for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order accepting the tender for the construction of the godown in question, and for further direction to the respondents to allot the tender to the petitioner firm. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a joint reply, while the 4th respondent has filed a separate reply. The case of the respondents is as follows : 5. There is an acute crisis in storage space faced by the State of Punjab and the Food Corporation of India due to continuous bumper crops, and so the Government of Punjab made the Corporation a Nodal Agency for augmentation of storage capacity in the State. The Corporation was required to make all the necessary arrangements for augmentation of the space. For raising the capacity through private parties, the Corporation placed repeated advertisement in news papers, but the response was not encouraging. The Corporation gave an advertisement on 5th August, 2000 inviting offers from private parties at 24 centres, including Gidderbaha, where 20,000 MTs. covered godowns were required. It is in this background, acute need for covered godown was felt, as the delay will cause a great deal of harm to the stocks of procured foodgrains. The Corporation gave an advertisement on 5th August, 2000 inviting offers from private parties at 24 centres, including Gidderbaha, where 20,000 MTs. covered godowns were required. It is in this background, acute need for covered godown was felt, as the delay will cause a great deal of harm to the stocks of procured foodgrains. 6. In pursuance of the advertisement given by the Corporation, 10 persons applied, including the petitioner. A letter dated 24 August, 2000, was sent to all persons, who had applied, asking them to attend the meeting of the Negotiation Committee. Only 4 persons attended the said meeting, which included the petitioner and the 4th respondent; and these 4 persons, who attended the meeting, filled up the rate of rent, which they were willing to offer and signed against the same. The record was prepared in the form of a statement showing "details of parties called for Negotiation in the Head Office". The petitioner after Negotiations reduced the rate to Rs. 2.74 per square foot per month. The respondent No. 4 agreed for the rate of Rs. 2.70 per square foot per month, while the others reduced their rates to Rs. 2.75 and 2.72 per square foot per month, respectively. The record prepared was signed on each page by the committee members as well as by each party. Thereafter, the Negotiation Committee prepared a report as to the result of its negotiations held on 29th August, 2000 after taking into consideration all relevant factors. This report was considered by the Executive Committee on 12th September, 2000, which granted the approval on the basis of the recommendations of the Negotiation Committee. In compliance with the decision of the Executive Committee dated 12th September, 2000, the entire allotment including construction of godown by the 4th respondent at Rs. 2.70 per square foot per month, at Gidderbaha was conveyed to the successful party, under the order of Managing Director dated 15th September, 2000. That allegation that the petitioner only appeared for negotiations on 29th August, 2000 is not correct. Once the Executive Committee had met on 12th September, 2000, it was known as to who was the successful party. 7. We have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the record. It is not necessary to repeat the case of both the parties as we have already set out their respective cases. Once the Executive Committee had met on 12th September, 2000, it was known as to who was the successful party. 7. We have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the record. It is not necessary to repeat the case of both the parties as we have already set out their respective cases. The contention of the petitioner is that on 29th August, 2000, it was only the partners of the petitioner who had appeared for negotiations before the Committee, whereas, the respondents contended that of the 10 persons, who were called for negotiations, the partners of the petitioner i.e. Parveen Kumar and another, the 4th respondent and two others had appeared. The respondents also contend that while the petitioner reduced its offer to Rs. 2.74 per square foot, two others reduced their rates to Rs. 2.75 per square foot and Rs. 2.72 per square foot, respectively. They also contend that the 4th respondent reduced his offer to Rs. 2.72 per square foot which was the lowest amongst all. According to the respondents, apart from the persons constituting the Committee, the partner of the petitioner viz. Parveen Kumar and, others, who had attended the meeting, had not only quoted their rates, but also signed against their names. The respondents have placed before us a copy of the record prepared at the time of the negotiations, which clearly goes to support this contention of the respondents. Against the petitioners name Rs. 274 has been mentioned and it has been signed by Parveen Kumar, a partner of the petitioner. Similarly, against the name of the three others, who had attended, the reduced rates quoted by them as also the signatures of the concerned parties are found. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that none except the partner of the petitioner had attended the Negotiation Committee on 29th August, 2000 is not correct. The writ petition is bound to fail on this ground alone inasmuch as the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. 8. Even otherwise, it is seen that the 4th respondent has offered the lowest rate of Rs. 2.70 per square foot and that has been accepted by the Committee, and ultimately by the respondents. This Court would not examine the case minutely and decide that the offer of one or the other should have been accepted. That is a matter for the Corporation to decide. 2.70 per square foot and that has been accepted by the Committee, and ultimately by the respondents. This Court would not examine the case minutely and decide that the offer of one or the other should have been accepted. That is a matter for the Corporation to decide. In matters of such contracts, it is not for the Court to examine as to whom the contract should have been awarded, as if this Court is sitting on appeal. As pointed out above, of the 10 parties who were called for negotiations, four parties had appeared. They have quoted the rates, which they were willing to offer and have also signed against their names. The petitioner has not been able to point out any mala fides or illegality in the action of the Corporation accepting the offer of the 4th respondent, except stating that the petitioner was the only party to appear for negotiations, and none else had appeared. But, it is apparent that this contention of the petitioner is not correct. Therefore, the petitioners contention that the contract should not have been given to the 4th respondent cannot be accepted. 9. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the offer of the 4th respondent was accepted by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 15th September, 2000, and the District Manager of the Corporation was informed of the same vide letter dated 19th September, 2000, and he in turn has informed the successful party about the acceptance of the contract telegraphically on 21st September, 2000 only, whereas on 16th September, 2000 itself the 4th respondent has published an advertisement in the news paper, calling upon the contractors to give their tenders to carry out the work. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the tender of the 4th respondent was accepted on 15th September, 2000 only, the 4th respondent could not have published the advertisement on the next date i.e. 16th September, 2000 itself, and this shows that there is some hanky-panky in this matter and that the Corporation was out to help the 4th respondent. We have already held that this petition has to fail in view of the fact that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. Therefore, though we need not go into this aspect, we have still considered this argument as well. We have already held that this petition has to fail in view of the fact that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. Therefore, though we need not go into this aspect, we have still considered this argument as well. On 29th August, 2000 itself, it was known that the 4th respondent has offered the lowest rate of Rs. 2.70 per square foot per month, and the Executive Committee gave its approval on 12th September, 2000 itself on the basis of the recommendations of the Negotiation Committee, while the Managing Director had accorded sanction for the award of the work in favour of the 4th respondent on 15th September, 2000. Once the Executive Committee had approved the recommendation for giving the work to the 4th respondent on 12th September, 2000, the result of the bid was known to all the parties and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the 4th respondent having published the advertisement on 16th September, 2000. Even otherwise, since the Managing Director had given his approval on 15th September, 2000, and there is nothing irregular about the same. Therefore, we find no reason to hold that there is some irregularity in awarding the work to the 4th respondent simply because the advertisement of the 4th respondent appeared on 16th September, 2000 itself. 10. Taking into consideration all these factors, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 11. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed. Petition dismissed