JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — This writ application is directed against the action of opposite parties 2 to 5 awarding the contract relating to development, beautification and enviromental protec¬tion to Indrvati Dam and its Down-stream (Development Work) in Podagada Dam Division under the Orissa Hydro Power Corporation Ltd. 2. In the writ application it was alleged that opposite party No. 6 who was awarded the work was not eligible to receive the Tender papers as he had not furnished copies of the relevant documents. It was further contended that the petitioner being a Graduate Engineer, was entitled to five per cent price prefer¬ence and if that would have been considered, the offer given by the petitioner would have been lower than that of opposite party No. 6. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the Corporation as well as opposite party No. 6 in whose favour the contract has been awarded. In the counter affidavit it is stated that opposite party No. 6 had furnished all the relevant documents and as such was entitled to receive the Tender papers. It is further submit¬ted that the petitioner was not entitled to five per cent price preference as the Government instructions were relating to ‘B’ and ‘C’ class Contractors and not ‘A’ class Contractor. It was also indicated that the petitioner did not have any past experi¬ence in execution of similar works and he had not submitted the list of tools and plants available with him to be used for the work. It is also submitted that the question of giving five per cent price preference was considered, but due to valid reasons the offer was not accepted. 4. The stand taken by opposite parties 2 to 5 to the effect that five per cent price preference may not be available to the petitioner is not correct in view of the subsequent clarification issued by the Government stating that such preference can be given to Graduate Engineers who are registered as ‘A’ class Contractors. If five per cent price preference would have been given to the petitioner, obviously, his tender would have been lower than that of opposite party No. 6. 5. If this would have been the only reason for not accepting the Tender of the petitioner, I would have thought of giving a direction for reconsideration of the matter. If five per cent price preference would have been given to the petitioner, obviously, his tender would have been lower than that of opposite party No. 6. 5. If this would have been the only reason for not accepting the Tender of the petitioner, I would have thought of giving a direction for reconsideration of the matter. However, after going through the counter affidavit and the relevant files produced on behalf of opposite parties 2 to 5, I find that the petitioner’s bid has not been accepted by giving other reasons. It is apparent from the materials on record including the file produced that the petitioner did not have much experience in the matter of execu¬tion of work of similar nature and magnitude, as apparent from the list of works which was submitted by him. It also appears from the file that the petitioner did not furnish the list of tools and plants available with him to be used for the work. Therefore, the authority concerned expressed a doubt that the work may not be completed during the stipulated period even if the work is allotted to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reason, the authority concerned concluded : “.......Considering the above facts, it is believed that he cannot complete the work if awarded to him allowing 5% price preference is considered and rejected.......” From the aforesaid conclusion, it is apparent that though the concerned authority considered the bid of the petitioner by giving five per cent price preference, the work was not awarded on the basis of other reasons, namely lack of experience in execution of similar work and non-furnishing of details regarding the tools and plants available with the petitioner which had raised a doubt in the mind of the authority regarding the capa¬bility of the petitioner to complete the work within time. There¬fore, the conclusion of the concerned authority cannot be cha¬racterised as arbitrary or unreasonable. 6. Law is well settled that even if the authority is not bound to grant the work to the lowest bidder, there must be valid reason for not giving such work to the lowest bidder. There¬fore, the conclusion of the concerned authority cannot be cha¬racterised as arbitrary or unreasonable. 6. Law is well settled that even if the authority is not bound to grant the work to the lowest bidder, there must be valid reason for not giving such work to the lowest bidder. When the reasons furnished by the authority are not arbitrary, ordinarily, High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India should not interfere in the matter relating to award of contract, particularly when such interfer¬ence may lead to further delay and escalation in the cost. Having regard to all these aspects, since it cannot be said in the present case that the offer given by the petitioner has been arbitrarily rejected, I do not find any merit in this writ appli¬cation, which is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.