ORDER Heard Mr. Dash for the petitioner, Mr. Rath for opposite party No. 1, Mr. Misra for opposite party No. 3 and learned Addl. Government Advocate for opposite party No. 2. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has sought for a writ of mandamus directing opposite parties 1 and 2 to allot the contract relating to cutting and sizing of the logs for the purpose of construction of chariots for Lord Jagannath for the ensuing Car Festival. It has been asserted in the writ application that the offer of the petitioner for cutting and sizing the logs and for trans¬portation of the sized articles was much lower than that of the opposite party No. 3 whose offer has been accepted by opposite parties 1 and 2. It is also asserted in the writ application that the workers engaged by the petitioner have much experience relat¬ing to cutting and sizing of the logs for the purpose of con¬struction of chariot as they were working under Vanijya Vikas Saw-mill where such works were being undertaken for about twenty years prior to 1997. 3. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 taking similar stand. The petitioner has also filed two separate rejoinders in reply to such counter affidavits. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 it has been indicated that even though the offer of the petitioner was lower than the offer of opposite party No. 3, keeping in view the nature of the work to be undertaken and the urgency, it was decided to allot the work to opposite party No. 3, as all facilities were not readily available with the petitioner. In more particular, it has been stated in the affida¬vit of opposite party No. 2 that after receiving the offer of the petitioner. a visit had been made to the site of the petitioner on 27.3.2001 and it was found that sawing-machine had not been installed at the place. It was also found that there was no sufficient stock-yard for stacking of logs and timbers and the mill was near the Nabakalebar Road, which being a narrow road is likely to have traffic congestion. It was also found that there was no sufficient stock-yard for stacking of logs and timbers and the mill was near the Nabakalebar Road, which being a narrow road is likely to have traffic congestion. It is also indicated in the counter affidavit that the price difference being marginal and as the work is to be done in time-bound programme, it was thought fit to allot the work to opposite party No. 3 to avoid any possi¬bility of delay. 5. In rejoinder it has been indicated by the petitioner that in the meantime, the petitioner has already taken steps to affix machineries in proper place and since all the logs are not re¬quired to be sawn and stacked at a particular time, it can be done phase-wise by the petitioner. In course of hearing of the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the entire work cannot be allotted to the petitioner, fifty per cent of the work may be allotted to ensure compliance within the time. 6. Law is well settled that in the matter relating to allot¬ment of contract, the question of price though an important aspect is not the only aspect. Where the work is to be completed within a time-frame, the authorities must satisfy themselves about the capability of the person to complete the work within the time schedule. In the present case, there cannot be any dispute that the work has to be undertaken within a time-frame and there cannot be any scope for extension of time for comple¬tion of the work and if the work is not completed, it may give rise to immense hardship in the matter of holding annual Car festival. Law is also well settled that unless decision of the authority is arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides, the Court deciding the matter under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitu¬tion of India should not ordinarily interfere with the discre¬tionary order passed by the administrative authority in such matters. In the present case, except stating that the action was arbitrary and vitiated by mala fides, no concrete allegations have been made, far less proved, to show the mala fide action of opposite parties 1 and 2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the work may be divided between the petitioner and opposite party No. 3. In the present case, except stating that the action was arbitrary and vitiated by mala fides, no concrete allegations have been made, far less proved, to show the mala fide action of opposite parties 1 and 2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the work may be divided between the petitioner and opposite party No. 3. It has been submitted by opposite party No. 1 that there may be some practical difficulty in allotting the work to two persons at such a belated stage. 8. Even though the offer of the petitioner has not been accepted for this year, it is made clear that his offer during the subsequent years should not be rejected on untenable ground. As has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question of allotting the work to two or more persons may also be considered by adopting such a course is likely to expe¬dite the execution of the work. Subject to the aforesaid observa¬tion, the writ application is disposed of. All interim orders stand vacated and opposite party No. 3 is free to resume work. There will be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.