JUDGMENT : B. P. Das, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the action of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in accepting the quotation offered by opposite party No. 3 for supply of mosquito nets. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a proprietorship firm, which deals in mosquito nets and cloths etc. and is also a general order supplier. It is claimed that the petitioner has a good name in the trade circle in the State and is one of the most reliable and dependable dealer and a genuine supplier in the field. Considering the above fact, as per the petitioner, O.P. No. 1 Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State Branch Committee, on 3.8.2001 called for quotations from the petitioner for supply of mosquito nets vide Annexure-2 in order to provide the same along with other relief materials to the people of Orissa affected by the high and devastating flood of 2001 under the Orissa Disaster Mitigation Programme. Pursuant to Annexure-2, the petitioner submitted its quotation, O.P. No. 3 and others also submitted their quotations. On 10.8.2001 the petitioner came to know that O.P. No. 1 illegally entered into a negotiation with O.P. No. 3-M/S. Sheolal Barwarilal, which quoted Rs. 138/-per piece of single size mosquito net as against Rs. 1347- quoted by the petitioner for the self-same quality of material and finally accepted the quotation of O.P. No. 3, which has reduced its price to Rs. 134/-, i.e. the price quoted by the petitioner. It is alleged by the petitioner that though the rate quoted by the petitioner was the lowest, without making any negotiation with it, O.P. No. 1 illegally negotiated with O.P. No. 3 behind its back and placed orders with O.P. No. 3 to supply the aforesaid item. That apart, it is stated that the terms and conditions laid down in Annexure-2 are neither supported by law nor are they based on established practice and Procedure and, therefore. O.P. No. 1 has committed gross illegality and irregularity in accepting the quotation of O.P. No. 3 by ignoring the lowest quotation offered by the petitioner. That apart, it is stated that the terms and conditions laid down in Annexure-2 are neither supported by law nor are they based on established practice and Procedure and, therefore. O.P. No. 1 has committed gross illegality and irregularity in accepting the quotation of O.P. No. 3 by ignoring the lowest quotation offered by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, award the supply order to O.P. No. 3 is the result of such Procedural irregularity as well as the same is opposed to public policy and, therefore, the agreement entered into between O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 for supply of the material in question by quashed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Indian, Red Cross Society, New Delhi and its Orissa State Branch i.e. O.P. Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, wherein it has been stated that the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (in short 'IFRC') having its headquarters at Geneva, in order to provide disaster assistance to the flood affected people of Orissa, decided to give a package of relief materials which included mosquito nets to selected severely affected families. As per the guidelines of Indian Red Cross Society (Annexure-E/1), local purchase of relief materials can be done by following the criteria of cost, quality, timelyness of delivery, demonstrated reliability of the vender, etc. O.P. No. 1 accordingly invited quotations from different firms for supply of mosquito nets of different sizes. On receipt of quotations, the samples submitted by different firms were placed before a Purchase Committee, which consisted amongst others two representative of IFRC, and the said committee after a thorough check and taking into account the quality along with the price, short listed certain categories of mosquito nets and finally decided to purchase single size mosquito nets from O.P. No. 3, as would appear from the minutes of the meeting of the Purchase Committee held on 9,8.2001, vide Annexure-G/1. According to the opposite parties, the material so offered by O.P. No. 3 was slightly better in quality than that offered by the petitioner, and as O.P. No. 3 agreed to supply the material at Rs. 134/- per piece, the Purchase Committee decided to select O.P. No. 3 for supply of single size mosquito nets. According to the opposite parties, the material so offered by O.P. No. 3 was slightly better in quality than that offered by the petitioner, and as O.P. No. 3 agreed to supply the material at Rs. 134/- per piece, the Purchase Committee decided to select O.P. No. 3 for supply of single size mosquito nets. The Purchase Committee also took into consideration, as stated by the O.Ps., the fact that O.P. No. 3 had earlier supplied certain articles timely for the distribution amongst the cyclone affected people of the State. As per the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2, taking the aforesaid facts into consideration, final decision has been taken by the Purchase Committee which included representatives of the IFRC. It is also stated that the fact that the quality of material offered by the petitioner was slightly inferior than supplied by O.P. No. 3 and the fact that O.P. No. 3 had supplied certain materials to O.P. No. 1 in time for distribution amongst the cyclone affected people of the State and that too to the satisfaction of the Indian Red Cross authorities, weighed in the mind of the authorities while deciding to select O.P. No. 3 for supply of the material in question. According to the opposite parties, there is no illegality or irregularity in selecting O.P. No. 3 for supply for the aforesaid material. In a case of the present nature, the law is well settled and the principle has been enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, as follows : "93. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be : 1. whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers ? 2. committed an error of law. 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice. 4. reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached, or 5. abused its powers. 94. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. abused its powers. 94. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegally : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety." 4. In the case at hand, I do find any illegality in the decision-making process or any irregularity as alleged. From the allegations, it transpires that the grievance of the petitioner is that it was not given an opportunity to negotiate while finalising the quotations and if such an opportunity would have been given, the petitioner could have reduced the price quoted earlier by it. On going through the minutes of the meeting of the Purchase committee (Annexure-G/1), it appears that admittedly the quality of the material offered by O.P. No. 3 was better than that offered by the petitioner and taking that aspect into consideration, the Purchase Committee have decided to go for the material offered by O.P. No. 3. 5. In above view of the matter, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. The interim orders passed stand vacated. The amount of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) deposited by the petitioner in the Registry of the Court be refunded along with the interest, if any. 6. Petition dismissed Final Result : Dismissed