N. K. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) WITH the consent of the counsel appearing for all the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is assailing the impugned endorsement dated 2-4-2001 in No. ASHA. LEKKA. TENDER-1/2000-01 (Annexure-F) and declare the order No. ASHA. LEKKA. TENDER/1/2000-01 dated 26-3-2001 (Annexure-C) issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, null and void in so far Moodageri taluk giving tender work to 2nd respondent. Further, sought for a direction directing the 1st respondent to accept the tender form of the petitioner holding that the acceptance of the tender form of 2nd respondent in so far as Moodagere taluk is concerned is illegal and without authority of law. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a lorry owner having the business of transport operation in Chickmagalur District. In pursuance of the notification issued by the 1st respondent dated 15-2-2000, calling for tender for the year 2001-2002 for transportation of essential commodities to the ration shops in the rural areas from wholesale dealer centers in Chickmagalur District (Annexure-4) prescribing certain conditions, the petitioner has submitted his tender application. One of the conditions of the tender was that the tenderer/transporter should be able to lift 100 Quintals of commodities and should have at least 2 lorries in good conditions and in that behalf documentary proof like registration certificate and other documents should be produced along with tender application. ( 4 ) IT is submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner is the owner of 2 lorries and he is in control of 10 other lorries to carry out the transportation of essential commodities and he being eligible and capable of performing the tender work, submitted his tender form complying all terms and conditions of the tender notification and he also engaged 220 workers for loading and unloading since he was successful transport contractor during the previous years and doing similar business from last 20 years for Janata Bazar and K. F. C. S. C. It is further submitted that, the petitioner has quoted Rs. 18/- per quintal, which was the rate quoted during the last year. ( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent is the Cooperative Society and is not a transport contractor having experience, necessary infrustructures and did not possess two lorries to perform the work. 18/- per quintal, which was the rate quoted during the last year. ( 5 ) THE 2nd respondent is the Cooperative Society and is not a transport contractor having experience, necessary infrustructures and did not possess two lorries to perform the work. The 1st respondent issued notice dated 20-3-2001 for negotiation and finalisation of tender calling upon the applicants to appear on 23-3-2001. In pursuance of the notice, petitioner appeared in the office of the 1st respondent with relevant documents. However, 1st respondent did not hold any meeting and conducted the negotiations with regard to the rates quoted and without any enquiry proceeded to finalise the tender applications and issued the order on 26-3-2001 (Annexure-C) in favour of the 2nd respondent by accepting its tender, in so far as Moodagere Taluk at the rate of Rs. 14. 60 per quintal and thereby rejected the tender application of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the 1st respondent has not followed the procedure prescribed in the relevant provisions and accepted the tender of 2nd respondent contrary to the condition No. 6 of the tender notification. Hence, the acceptance of the tender by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent is contrary to their own conditions and it is not sustainable in law and liable to be rejected. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent has submitted on the basis of the original records available with him that as on the date of acceptance of the 2nd respondent's tender he has fulfilled the conditions and produced the relevant documents to show that he is owning two lorries and also contended that his tender was accepted on the ground that he quoted the lowest rate of Rs. 14. 60 per quintal and as contended by the petitioner he has quoted Rs. 18 per quintal. Hence, no injustice has been caused by accepting the tender of 2nd respondent and rejecting the tender application of the petitioner and it is strictly in accordance with law and the relevant provisions of the Act and prayed that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere in the matter. 18 per quintal. Hence, no injustice has been caused by accepting the tender of 2nd respondent and rejecting the tender application of the petitioner and it is strictly in accordance with law and the relevant provisions of the Act and prayed that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere in the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has filed a detailed statement of objections contending that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Constructions Reported in 1999 AIR SCW 53 : ( AIR 1999 SC 393 ), Art. 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Further, submitted that, apart from that, this Court in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Bangalore Water Supply reported in ILR 2000 Kant 1137 held that : "if mere infarction of any Rule or requirement of guideline set down by the 1st respondent or the person from whom they borrow does not ipso facto make it action justifiable. The power of judicial review of an administrative action in the field of contractual relationship cannot be a disguised Merit Review. " Therefore, submitted that writ petition is liable to be rejected on this ground alone. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent has submitted that, regarding the second contention raised by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has no experience in the field of transportation is untenable in view of the fact that during 1996-97 this respondent did supply the essential commodities after having succeeded in the tender. In support of his submission he has produced Annexures R1 to 3. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and liable to be rejected. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that, the petitioner has not made out any good case. As per condition No. 6 of the tender form, it is stipulated that the tenderers should possess at least two lorries for transportation of essential commodities. In the instant case, as stated supra, the 2nd respondent as on the date of filing the application was in possession of one lorry and after acceptance of his tender, he has made available the entire records to establish that he owns another lorry. In the instant case, as stated supra, the 2nd respondent as on the date of filing the application was in possession of one lorry and after acceptance of his tender, he has made available the entire records to establish that he owns another lorry. It is also revealed from the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent that he has also got huge exprience in the field of transportation and to prove the same he has produced Annexures R1 to 3 which is not disputed. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted on the basis of the instructions and the original records available with him that the 2nd respondent has fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the tender form. Therefore, I am of the view that 1st respondent is justified in accepting the tender of the 2nd respondent by taking into consideration of the lowest rate quoted. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the order. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .