ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This case relates to allotment of contract work. The petitioner has challenged the decision of Tender Committee communicated vide letter No. 663 dated 18.9.2001 whereby and whereunder the work in question allotted in favour of respondent No. 18, B.N. Engineering Works Ltd. Chitra, Deoghar. 2. The main plea taken by the petitioner is that the recommendation of Tender Committee allotting work in favour of respondent No. 18 is contrary to the guideline issued by the State contained in Circular No. 2347 dated 31.12.1983 and Circular No. 2882 dated 13.9.1991. 3. From the pleading and enclosures, it will be evident that the tender notice No. 1/2001-2002 was published by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Sub- Division, Nala Jamtara for earth work on canal. It was divided in different chain. A number or contractors including the petitioner and respondent Nos. 10 to 18 having quoted same rate, respondent No. 18 was given weightage and allotment work for the reasons mentioned in the recommendation of the Tender Committee. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the work of chain being in the Jamtara portion and the respondent No. 18 being an outsider of district Deoghar, it cannot be said to be a local contractor, nor could have been given the work in its favour. Further according to petitioner, he being the oldest contractor than respondent No. 18 (sic) the work having quoted same rate. 5. Admittedly, the canal flowing through different districts. The work is being done under the control of the Chief Engineer. Water Resources Department having office at Deoghar, while the Superintending Engineer has its office at Jamtara, the Executive Engineer has its office at Nala. Jamtara. Thus, it will be evident that the Chief Engineer, Zone Controls not only one district of Deoghar but other district such as Jamtara etc. 6. In the aforesaid background, if the Tender Committee decided to allot the work to one of the lowest tenderer having its office within the Jurisdiction of the Chief Engineer, this Court finds no reason to interfere with such decision. 7. The writ petition is dismissed for the reasons aforesaid.