JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The rejection of the tender submitted by the petitioner for supply, delivery, staking and loading of 35,675 cum. of "Machine Crushed Ballast" as per RDSO's specification at Jujumura Depot of the S.E. Railway in pursuance of Tender Call Notice Annexure-1 is sought to be challenged in this Writ Petition. According to the petitioner, the rate quoted by him though lowest, the opposite party-Railway issued the Work Order in favour of opposite party No. 4 whose rate was the highest, that too after negotiation, behind the back of the petitioner. 2. Bereft of al! unnecessary details, the short facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are: The S.E. Railway issued a Tender Call Notice Annexure-1 inviting sealed tenders in prescribed form from eligible Contractors for supply, delivery, stacking and loading of 35,675 cum. of "Machine Crushed Ballast" as per the specification. The approximate value was Rs. 2,24,40,000.00. The conditions of tender and eligibility criteria of the tenders as well as technical and financial criteria were specifically stipulated in the Tender Call Notice. According to the petitioner, one of the required eligibility criteria was to disclose the names of the quarries from which ballasts were to be obtained and also to submit test reports. For better understanding, Clause-v of the financial criteria is quoted hereinbelow: "(v) The tenderers have to submit test report for impact value, abrasion value and water absorption value from ITT/Kharagpur, REC/Rourkela, VREC/Nagpur, Geo Technical Laboratory, Construction Organisation at Bilaspur, Jadavpur University/Kolkata or National Test House/Alipur, Kolkata for each quarry indicating the name of quarry, failing which tender will be summarily rejected." The financial criteria also required that the tenderer should have a turnover (in monetary term) in any of the last three financial years to a tune of atleast Rs. 1,15,00,000.00. It appears that in response to the aforesaid Tender Call Notice, six tenders were received from different suppliers. According to the petitioner, he quoted the lowest price, i.e. Rs. 558,00 per cum; whereas opposite party No. 4-Udip Prasad Babu, quoted Rs. 571.00 per cum. But for the reasons best known, the opposite party-Railway accepted the tender of opposite party No. 4and issued the Work Order in his favour. Such action, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary, contrary to law, in excess of jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 3. After receiving notice, the S.E. Railway (opposite party Nos. 571.00 per cum. But for the reasons best known, the opposite party-Railway accepted the tender of opposite party No. 4and issued the Work Order in his favour. Such action, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary, contrary to law, in excess of jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. 3. After receiving notice, the S.E. Railway (opposite party Nos. 1 to 3) appeared and filed a counter-affidavit. Opposite party No. 4, the successful tenderer also appeared and filed his counter-affidavit. The S.E. Railway in its counter-affidavit though admitted that the rate quoted by the petitioner was the lowest, took a stand that he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria and thus his offer could not be considered and he was not found eligible. In support of its stand, Mr. B. Mishra, learned Counsel, drawing our attention to Clause (v) of the financial criteria, quoted above, submitted that though the petitioner in his tender had clearly indicated the names of the quarries as Jujumura, Dudkakud, Hatibari, Bhawanipali and Jujumura I and II, he submitted the test report only in respect of Jujumura quarry. That too, the test report submitted was more than 2 years old. Mr. Mishra forcefully submitted that in consonance with Clause V, the Tenderer was required to submit test report for impact value, abrasion value and water value for each quarry indicating the name of the quarry, failing which the tender was to be summarily rejected. It is reiterated that as the petitioner did not fulfil the aforesaid criteria, he was found not eligible. Mr. Mishra also drew our attention to Clause I of the tender call notice and submitted that the tenderer should have a turnover at least to a tune of one crore and fifteen lakhs. Admittedly, the petitioner fell short of the said turnover and was also not eligible on that ground. 4. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner taking a stand that there was no specific term in the tender call notice stipulating that the test report should be of the current year and/or proximately close to the date of the tender. It is further submitted that though the petitioner had named more than one quarry, he, in fact, intended to supply materials only from Jujumura quarry and, therefore, he submitted the test report in respect of that quarry. It is further submitted that though the petitioner had named more than one quarry, he, in fact, intended to supply materials only from Jujumura quarry and, therefore, he submitted the test report in respect of that quarry. The report was issued by the competent authority named in the tender call notice and the same should have been accepted. 5. So far as the financial turnover was concerned, according to Mr. Sangneria, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the said requirement was not strictly adhered to and was given a go-bye as would be evident from the noting made in the file dealing with the tenders. Mr. Sangneria, in course of his argument further submitted that even otherwise if the Railway authorities would have asked him to furnish the report in respect of other quarries named by him in the tender, he could have complied with the same. It is also submitted that the authorities acted with material irregularity in negotiating with opp. party No. 4and bringing down the price quoted by him without giving such opportunity to the petitioner and the work order and the decision to accept the tender of opp. party No. 4 are liable to be quashed on that ground alone. In support of his case, Mr. Sangneria also raised a contention in the alternative that according to the guidelines and the principles followed by the Railway, after holding all the 5 tenders unacceptable, the authorities should not have awarded the work to opp. party No. 4 as that amounts to accepting a single tender. 6. Mr. S. Mishra, learned Counsel for opp. party No. 4, while supporting the stand taken by the Railway added that the petitioner who did not satisfy the eligibility criteria stipulated in the tender call notice, has no locus standi to challenge the order awarding the work to opp. party No. 4 who was otherwise eligible and fulfilled all the criteria. It is also submitted by him that the writ petition has been filed after opp. party No. 4 has ma4e arrangements to commence supply of materials to the Railways incurring huge expenditure. According to Mr. party No. 4 who was otherwise eligible and fulfilled all the criteria. It is also submitted by him that the writ petition has been filed after opp. party No. 4 has ma4e arrangements to commence supply of materials to the Railways incurring huge expenditure. According to Mr. Mishra, time for supply being fifteen months, soon after the decision was arrived at by the tender committee on 1.5.2002, he has been steps to procure materials and spent substantial amount, but then the entire investment has been held up due to the interim order passed by this Court. According to Mr. Mishra, this writ petition at the instance of an ineligible tenderer is not maintainable and the same should be dismissed in limine and the interim order of stay should be vacated. 7. Mr. B. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Rail way submitted that the present case cannot be nomenclatured as a single tender case inasmuch as in reply to the tender notice, six tenders were received. After security of the tenders and after adjudging the suitability and on consideration of the eligibility criteria, it was found that the tender submitted by opp. party No. 4 was found eligible and as other tenders did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, they were found ineligible. Thus, the circular issued by the Railway dealing with single tender shall not be applicable to the present case. It is also submitted by Mr. Mishra that in accordance with the resolution of the tender committee, negotiation was made with opp. party No. 4 who was only eligible and had satisfied all the criteria stipulated in tender notice. Not inviting ineligible tenderers for negotiation cannot be considered to be illegal. Mr. Mishra also submitted that the tender committee strictly took note of the financial status of all the tenderers and the allegation made by Mr. Sangneria that the financial status was given a go-bye, was not correct. In support of his submission, Mr. Mishra made the file dealing with tender available for our perusal. After going through the file, we are also satisfied that the Tender Committee had duly considered the financial status of the tendereis which was one of the eligibility criteria. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfil that. 8. In support of his submission, Mr. Mishra made the file dealing with tender available for our perusal. After going through the file, we are also satisfied that the Tender Committee had duly considered the financial status of the tendereis which was one of the eligibility criteria. Admittedly, the petitioner did not fulfil that. 8. Law is no more res Integra that right to choose between one tenderer and the other should not be considered to be an arbitrary power unless the said power is said to have been exercised with malice or is tainted with arbitrariness. 9. On going through the pleadings, documents annexed and perusing the file produced and after hearing the learned Counsels for all the parties, we are satisfied that the decision of the Railway accepting the tender of opposite party No. 4 does not suffer from unreasonableness, much less Wednesbury's principle of unreasonableness. The said decision, according to us, is not actuated with mala fide or bias and we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the same in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed