BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) BY a notice inviting tender dated January 22, 2003 the Superintending Engineer, National Highway Circle No. II, PWD (Roads)directorate, Siliguri invited tenders for widening and improving riding quality of flexible pavements to two lane carriage way in respect of National highway at Siliguri. There were 7 tenderers who submitted their tender being the appellant and respondent Nos. 5 to 10. The contract was awarded to the respondent No. 5. The appellant No. 1 being the unsuccessful tenderer questioned the selection of the respondent No. 5 on two grounds : (i) The respondent No. 5 did not submit his tender within the stipulated time being 3 P. M. on the relevant date. According to the appellants the tender of the respondent No. 5 was dropped at 3. 15 P. M. (ii) The respondent No. 5 did not have requisite qualification for submission of tender. ( 2 ) THE learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition by the impugned judgment and order under appeal dated May 5, 2003 held against the appellants on the first issue. The learned Single Judge, however, directed the respondent authority to examine the eligibility criteria of the respondent No. 5. ( 3 ) IN terms of the order of the learned Single Judge the respondent authority re-examined the eligibility criteria and found the respondent No. 5 eligible to submit such tender. Hench, this appeal. ( 4 ) MR. Amitava Ghosh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants while elaborating his argument contended that six tenderers excluding the respondent No. 5 duly dropped their tenders within the stipulated time. After the expiry of the cut of time while the tenderers were discussing about the rates amongst themselves at about 3. 15 P. M. the respondent no. 5 was allowed to drop his tender. Objections were raised by the other tenderers. The Superintending Engineer after considering such objection permitted the other tenderers to modify their rate by way of further amended note on their respective letterheads. Accordingly, the appellant No. 1 and another tenderer submitted their revised quotation in a sealed envelope that were also dropped in the tender box. The tenders were opened along with those two sealed envelopes wherein it was found that the amended quotation of the appellant No. 1 was the lowest. Accordingly, the appellant No. 1 and another tenderer submitted their revised quotation in a sealed envelope that were also dropped in the tender box. The tenders were opened along with those two sealed envelopes wherein it was found that the amended quotation of the appellant No. 1 was the lowest. The Superintending engineer called upon the appellant to explain his rate, as according to him such rate was unworkable. Subsequently, the concerned minister sent a direction to the concerned Superintending Engineer to ignore the said two amended notes and to consider the tenders as submitted in the prescribed form. The tender committee considered all the tenders without such amendment and found the respondent No. 5 being the lowest. The respondent No. 5 consequently was awarded the contract. In this back drop Mr. Ghosh contended that since the Superintending Engineer accepted the appellant No. 1 being the lowest tenderer by asking for explanation of his amended quotation the said authority was precluded to ignore such amended rate and the appellant having the lowest quotation should have been awarded the contract. Mr. Ghosh further contended as and by way of alternative submission that the respondent No. 5 should not have been allowed to submit his tender beyond the cut of time. It was categorically contended on behalf of the appellants that while submitting such amended quotation the appellants recorded their objection with regard to the late submission of tender on behalf of the respondent No. 5. ( 5 ) TO find support of such contention of the appellants we enquired from the learned Counsel appearing for the State as to whether any such objection of late submission of tender was raised contemporaneously by the appellant or any other tenderer. Learned Counsel for the State produced records pertaining to such selection. We examined the amended note submitted by the appellants wherein we did not find any such objection so recorded by the appellants. Apart from the said amended note the appellant's contention that the tender of the respondent No. 5 was accepted belatedly do not find any support from the records. It might be true that the superintending Engineer asked for explanation from the appellants with regard to the amended quotation. Under the tender condition the tender committee was the appropriate authority to select the successful tenderer. It might be true that the superintending Engineer asked for explanation from the appellants with regard to the amended quotation. Under the tender condition the tender committee was the appropriate authority to select the successful tenderer. Since the tender committee selected the respondent No. 5 strictly in terms of the conditions stipulated under the said tender we do not find any illegality or irregularity on that score. Moreover since the contention of the appellants that the tender of the respondent No. 5 was belatedly submitted did not find support from any documents there was no occasion for the superintending Engineer to ask for amended note from any of the tenderers as the tender condition did not suggest such process. Hence, the first contention of the appellants being not tenable is rejected. ( 6 ) THERE leaves us with the question whether the respondent No. 5 had eligible criteria to submit the said tender. The learned Judge to remove the doubt directed the Chief Engineer to examine the said question. The chief Engineer being the Head of the Department re-examined the whole issue and found the respondent No. 5 eligible to submit the tender. Under the tender condition to become eligible one had to be experienced with executing similar nature of work of at least 40%. To support such criteria the intending tenderer would have to furnish a completion certificate containing the work billed for the said purpose. It appears that a similar nature of work was allotted to the respondent No. 5 vide work order dated january 14, 2003. The respondent No. 5 along with his tender papers submitted a certificate dated 26th February, 2003 appearing at page 33 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the State wherein it appears that the respondent No. 5 successfully executed the work amounting to Rs. 1. 68 crores. The said project by this time has already been completed in March, 2003 for a total sum of Rs. 2. 6 crores approximately. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the appellants drew our attention to an inspection certificate (Page 43-48 of Affidavit-in-Opposition of the State) of Drum Mix Plant from the said report it appears that the said plant was inspected on 18th February, 2003 and the certificate was given on 21st February, 2003. 2. 6 crores approximately. Mr. Ghosh appearing for the appellants drew our attention to an inspection certificate (Page 43-48 of Affidavit-in-Opposition of the State) of Drum Mix Plant from the said report it appears that the said plant was inspected on 18th February, 2003 and the certificate was given on 21st February, 2003. It was sought to be contended that since that was inspected on 18th February, 2003 and the certificate was given on 21st February, 2003 the work for Rs. 1. 68 crores could not have been completed by 26th February, 2003 being 5 days after the issuance of the certificate. In reply to such submission it was contended on behalf of the respondent No. 5 that the tender condition did not stipulate for having executed 40% of work through the said plant. Moreover the inspection certificate for such plant was not a pre-requisite for taking up the work. The measurement book was produced by the State that would show that the work in fact started on 15th January, 2003 and was completed by 29th March, 2003. ( 7 ) TO find out whether a tenderer is having eligible criteria or not, the Court does not have such expertise on such highly technical issue. We are only to see whether the decision making process resulting in the selection of the respondent No. 5 was vitiated by illegality or inherent irregularity or by any mala fide act on the part of the concerned authority. The facts as discussed above do not over come any of such tests. In such view of the matter we cannot sit on appeal over the decision of the tender committee and/or the Chief Engineer, as the case may be, holding that the respondent No. 5 did have requisite qualification to submit tender in relation to the subject contract. The second contention of Mr. Ghosh is thus rejected. ( 8 ) WE therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Hence, the application for stay as well as the application for injunction is dismissed. ( 9 ) HENCE, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending, the appeal by treating the same as on the day's list is also dismissed. ( 10 ) IN usual course we would not have awarded any cost against the appellant. Hence, the application for stay as well as the application for injunction is dismissed. ( 9 ) HENCE, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this appeal pending, the appeal by treating the same as on the day's list is also dismissed. ( 10 ) IN usual course we would not have awarded any cost against the appellant. The appellants categorically contended that the objection was duly raised contemporaneously which however was belied by their own letter when it was produced by the State. Hence, we award cost of rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the appellants to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Urgent xerox certified copy would be given to the parties, if applied for.