JUDGMENT A. S. NAIDU, J. — This is a case where ‘kettle is trying to call the pot black’, inasmuch as the petitioner, a Tenderer, though did not fulfil all the Tender conditions and was not otherwise eligible for being considered to be awarded the work seeks to challenge the acceptance of the Tender of opposite party No.4. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the short facts are as follows : In response to a Tender Call Notice published in the Daily ‘Samaj’ dated 15.9.2002 by the Government of Orissa in the Coop¬eration Department for finalisation of builders/developers for Joint Venture Project of construction of commercial/official/residential complex over the vacant leasehold land, many applicants submitted their tenders. The detailed particulars were provided in the Tender Call Notice which has been filed as Annexure R/1. The petitioner’s grievance is limited to the item of work at serial number 2 mentioned in the Tender Call Notice which is quoted hereinbelow : Condition Nos.4 and 9 stipulated in the said Tender Call Notice read as follows : “4. Only development and builders of repute having experi¬ence in execution of commercial/office/housing complexes at estimated cost of not less than 2 to 4 crores of rupees may furnish tenders along with full documented details of their past experience etc. Prospective tenderers may include Central or State Govt. Public Sector Undertaking in building and construction line also. 9. The tender shall be accompanied by : (a) Earnest money/security deposit of Rs.50,000.00 in the form of Bank Drafts drawn in favour of the concerned Society. (b) Solvency Certificates or Bank guarantee to the extent of at least fifty lakhs, renewable from time to time. Tenders not so accompanied shall be rejected.” According to the petitioner, he submitted his tender for the work more fully described in item No.2 of the Tender Call Notice on 8.10.2002 and also submitted a letter undertaking to submit the Bank Guarantee. The petitioner alleges that his tender was not considered and the work was allotted to opposite party No.4. 3. On receiving notice, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 - State. In para-4 of the coun¬ter-affidavit it has been stated that nine tenders were received in respect of the work as per serial number 2 of the Tender Call Notice, i.e. work relating to Bhubaneswar Coop. 3. On receiving notice, a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 - State. In para-4 of the coun¬ter-affidavit it has been stated that nine tenders were received in respect of the work as per serial number 2 of the Tender Call Notice, i.e. work relating to Bhubaneswar Coop. Super Bazar Ltd. Out of nine, one M/s. J.P. Construction informed that it opted out from the bid. The tender of M/s. Millenary Buildteks Pvt. Ltd., Sahidnagar was found to be unacceptable on the ground that no solvency certificate had been filed by it. The tender paper of one Bharatia Towers of United Friends and Builders (P) Ltd., Cuttack was evaluated and it was found that the said tenderer had not furnished its solvency certificate and as such its tender paper was liable to be rejected. Thereafter a meeting of the Central Tender Evaluation Committee was held on 21.1.2003 wherein it was decided to accept the tender of M/s. Millenary Buildteks (P) Ltd., opposite party No.4. The minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the Central Tender Evaluation Committee held on 21.1.2003 are vide Annexure D/1. The claim of the petitioner that he was the highest bidder also has been strongly repudiated in the counter-affidavit and it has been averred that opposite party No.4 had offered 43.77% while the petitioner had offered 40%. 4. A counter-affidavit has also been filed by opposite party No.4 specifically stating that the petitioner had furnished Rs.50,000.00 as earnest money and an undertaking to furnish sol¬vency certificate at a later date, while opposite party No.4 had deposited earnest money of Rs.50,00,000.00 and had furnished sol¬vency certificate of Rs.15 Crores as Bank Guarantee from the Oriental Bank of Commerce. It has been averred that the Evalua¬tion Committee had taken all these factors into consideration. 5. A perusal of the averments made as well as the assessment sheet prepared by the Tender Evaluation Committee annexed as Annexure-F/2 would show that the submission made by the opposite parties are correct. 6. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner, but then the same does not help the petitioner to disprove the stand taken by opposite party No.4 or the State Government in their respective counter-affidavits. 7. 6. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner, but then the same does not help the petitioner to disprove the stand taken by opposite party No.4 or the State Government in their respective counter-affidavits. 7. After perusing the averments of the parties and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the peti¬tioner had not satisfied all the conditions stipulated in the Tender Call Notice and further as it appears from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it was not the lowest tenderer. Thus it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the decision of the State Government awarding the work in question to opposite party No.4. In view of these clinching facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the State Government which is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. SUJIT BARMAN ROY, C.J. I agree. Petition dismissed.