( 1 ) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 114 of 2004 is the appellant in this appeal. It is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated July 12, 2004, whereby its writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge. ( 2 ) CHALLENGING the award of contract to the 5th respondent in the writ petition by the A and N administration, the writ petition was filed. Quotations were invited by the Directorate of Civil Supplies And Consumer affairs, A and N Islands by publishing the tender notice dated January 12, 2004. Rates were invited for the works mentioned in serials 1 to 12 of the annexure to the tender, from. Both the appellant and the 5th respondent in the writ petition submitted per metric ton rates. ( 3 ) SUBSEQUENT to submission of the tender papers by the tenderers, the competent authority decided to give contract only regarding works mentioned against serials 3, 4 and 5. The administration also decided to ascertain the effect of the rates quoted by the appellant and the 5th respondent in the writ petition, keeping in view of the volume of work it expected during the year 2004-2005. ( 4 ) THOUGH, in total, per metric ton rates quoted by the appellant for the works in serials; 3, 4 and 5, were lower than the rates quoted by the 5th respondent in the writ, petition, it was ultimately found that the rates quoted by the 5th respondent in the writ petition became lower than the ones quoted by the appellant, once the calculation was made on the basis of the volume of work expected during the year concerned. ( 5 ) AFTER ascertaining the position of rates of the parties, the authority concerned decided to award the contract to the 5th respondent in the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant took out the writ petition. ( 6 ) THE writ petition was contested by the authorities and also by the 5th respondent in it. In their affidavit-in-opposition the authorities disclosed the procedure adopted for ascertaining the ultimate real effect of the rates offered by the tenderers. Being aggrieved, the appellant took out the writ petition. ( 6 ) THE writ petition was contested by the authorities and also by the 5th respondent in it. In their affidavit-in-opposition the authorities disclosed the procedure adopted for ascertaining the ultimate real effect of the rates offered by the tenderers. It was specifically stated in paragraph 8 of the opposition that regarding the works mentioned against serials 3, 4 and 5 of the relevant annexure to the tender form, the effect of the rates had been ascertained by the competent authority by making calculation on the basis of the volume of work expected during the tender period. ( 7 ) THOUGH in the writ petition, and then again in the affidavit-in-reply, the appellant took numerous grounds to challenge the actions of the authorities, no ground was taken anywhere to the effect that for the nondisclosure, in the tender notice and form, of the volume of work expected during the year in tender, it had suffered any prejudice while offering the rates for the relevant works or that the non-disclosure of expected volume of work had amounted to denial of a fair chance to it to compete with the 5th respondent in the writ petition. ( 8 ) THE actions were challenged, inter alia, on the ground that in the past contracts for similar works had never been awarded after ascertaining the effect of the rates on the volume of work expected during the year in tender, and hence the authorities acted illegally in taking the final decision in the tender process. Allegations were also made that the authorities acted mala fide. Attempt was also made to allege that favoritism was the result of award of the contract in favour of the 5th respondent in the writ petition. All these grounds were apparently turned down by the learned single judge. ( 9 ) BEFORE us, Mr. Tabraiz, learned advocate for the appellant, has contended that for non-disclosure of the expected volume of work, on the basis whereof ultimately the decision was taken in the tender process, the appellant suffered serious prejudice, since it could not quote appropriate rates keeping in view the expected volume of work. His further contention is that the work was given to the 5th respondent in the writ petition through subsequent negotiation in which the appellant was not involved. His further contention is that the work was given to the 5th respondent in the writ petition through subsequent negotiation in which the appellant was not involved. ( 10 ) LEARNED advocate has also contended that the procedure followed by the authorities amounted to serious deviation from the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender notice and form, and hence, in view of the decision reported at (1999) 1 SCC 492 : ( AIR 1999 SC 393 ), the entire process, including award of contract in favour of the 5th respondent in the writ petition, should be quashed. ( 11 ) CORRECTNESS of the contentions raised by Mr. Tabraiz has been disputed' by Mr. Saroop, learned advocate for the authorities and Mrs Nag, learned advocate for the 5th respondent in the writ petition. ( 12 ) MR. Saroop has submitted that in public interest, decision was taken by the competent authority to ascertain the acceptability of the rates quoted by the tenderers, and no irregularity or illegality was committed by ascertaining the effect of the rates vis-a-vis the expected volume of work. It is his contention that by following the process, the administration actually made financial gains. He has pointed out that at no stage of the writ proceeding the appellant offered to. work at the rates at which the contract was awarded by the competent authority to the 5th respondent in the writ petition. ( 13 ) MRS. Nag has submitted that since the contract was executed, and her client has been working from June 1. 2004. in view of the decision reported at 2001 (1) CLJ 630 (SC) (sic), the appeal is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. ( 14 ) AFTER hearing the learned advocates for the parties, and after going through the materials on record and the decisions cited at the bar, we find that in the present appeal there is no scope to give any relief to the appellant. ( 15 ) AS to the allegation of non disclosure of the expected volume of work in the tender notice and form, and the consequent deviation from the terms and conditions mentioned in them, we are of the view that in the absence of a specific pleading by the appellant regarding its suffering any actual prejudice for such non-disclosure, the plea does not warrant any examination by the writ Court. ( 16 ) THE admitted position is that no statement was made either in the writ petition or in the affidavit-in-reply to the effect that for non-disclosure of the expected volume of work in the tender notice and form, the appellant had suffered prejudice in offering rates for the works mentioned against serials 3, 4 and 5 of the relevant annexure to the tender form. The further admitted position is that rates for the same works were quoted by the 5th respondent in the writ petition also without having any knowledge of the expected volume of work. ( 17 ) ON the admitted facts it can reasonably be concluded that regarding the expected volume of work, both the appellant and the 5th respondent in the writ petition stood on the same footing, and the appellant was not in any kind of comparative disadvantage for its non-disclosure. ( 18 ) ALLEGATIONS regarding illegality committed by the authorities in the matter of award, of the contract in favour of the 5th respondent in the writ petition, we find, are absolutely baseless. We have not been shown any law which prevented the authorities from ascertaining the acceptable rate after making calculations on the basis of the volume of work expected. ( 19 ) WE find that on the facts of this case the decisions relied on by the learned advocates do not help their clients. In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the authorities for ascertaining the actual lowest offer, by no means amounted to deviation from the already fixed and published terms and conditions of the tender. The authorities were free, and rather under an obligation, to remove the cosmetics from the face of the offers for ascertaining whether the apparently lowest offer was the real lowest offer. They did exactly what they ought to have done. The proposition laid down in the decision at (1999) 1 SCC 492 : ( AIR 1999 SC 393 ) is that if the tender conditions specify the requirements and indicate the decision making process, allegations regarding deviation therefrom can be validly examined by the Court. The present case is not one of such deviations. ( 20 ) REGARDING the other allegations made in the writ petition, we find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge. The present case is not one of such deviations. ( 20 ) REGARDING the other allegations made in the writ petition, we find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge. There is absolutely no material to hold that any favour was shown to the 5th respondent in the writ petition. ( 21 ) THE allegations regarding subsequent negotiation, we find, also do not advance the case of the appellant, because the negotiation undertaken after opening the tender papers was not connected with the works i for which the contract was awarded. There is absolutely no material to support the allegation that the authorities acted mala fide. ( 22 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal, and hence it is hereby dismissed. ( 23 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to make any order for costs in favour of the respondents in the appeal. Hence there will be no order for costs in it. ( 24 ) URGENT xerox certified copy of this judgment and order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for. Appeal dismissed.