JAGDISH BHALLA, J. ( 1 ) M/s Mohd Alamgir and Co. [petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1557 [mb] of 2001 is a registered firm and is engaged in supply of meat group items to the Military Stations and according to the petitioner, the firm is engaged in supply of meat items for the last several years and there has been no complaint against it. M/s Quality Traders[opposite party no. 6] is also said to be registered with Government of India [defence Department] as a Class Firm and is engaged in the business of supplying different meat group items to the Military. ( 2 ) ON 30. 12. 2000, a tender notice was published and information was sent to the approved Contractors of the Military regarding tender for the period 1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002 for various Military Headquarters. M/s mohd. Alamgir and Company and M/s Quality Trader also submitted their tenders in addition to the tenders submitted by various other firms. On 1. 2. 2001, tenders were opened in presence of the Contractors and the rates were read out /announced at the open meeting in presence of the persons who have participated in the tender process. In respect of meerut Depot, only 6 parties submitted their bids, which includes M/s mohd. Alamgir and Company and M/s Quality Trader. The rate given by mohd. Alamgir and Company were Rs. 4424/- per hundred Kg. Whereas the rates given by M/s Quality Traders were 4429/- The rates quoted by other firms were much higher to the rates quoted by the aforesaid two firms. ( 3 ) M/s Mohd. Alamgir and Company filed a writ petition no. 1557 of 2001 against the sanction of tender in favour of opposite party no. 6 [ m/s Quality Traders] by the Headquarter Central Command and also sought a relief amongst other relief to direct the opposite parties to sanction the tender for supply of dressed meat at Meerut Deport of Army supply Corps for the year 2001-2002 to the firm and allow the firm to deposit the security money. ( 4 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner of writ petition No. 1557 of 2001 is that the petitioner-Firm being the lowest tenderer should have been recommended for sanction of tender but in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, tender has been sanctioned in favour of opposite party no. 6- M/s Quality Traders. ( 4 ) THE main grievance of the petitioner of writ petition No. 1557 of 2001 is that the petitioner-Firm being the lowest tenderer should have been recommended for sanction of tender but in a most arbitrary and illegal manner, tender has been sanctioned in favour of opposite party no. 6- M/s Quality Traders. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, comparative statement of rates were announced in the open meeting by the concerned authorities and the Firm-M/s Mohd. Alamgir and company was found to be the lowest tenderer but in gross violation of the procedure and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence, the authorities at Central Command, Lucknow, granted tender to M/s quality Traders. ( 5 ) SRI Syed Husain appearing for Union of India submitted that the rate quoted by M/s Mohd. Alamgir and Company in the tender form was rs. 4424/-in figure as well as in words whereas M/s Quality Traders, the opposite party no. 6 has quoted rate of Rs. 4429 in figure and "four thousand twenty nine only" in words for supply of meat dressed per 100 kg. According to learned Counsel, in paragraph 2 (ii) (c) of the tender document it is mentioned in clear words that in the event of discrepancy between description in figures and words quoted by a tenderer, the description in words shall prevail. It is in this background that the rates quoted by the opposite party no. 6 were taken to be as Rs. 4029/- and not Rs. 4429/- as alleged by the Counsel for the opposite party no. 6 and the contract was sanctioned in favour of opposite party no. 6-M/s Quality traders. For these reasons, its is incorrect to say that the petitioner-M/s mohd. Alamgir and Company was the lowest bidder. The contract has rightly been sanctioned in favour of M/s Quality Traders and there is no illegality or procedural deviation as alleged by the learned Counsel appearing for M/s Mohd. Alamgir and Company. In the counter affidavit, it has also been indicated that the instant petition is infact a collusive petition which has been filed with oblique motive to bargain and compel the answering opposite parties to act according to the wishes of the petitioner in respect of the contract in question. Alamgir and Company. In the counter affidavit, it has also been indicated that the instant petition is infact a collusive petition which has been filed with oblique motive to bargain and compel the answering opposite parties to act according to the wishes of the petitioner in respect of the contract in question. ( 6 ) SRI Syed Husain, has pointed out that the value of contracts, which are beyond the financial powers of General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, central Command are sent to Quarter Master General, Army headquarters, New Delhi for approval and sanction. Accordingly, the contract documents for Meerut were sent to Army Head-quarters. The rate mentioned in words "four thousand and twenty nine only" by M/s quality Traders was observed at Army Headquarters. Therefore, Quarter master General, Army Headquarters approved and sanctioned the contract in favour of M/s quality Traders at Rs. 4029/. ( 7 ) SRI Mohd. Mansoor, appearing for M/s Quality Traders submitted that since the rate quoted by the firm was second lowest and the rates quoted by the firm M/s Mohd. Alamgir and Company were found to be the lowest. Consequently, the earnest money of the petitioners firm (M/s quality Traders) was released on 12. 3. 2001. Later on, by the letter dated 8. 5. 2001, the Headquarter Central Command Lucknow informed M/s quality Traders that the earnest money amounting to Rs. 2,54,400/- has inadvertently been released in favour of M/s Quality Traders as such, the same has been recovered under the provisions of Para 5-A of the contract Agreement from the bids of fortnight 16 00. to 30 April 2001, as under :-- A. SUP-DEP ASC Bahragarh Rs. 1,02,400/- B. SUP-DEP ASC Mhow Rs. 1,52,000/- It was also directed by this letter that the petitioner- M/s Quality traders shall deposit Rs. 8,01, 800/- as security deposit for supply of meat dressed at Meerut Station sanctioned in his favour and commence supply of meat at the rate of Rs. 4029/ per hundred Kg. as the tender has been sanctioned in favour of the Firm for the period 1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002. A telegram was also sent by the Headquarter Central command intimating M/s Quality Traders to deposit security amount and commence supply of meat dressed for Meerut station. 4029/ per hundred Kg. as the tender has been sanctioned in favour of the Firm for the period 1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002. A telegram was also sent by the Headquarter Central command intimating M/s Quality Traders to deposit security amount and commence supply of meat dressed for Meerut station. On receipt of the aforesaid letter and telegram, petitioner-M/s Quality Traders immediately sent the letter mentioning therein that the lowest rate was quoted by M/s Mohd. Alamgir and Company and the petitioner firm was not the lowest tenderer for supply of meat dressed to Meerut station and as such, sanction for supply of meat dressed for Meerut station in favour of the petitioners firm; (M/s Quality Traders) is wholly incorrect. It was also pointed out that the petitioner has never offered Rs. 4029/ per hundred Kg. Infact, the rate quoted by the petitioners firm was Rs. 4429/ per hundred kg. . ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel, Sri Mohd. Mansoor appearing for M/s Quality traders submits that the rates i. e. 4029/ per hundred kg. indicated in the letter dated 8. 5. 2001; (Annexure-1) were never quoted by the petitioner and the rates quoted by the petitioner firm were Rs. 4429/ per hundred kg. and as such the Firm requested to rectify the rates in acceptance of tenders and sanction may be accorded at the rates, which were mentioned in the tender form. It was also indicated in the said letter that in respect of aforesaid tender process, M/s Mohd. Alamgir and company has filed a writ petition and the notice thereof has been received by the petitioners firm on 5. 4. 2001. On this representation, the authorities did not take any steps nor released the money recovered from the other stations from the head of the petitioner. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition no. 2594/mb/2001 praying inter-alia therein for quashing of the order dated 8. 5. 2001 for recovery of earnest money and for release of Rs. 2,54,400/- which was recovered from the petitioner from the other depots i. e. Bairagarh and Mhow Station. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed a writ petition no. 2594/mb/2001 praying inter-alia therein for quashing of the order dated 8. 5. 2001 for recovery of earnest money and for release of Rs. 2,54,400/- which was recovered from the petitioner from the other depots i. e. Bairagarh and Mhow Station. It has also prayed that the opposite parties may be directed not to proceed and compel the petitioner-M/s Quality Traders to make supply as the petitioner was not the lowest tenderer and further the tender has not been sanctioned on the rates quoted by the petitioner-Firm. ( 10 ) SRI Syed Husain appearing for the Union of India in writ petition no. 2594/mb/2001 contended that the contention of the petitioner that he was the second lowest tenderer for supply of Meat dressed at Meerut as such the amount of earnest money deposited, was released is not correct. Infact, the petitioners refused to commence supply of Meat dressed at Meerut despite sanction and approval of his contract, as such, the earnest money was recovered being dues of the government from other accounts of the petitioners as per clause 5-A of the tender documents. It is also pointed out that in the event of discrepancy between the description in words and figure quoted by a tenderer, the description in words shall prevail in view of clause 2-C of the Contract deed No. IAFZ-2137a. Elaborating further, learned Counsel submitted that the power of approval or rejection of tender vests with the QMG, army Headquarters, who has sanctioned the contract in terms of clause 2 (ii) (c) to the petitioner as would be evident from a perusal of annexure-CA-8 to the counter affidavit. ( 11 ) SRI Mansoor Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents not only recovered the earnest money from bairagarh and Mhow Station, but also issued letter dated 16. 11. 2001 for recovery of risk purchase loss of general damages and deduction of 5% payment. The Commandant at Meerut issued another letter dated 12. 4. 2002 directing to with-hold the amount from pending bills of the petitioner, out of any other contract held by him. This action of the opposite parties is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. 2001 for recovery of risk purchase loss of general damages and deduction of 5% payment. The Commandant at Meerut issued another letter dated 12. 4. 2002 directing to with-hold the amount from pending bills of the petitioner, out of any other contract held by him. This action of the opposite parties is arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. ( 12 ) WE have given our anxious considerations to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. We find force in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents in writ petition No. 1557 (MB) of 2001; M/s Mohd. Alamgir and company Vs. Union of India that the petitioner firm namely M/s Mohd. Alamgir and Company was not the lowest tenderer. The rates quoted by the petitioner firm were Rs. 4424/ in figure as well as in words, whereas the rate quoted by the opposite party no. 6 i. e. M/s Quality Traders were rs. 4429/- in figure and Rs. 4029/ in words for supply of meat dressed per hundred kg at Meerut. In view of para 2 (ii) (c), the authorities sanctioned the tender in favour of the opp. party no. 6 as the opp. party no. 6 was found to be lowest tenderer as its rates were lowest in comparison to the rates of the petitioner. ( 13 ) IT is incorrect to say that the contract has been awarded to opp. party no. 6 illegally though rates quoted by the petitioner firm were the lowest. A perusal of annexure-CA-8 indicates that the matter was examined at the level of Quartermaster General, Army Headquarters, new Delhi and on scrutiny it was found that the rates quoted by M/s quality Traders were Rs. 4429/ in figures and Rs. 4029/ in words, consequently as per clause 2 (ii) (c) of IAFZ-21378, the rates quoted in words have been considered to have been tendered by the opp. party no. 6 and consequently, the tender was sanctioned in favour of opp. party no. 6. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 4029/ in words, consequently as per clause 2 (ii) (c) of IAFZ-21378, the rates quoted in words have been considered to have been tendered by the opp. party no. 6 and consequently, the tender was sanctioned in favour of opp. party no. 6. In the circumstances, the present writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. ( 14 ) AS far as writ petition No. 2594 (MB) of 2001; M/s Quality Traders is concerned, a perusal of the record shows that the petitioner M/s quality Traders represented to MGASC Central Command, Lucknow indicating therein that the firm was not the lowest tenderer as such, the earnest money was released on 12. 3. 2001 and the offer made by the firm cannot remain open and to be treated as over. Further it appears from the record that the respondents have referred the matter to an Arbitrator, lt. Col. S. P. Awasthi for settling the dispute, in terms of clause 23 (a) of the tender document No. IAFZ-2120 (Contract Deed) which provides that in case of any dispute of difference in connection with the contract, the same shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator and the award of the arbitrator shall be final on the parties to the contract. The petitioner filed objection regarding the appointment and competence of the Arbitrator on the ground that the Arbitrator cannot act as the present dispute is not a dispute arising of a contract and further in respect of the same controversy, a writ petition bearing writ petition No. 2594 of 2001 has been filed before the High Court and the matter is subjudice. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Arbitrator without deciding the objections raised by the petitioners Firm passed an ex-parte Award. The correctness of the Award has been questioned by the petitioner before the District Judge and the petition has been admitted and as such the award cannot be enforced in view of the provisions of Arbitration and conciliation Act. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are still pending. The correctness of the Award has been questioned by the petitioner before the District Judge and the petition has been admitted and as such the award cannot be enforced in view of the provisions of Arbitration and conciliation Act. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are still pending. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument regarding illegal sanction of tender in favour of the petitioner, recovery of earnest money and recovery of Risk Purchase loss of General Damages and deduction of 5% payment has relied upon a Supreme Court decision in Tarsem Singh vs. Sukhminder Singh; (1998)3 SCC 471 . ( 15 ) AFTER giving careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that since the proceedings in respect of same issue are going on before the District Judge, recording of any specific finding may seriously prejudice the case of the parties as such we refrain ourselves from recording any finding. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to show interference under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. We have already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs that writ petition no. 1557 of 2001 lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. ( 17 ) ACCORDINGLY both the writ petitions are dismissed. Costs easy. It is, however, made clear that observations made in this judgment are for the purposes of disposal of these writ petitions, and will not prejudice the rights of the parties before any proceedings going on between the parties. Further, the learned District Judge will not be guided with the observations made in this judgment and will be free to form its own opinion. .