M. M. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this writ application, alleges that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have arbitrarily and illegally accepted the tender of the opposite party no. 3 for the work to be executed as per the notice inviting tender under Annexure-1 and the petitioner has been illegally eliminated though he was eligible to participate in the tender process. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has prayed in the writ application to quash the decision of the opposite parties 1 and 2 to award the work in favour of opposite party No. 3 for repair, renovation and improvement of Academic block of Ravenshaw College, Cuttack. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner is that by the tender notice issued by opposite party no. 2, for execution of the work of repair, renovation and improvement of Academic block of Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, Special and Super Class Contractors having valid licence to that effect and ownership certificate of possessing required equipments and machineries for the building works, were eligible to participate in the tender. Further, the tenderers were required to furnish their documents in separate sealed covers. The first cover was required to contain all information relating to eligibility in addition to special conditions, if any, clearly mentioning in the said cover as "cover-I (General Condition)" and the second cover was required to contain price bid in item rate in prescribed schedule, superscribing the said second cover as "cover-II (Price bid)". It is the case of the petitioner that as per the tender notice, if a tenderer satisfies the eligibility criteria after opening of the first cover and qualifies to execute the work, the second cover i. e. the price bid of such tenderer will be opened and the date and place of opening of the second cover will be intimated after evaluation of the general condition is completed. The petitioner alleges that the opposite parties 1 and 2 accepted the tender of opposite party No. 3 and thereafter his price bid though opposite party No. 3 did not have a valid licence of Special or super Class Contractor on the date when the Cover-I was opened i. e. on 22-9-2004. The petitioner alleges that the opposite parties 1 and 2 accepted the tender of opposite party No. 3 and thereafter his price bid though opposite party No. 3 did not have a valid licence of Special or super Class Contractor on the date when the Cover-I was opened i. e. on 22-9-2004. As such, it is contended that the opposite party No. 3 had no right to participate in the tender but with a mala fide intention, the authorities entertained the tender of opposite party No. 3 and also subsequently allowed him to participate in the price bid. On 9-11-2004, the opposite party No. 2 sent a letter to the petitioner indicating therein that the petitioner along with opposite party no. 3 and another tenderer have been allowed to participate in the price bid. According to the petitioner, this was done solely to give preference to the opposite party No. 3 though he was not eligible to participate in the tender. It is the further case of the petitioner that the opposite party No. 3 did not submit labour licence nor deposited 40% of the work value for which the tender is sought for and also did not fulfil the other requirements. ( 4 ) THE main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the opp. party No. 3 did not have a valid licence showing that he is a Special and super Class contractor on the date of opening of the first cover but in order to show favouritism, the authorities with mala fide, allowed the opposite party No. 3 to participate in the price bid and accepted his offer. ( 5 ) SEPARATE counter-affidavits have been filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2, and opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties have denied the allegations of mala fide as made in the writ application. It is the case of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that after opening of the first cover submitted by the tenderers, a comparative statement was prepared and sent to the higher authority and all the tenderers were given opportunity till 30-10-2004 to make good any deficiency, if the same is there. Letters addressed to all the tenderers specifying further requirements to be submitted have been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-A/2 to d/2. Letters addressed to all the tenderers specifying further requirements to be submitted have been annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-A/2 to d/2. It is further stated in the counter that under the letter (Annexure-E/2), the Chief engineer (Buildings) i. e. opposite party No. 1 intimated the Superintending Engineer, cuttack (R and B) Circle, Cuttack, his decision that the first covers of the petitioner, the opposite party No. 3 and one M/s. Devine constructions were accepted and directed that the opposite party No. 2 be asked to open the second cover i. e. the price bid of the said three contractors immediately. With regard to the validity of the licence of Special Class Contractor of the opposite party no. 3, it has been stated in paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit that when the first cover was opened, it was seen that the opposite party No. 3 has produced a special class contractor licence valid up to 31-3-2004 along with a copy of the treasury challan dated 31-5-2004 under which the opposite party No. 3 had deposited the fees for renewal of the licence from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2007. Subsequently, the opposite party no. 3 obtained his renewed licence which was renewed retrospectively with effect from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2007. It is, therefore, submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the opposite party No. 3 cannot be held to be ineligible to participate in the tender process. He further submitted that there is absolutely no illegality committed by the opposite parties in awarding the work to the opposite party No. 3 who was the lowest tenderer. Copies of the tender documents i. e. the comparative chart have been annexed to the counter-affidavit. We have perused the same and also perused the counter filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3 wherein copies of the treasury challan and the contractors' licence showing renewal from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2007 have been annexed. ( 6 ) THOUGH the learned counsel for the parties have relied upon series of the decisions in course of their argument, we do not feel it necessary to go into the same, as we find that prima facie no case has been made out by the petitioner to show that any illegality has been committed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 in selecting and awarding the work to opposite party No. 3. We also do not find this to be a fit case where the action of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is required to be subjected to judicial review. ( 7 ) IN the result, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs. Petition dismissed.