JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Navneet Pd. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate General. 2. Petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents not to allot the contract work in terms of Tender Notice dated 18.2.2005 to respondent No. 5 as he is not eligible to participate in the said tender. 3. Respondents issued tender for the work of IROP in between Kilometer 21 to 41 of National Highway No. 75. Pursuant to the said Tender Notice, petitioner and respondent No. 5 submitted their tender. It is alleged that in spite of non- fulfillment of all the conditions of Tender Notice the Chief Engineer decided to give the work in favour of respondent No. 5. 4. Mr. Navneet Pd. Singh, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Clause 6 of Tender Notice specifically put a condition that a contractor has to give an information as to where his Hot-Mix Plant is located and what is its capacity and further condition was that as to whether his Hot- Mix Plant is situated within 40 Km. from the initial and end point of worksite or not learned counsel further submitted that in spite of the facts that respondent No. 5 did not fulfill the conditions the Chief Engineer allotted the work to him. 5. Learned Advocate General drawn my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and submitted that the Board of Directors of the petitioner- Company are also the Directors of M/s Sharda Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. and both the Companies have not completed the works allotted to them earlier within the prescribed time. It is further submitted that M/s Sharda Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. executed the work of National Highway 23 i.e. Ranchi-Gumla section which was extreme poor quality as a result of which the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India has recommended for blacklisting M/s Sharda Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, the petitioner was also granted the work of National Highway 78 which was scheduled to be completed by 29.8.2003 but it has not yet been completed. It is stated that tender was decided on the basis of information furnished by the concerned Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Ranchi. It is stated that tender was decided on the basis of information furnished by the concerned Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Ranchi. Learned counsel also submitted that because of direction issued by this Court in Public Interest Litigation a short Tender Notice was issued and the petitioner has not been found suitable and the work was not allotted to him. 6. It has not been disputed by the petitioner-Company that M/s Debashree Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Sharda Construction (India) Pvt. Ltd. are the Companies owned by husband and wife and they have been earlier allotted construction work of National Highway but the same has not yet been completed. In a Public Interest Litigation being WP (PIL) No. 4789 of 2003 this Court issued direction to the Chief Engineer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government India to immediately and forthwith allot the work order for the construction and repair of National Highways falling within the State of Jharkhand. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, works have been allotted to the petitioner and other agencies. I have been told that about 40 per cent of the work allotted to respondent No. 5 has already been completed. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts, I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.