JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that the 5th respondent was permitted by the authorities to submit his tender papers on February 21, 2005, when in terms of the notice inviting tender dated january 18, 2005 last date of receiving tender papers had been fixed for February 18, 2005 (up to 3 p. m. ). ( 2 ) ADVOCATE for the petitioner says that once the schedule of the tender process had been duly prescribed and notified, the authorities were not empowered or entitled to permit the 5th respondent to submit his tender papers after the date for submitting them expired. He says that explanations given by the authorities in their opposition are not acceptable at all, and they rather show that the authorities acted mala fide for permitting the 5th respondent to submit the tender papers after the date fixed for the purpose was over. ( 3 ) ADVOCATE for the authorities refers me to the case made out in the opposition. It has been stated in the opposition that on february 18, 2005 the 5th respondent was obstructed by certain persons when he visited the office concerned for submitting the tender papers. It has further been stated that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 5th respondent, the authorities conducted an enquiry and found that allegations made by him were correct; and in view of the findings of the enquiry made on the basis of the complaint submitted by the 5th respondent, the authorities decided to permit the 5th respondent to participate in the tender process along with the other tenderers, including the petitioner, by submitting the tender papers, which the 5th respondent had duly purchased within the date mentioned in the notice inviting tender. ( 4 ) ADVOCATE for the authorities submits that the tenderers were to submit, and they actually submitted, tenders in sealed covers, and they were to offer rates for performing the jobs mentioned in the tender notice; and hence for grant of permission to the 5th respondent to submit his tender papers on february 21, 2005 (when February 19th and 20th, 2005 were Saturday and Sunday respectively) the petitioner did not suffer any actual prejudice whatsoever. ( 5 ) THE 5th respondent has entered appearance and he is also contesting the writ petition by filing opposition. ( 5 ) THE 5th respondent has entered appearance and he is also contesting the writ petition by filing opposition. He has produced the documents in connection with the incident in question. ( 6 ) THERE is no dispute that after the sealed tenders were opened, the 5th respondent was found to be the successful bidder; and only thereafter the petitioner approached the writ Court with this petition. ( 7 ) IN my view, only because there was a violation of the time schedule mentioned in the notice inviting tender, the writ Court should not interfere in the matter, when the petitioner has failed to establish that for the breach in question he suffered any actual prejudice in any manner whatsoever. ( 8 ) IN my view, in the facts and circumstances stated in the opposition, it cannot be said that decision of the authorities to permit the 5th respondent to submit his tender papers on February 21st, 2005 was an arbitrary or unreasonable decision. Before taking the decision and granting the permission the authorities conducted the requisite enquiry and satisfied themselves about the correctness of the allegations made by the 5th respondent. In my view, the decision taken by the authorities was rather warranted by the rules of fairness. ( 9 ) FOR these reasons I am not inclined to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities to issue the work order in favour of the 5th respondent. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order for costs in it. ( 10 ) URGENT certified xerox copy of this judgment and order shall be supplied to the parties, if applied for. Petition dismissed.