Judgment 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead two more persons as respondents. 2. Heard Mr. Atul Chandra for the permitted, and Mr. K.K. Mandal, learned Government Pleader No. 4. 3. According to the writ petition, the espondent authorities have issued an adertisement inviting tenders which had ppeared in the local dailies and a photocopy whereof is marked Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The tender papers had to be submitted in two envelopes. The first one was to contain the particulars and docutents concerning the eligibility of the applicant, and the second one was to contain the commercial aspect of it. The advertisement further stipulated that the second envelope of those of the applicants would be opened who survive the first stage of scrutiny. 3 PM of 6.1.2006 was the last date and time for the submission of the lender papers, and 3.30. PM of the same day was the time for opening the first tender. The petitioner has not survived the first stage and, therefore, his second envelop will not be opened. He complains before this Court that his application suffered from a minor defect and, therefore, time ought to have been granted to cure the same. He further submits that one Anil Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 7) and one Arvind Kumar Singh (Respondent No. 6) could survive the first test but they are tainted persons, which has not been taken into account by the respondent authorities. In proof of the same, for example, he has placed on record copy of the letter dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure-4), whereby respondent no. 7 has been black-listed. They, therefore, should not have been allowed to cross the first stage. 4. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. A large number of writ petitions are being filed for same or similar direction with respect to allotment of work by the State Government. The matter needs a very balanced consideration. On the one hand, the respondents authorities should realise that these are sources of livelihood and every citizen should have unrestricted access to the same which should be ensured by an open advertisement and wide publicity, and all of them should get a fair and objective treatment. On the other hand, the unworthy and ineligible candidate are surely to be kept at bay. On the other hand, the unworthy and ineligible candidate are surely to be kept at bay. These are essentially administrative matters, and relate to development work. Essentially for these reasons, the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere in these matters. It is, therefore, left to the authorities to treat the tenderers in a most fair manner. They should follow the procedure, but should not insist on hyper-technicalities and hair-splittings. The State Government and its functionaries must give up their image of specialising in finding out all the wrong and hyper-technical reasons to defeat genuine cases. This brings a bad name to a democratic polity, harasses the citizen no end, and burdens this Court with most unwarranted litigations. 5. In that view of the matter, it is for them to consider whether or not some of the defects which do not go to the root of the matter can be considered to be curable defects, and for which time may be granted to cure the same. Therefore, it is for the respondent authorities to consider whether or not they should exercise their discretion and consider the defect in petitioners candidature as a curable defect, and, secondly, whether or not respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been rendered unfit, in this background, I would prefer to refrain from interfering in the matter and leave it to the discretion of the Tender Committee. It will, therefore, be open to the petitioner to approach respondent no. 3 (Chief Engineer, Rural Engineering Organisation-ll, (R.E.O.), Bisheshwaraiya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Government of Bihar, Patna), for redressal of his grievances. 6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.