MANMOHAN SARIN, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER, by this petition, seeks a mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to cancel the entire process of tender for the supply of Ration Basket with lid 5,786 in numbers. Respondent had invited tenders for supply of the above goods on 17. 3. 2006. Petitioner further seeks a mandamus for tenders to be called afresh if the requirement of the material still persists and staying of the award made by the respondent No. 2 in favour of the participant whose offer was second lowest. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had quoted the rate of 690/- per basket while respondent No. 3 M/s. Ajai Trading company to whom the tender has been awarded, had quoted rate of 727/- per basket. He submits that thus there is a revenue loss to the tune of rs. 2,14,000/ -. ( 3 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 initially objected to the petitioner not impleading respondent No. 3 as a party to the petition. Even though there is no formal order on record, it appears that as a result of the objection raised by respondents 1 and 2, petitioner filed amended memo of petition with amended writ petition impleading resondent No. 3 therein as a party. ( 4 ) THE short submission of petitioner's counsel is that the products of the petitioner have all along been found to be acceptable. The petitioner has never defaulted or failed in supplying the material. He being the lowest, petitioner should have been awarded the contract. ( 5 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 do not join issue with the petitioner on these aspects. It has been averred in the reply that the contract was awarded by the tender Purchase Committee. The Tender Purchase Committee on a detailed evaluation based on the accepted criteria came to the conclusion that the petitioner was over booked with orders to his fullest capacity. While the tender was called for in March, 2006, the respondent submits that based on the evaluation and the registered capacity of the petitioner firm, which is determined by the Quality Assurance Wing based on the various factors, like skilled man power employed, the infrastructure available with the firm, their financial capacity and facilities of Quality Control, the respondents found that the petitioner could not execute these orders on his accepted and registered capacity of 500 baskets a month. Petitioner was already booked and fully loaded up to March, 2007, while the tender had been opened in May, 2006. Supplies were to commence as per the tender terms in 8 weeks and completed in 14 months. In this view of the matter even though the petitioner was otherwise eligible, the respondents have bona fide took the decision in accordance with their accepted norms in awarding tender in favour of respondent No. 3 whose tender was found marginally higher. ( 6 ) THE desirability of ensuring timely supply to our defence forces cannot be undermined and in such cases where respondents reach a conclusion regarding registered capacity and ability of the party to make supplies and the said exercise cannot be said to be vitiated by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration, rather it is a bona fide exercise, the respondents are entitled to place an order on the next lowest bidder. ( 7 ) IN view of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed.