MANMOHAN SARIN, J, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER No. 1 Smart Engineers and Contractors is a sole proprietorship concern of Shri Kailash Chand Sukhmani, who has filed this petition as petitioner No. 2. By this petition, petitioners seek a direction to the MCD to award work contract for tender Nos. 24697, 24698 and 24699 to the petitioner. A restraint is sought on the MCD from awarding this work to any other party. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that it is a registered Contractor with the MCD and was eligible to participate in the tender floated by the MCD. Two of the works in question related to foot path and road berms at the Lala Lajpat Rai marg and the other one was related to Raja Dhirsen Marg. ( 3 ) THE main plank of the petitioner's submissions is that the petitioner was prevented from submitting its bid due to the server of the respondent being down on 11. 9. 2006, the last date for submission of the bids. The tender process was through e-tendering. It was open from 24. 8. 2006 to 11. 9. 2006. The various bidders were required to bid through the internet. The Petitioners claim that because the server of the respondent was down, they were unable to send their bid by e-mail as stipulated. And, under the circumstances, they were constrained to submit the bid manually. The bid submitted in manual form was rejected by the respondent as the same was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender, which required the bid to be in electronic form. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's bid was lower by 8. 97% and that his client was prevented from submitting the bid for reasons beyond his control and attributable to the malfunctioning of the server of the respondent, which broke down. To buttress his case, he referred to the extension granted by the respondent in another tender,. e. NIT No. 14 for submission of bid from 18. 9. 2006 to 26. 9. 2006, which he claimed had been necessitated for similar reasons. ( 5 ) IN reply, respondent has produced an extract of the relevant log showing downloading of tenders as received at the relevant time, which clearly refutes the petitioner's contention to the contrary. e. NIT No. 14 for submission of bid from 18. 9. 2006 to 26. 9. 2006, which he claimed had been necessitated for similar reasons. ( 5 ) IN reply, respondent has produced an extract of the relevant log showing downloading of tenders as received at the relevant time, which clearly refutes the petitioner's contention to the contrary. Moreover, the petitioner had about 18 days to submit the tender and if the petitioner had chosen to wait for the last date and that too, in the last three hours to do so, he only has himself to blame for his failure to send the tender. Respondent also denied that NIT No. 14 was extended for similar reasons. It is stated that in case of NIT No. 14, extension was given because the Pen Drive, in which the digital certificate was stored by the concerned official, had been misplaced, thus preventing him from accessing the codes for opening of the bids. ( 6 ) WE have examined the records produced before us. We are not convinced with the plea of the petitioner that it was prevented from sending its bid by e-mail on time because the server of the respondent was down. Respondent has demonstrated that at the relevant time,bids of others had, in fact, been received. In any case, petitioner should have sent its bid in time and not to wait for the last hour. As regards the issue raised with regard to the extension of the bid in the case of NIT No. 14, with a view to satisfy our judicial conscience, we had issued notice to the respondent and sought their explanation. In response, the respondent explained that the time for receipt of the bid in the said case was extended on account of 'administrative' reasons. On further probing, it was disclosed that this 'administrative' reason was misplacement of the Pen Drive by the Executive Engineer. ( 7 ) WE note that there was no official recording or a file note put up to the effect that the date for receipt of the bid was being extended on account of misplacement of the Pen Drive. The note simply referred to 'administrative reasons'. However, the Executive Engineer, who was present in person, stated that the reason was the loss/misplacement of the Pen Drive. Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the award of tender for NIT no. The note simply referred to 'administrative reasons'. However, the Executive Engineer, who was present in person, stated that the reason was the loss/misplacement of the Pen Drive. Mr. Sabharwal, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the award of tender for NIT no. 14 was not challenged and it had been awarded to the lowest tenderer. Mr. Rajesh Wadhwa, Executive Engineer, who is present in Court, tenders his unconditional apology for not recording the reasons properly and for not taking the approval, as required, for extending the date in NIT No. 14, by disclosing that it was the misplaced Pen Drive that constituted the, 'administrative', reasons for extending the date. Apology tendered by the Executive Engineer has been accepted by us. ( 8 ) ON consideration of the whole matter, we find that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction, especially when the respondent has demonstrated that at the time when the server was alleged to be down, it was in fact working properly, and bids have been downloaded by them. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.