JUDGMENT 1. PURSUANT to our earlier order dated 7th April, 2008, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are personally present in Court. On last occasion, we directed those two respondents to file affidavit explaining the reason why the petitioner was not given the work-order in respect of serial nos. 3, 4 and 8, although, it was the lowest tenderer. Pursuant to such direction, an affidavit has been affirmed before this court. The respondents are also present with other documents in support of their explanation. 2. IT is pointed out to us that according to the terms of the tender, for item nos. 1, 3, 4, and 8, the selected tenderer must produce credential in respect of 50 percent of the value of the work which is Rs. 83,93,900/- for each of the aforesaid items. It appears from the declaration given by the petitioner that it had shown a sum of Rs. 76,71,542/- as the payment made during the concerned year which is treated as the credentials of the tenderer. Mr Chatterjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that having regard to the aforesaid sum declared by the petitioner, the work-order in respect of serial no. 1 was given to it as it had sufficient credentials being more than 50 percent of the value of the work. He, however, submits that although it was also the lowest bidder of the item being the serial no. 3, the work-order could not be given to it because after deduction of rs. 42,000/- and odd, being the 50 percent of the value of the work of the serial no. 1 from the credentials of the petitioner, further sufficient credential was not held by the petitioner to cover 50 percent of the value of the work in respect of the serial no. 3. In other words, Mr Chatterjee contends that in order to get all the four work-orders in respect of those items as a lowest bidder, it was the duty of the petitioner to produce the credential of Rs. 1,67,00,000/- being the 50 percent of the total value of the work covering the four items whereas it had the credentials of only Rs. 76,71,542/- and odd, as indicated earlier. Mr Chatterjee, therefore, submits that his clients did not commit any illegality in issuing work-order only in respect of the item being serial no. 1. 3. 1,67,00,000/- being the 50 percent of the total value of the work covering the four items whereas it had the credentials of only Rs. 76,71,542/- and odd, as indicated earlier. Mr Chatterjee, therefore, submits that his clients did not commit any illegality in issuing work-order only in respect of the item being serial no. 1. 3. MR Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that there is no such rule that the contractor must give separate and additional credential for each items of the work. According to him, by giving a single credential, one can get work-order in respect of several items if the said credential is sufficient to cover 50 percent of the value of the work of those items individually and the aggregate value of all those items is not the decisive factor. 4. IN order to appreciate the point involved herein, it will be appropriate to refer to the following special condition for the eligibility of the tenderer:- "all the tenderers should furnish attested photo copies of work ? Completion certificate supported with payment certificate of single similar nature of revetment of type - protection work or of its supply work particularly in the river Ganges/padma executed during last five years with minimum credential of 50% (of the amt. put to Tr.) of the work applied for along with P.T. and S.T. certificates and deeds, if any, with the application." It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Executive Engineer, Nadia irrigation Division issued the completion certificate that the petitioner society executed the work of protection to the eroding right bank of river Padma satisfactorily and the final gross bill of the said work stood at Rs. 76,71,542/- for the relevant year which is called "credential" in common parlance among the parties. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the aforesaid materials, we find substance in the contention of Mr Chatterjee that this Court in the original order having directed the respondents to consider the "credential" of the petitioner alone and not its subordinate units and the said credential being limited to Rs. 76,71,542/-, by such credential, there is no scope of allotting work-order in respect of more than one items, although, the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder in respect of all the four items. 76,71,542/-, by such credential, there is no scope of allotting work-order in respect of more than one items, although, the petitioner was found to be the lowest bidder in respect of all the four items. In other words, if the writ-petitioner could furnish the credential to the extent of rs. 1,67,00,000/-, being the 50 percent of the combined value of the work of all the four items, it could get all the work-orders. It is outlandish to suggest that with the meagre "credential" of Rs. 76,71,542/-, the petitioner should be invested with the work-orders valued more than Rs. 3,00,00,000/- although the prerequisite is to exhibit its credentials of 50 percent of the total value of the work. It will not be out of place to mention here that it is apparent that huge amount of works were divided into several small items only because sufficient number of contractors was not available in the locality who had the prerequisite qualification of having sufficient credential covering 50 percent of the total value of the work; even the petitioner could not give any instance where the respondents have given more than one work-order to any contractor having no sufficient credential amounting to 50 percent of the total value of those work-orders. 5. WE, thus, find that there is no violation of our order complained in this application as we, in our order, made it clear that the tender forms given to the writ-petitioner could be utilized only for the purpose of getting work-order on the basis of the credential of the writ-petitioner itself and not by relying upon the credential of its primary units. 6. THE application is, thus, devoid of any substance and is dismissed accordingly with costs, which we assess at 100 Gms. to be paid by the petitioner to each of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 separately within a week from today.