JUDGEMENT 1. Respondent Biharsharif Municipal Corporation invited tender for supply and erection of 16 metre high-mast lights to be installed at various locations in the town of Biharsharif. Petitioner was one of the bidders. According to him, he had offered price much lower than other competitive bidders. Despite such offering made by the petitioner, the contract came to be awarded to respondent no. 4 i.e. Stan Max. Petitioner alleges many things in his writ application against such a decision and wants quashing of the tender. 2. Respondents were directed to file their counter affidavit and justify their decision. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the tender of the petitioner was rejected due to the petitioners own conduct. Nowhere in the notice inviting tender, there was any clause to quote different type of figures for the same work. Petitioner in his financial bid had quoted two different figures for the same work indicating it to be as Item-A or B. Due to discrepancy of the above kind, the petitioners tender could not be considered and it came to be awarded to the next lowest bidder since rest of his offer were found to be in order. The other aspect which has been indicated in the counter affidavit is that work already stood awarded in favour of respondent no. 4 and the same stand completed. This is corroborated by evidence brought on record with the counter affidavit. It is also stated that a detailed reasoned order came to be passed by the concerned authority before taking final decision with regard to award of the contract which is Annexure-C and speaks for itself. 3. From the notice inviting the tender, it is apparent that the petitioner did cause confusion in the mind of the respondent authorities by quoting two different rates for the same work leveling them as A & B. In absence of any explanation or in absence of any provision in the notice permitting a tenderer to do so respondents have done no wrong in not awarding work to petitioner. The other aspect is that the. work has already been completed and to that extent no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner now at this stage. 4. In absence of any major breach having been established or arbitrariness in the decision making process shown, no interference is required. 5. The other aspect is that the. work has already been completed and to that extent no relief can be granted in favour of the petitioner now at this stage. 4. In absence of any major breach having been established or arbitrariness in the decision making process shown, no interference is required. 5. The writ application is dismissed.