ORDER Per Shantanu Kemkar, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondents No.1 and 2 in deciding to accept the tender of the third respondent regarding allotment of a plot reserved for educational purpose, ad-measuring 28,610 sq. meter situated at Sector-F of Scheme No.94, Indore. 2. Briefly stated on 15.10.2007, the Indore Development Authority (for short, the IDA) floated a tender inviting bids for allotment of the aforesaid plot. In all, three tenders were received, which were of the petitioner, the third respondent and one another. 3. According to the petitioner, it had submitted the bid, quoting highest rates of Rs.8,250/-per sq. meter, as compared to other two bidders. However, the petitioner was not declared successful bidder but the third respondent, who had quoted lower rate of Rs.7,676/-per sq. meter was declared to be a successful bidder. It is also the case of the petitioner that the third respondent was favoured by the officers of the IDA and their decision to accept its bid is based upon mala fides. It is also the case of the petitioner that in order to ensure the acceptance of the bid of the third respondent, in the petitioner's bid document, the officers of the IDA had put whitener and changed the price quoted by the petitioner and made it to Rs.7,359.04/-per sq. meter, instead of Rs.8,250/-per sq. meter quoted by it. 4. The respondents have filed reply denying the allegations. Respondents No.1 and 2-IDA in their reply have denied the petitioner's contention that its bid was submitted quoting the price of Rs.8,250/-per sq. meter. According to the IDA, the petitioner itself had quoted rate of Rs.7,359.04/-per sq. meter and not Rs.8,250/-per sq. meter, as alleged. The petitioner's contention that some one had put whitener on the rate put-forth by the petitioner and reduced the rates to help the third respondent, was specifically denied by the IDA. The IDA also denied the allegation that there was mala fide on the part of its officers. In support of the stand, that the petitioner itself had submitted the tender by putting whitener and the bids were opened before the representative of the tenderers making an endorsement that the petitioner has quoted the price after putting whitener on it, the documents Annexure R/1-1 and R/1-4 have been filed by the IDA. In support of the stand, that the petitioner itself had submitted the tender by putting whitener and the bids were opened before the representative of the tenderers making an endorsement that the petitioner has quoted the price after putting whitener on it, the documents Annexure R/1-1 and R/1-4 have been filed by the IDA. They have also produced the original record to show that on opening of the petitioner's tender, when it was revealed that the petitioner has put whitener on the rates quoted by him, a note to that effect was made which was endorsed by the petitioner's representative by putting his signatures on it. In the circumstances, the case of the IDA is that the petitioner has cooked up a concocted story and is not entitled for any relief. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents have also drawn our attention towards the difference in the copy of bid document Annexure P/4 submitted by the petitioner along with the petition and the original bid submitted by it which was made available for perusal, during the course of hearing, so as to show that the petitioner has not filed the documents in conformity with the original record. 5. On going through the documents Annexure R-1/1 and R-1/4 and the record, we find that copy of tender document submitted by the petitioner along with petition is not matching with the original bid submitted by it before the IDA. The column about description of the land and the area are also different. It is not the case of the petitioner that apart from putting whitener by the officers of IDA on the rates quoted by it and substituting lower rate than the rates which were quoted by him, change is also made in other columns of the bid. We also find from Annexure R-1/1 and R-1/4 that the petitioner's representative had put his signatures under the remark that on opening of its bid, the price is found to be quoted on the whitener put on it. In the circumstances, prima facie we are not in agreement with the petitioner's contention that the officers of the IDA had put whitener and lowered the price quoted by it. On the other hand, it appears from Annexure R-1/1 and R-1/4 that it was the petitioner itself who had submitted the tender by quoting price after putting whitener. 6. In the circumstances, prima facie we are not in agreement with the petitioner's contention that the officers of the IDA had put whitener and lowered the price quoted by it. On the other hand, it appears from Annexure R-1/1 and R-1/4 that it was the petitioner itself who had submitted the tender by quoting price after putting whitener. 6. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out the case that fraud has been committed upon it by changing the rates quoted by it in the bid. The allegation of fraud made by the petitioner has been hotly disputed and denied by the respondents. We are of the view that the allegations levelled by the petitioner could not be even prima facie established by the petitioner. This being a hotly contested disputed fact, in our considered view, in the writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot decide such hotly contested issue, which requires recording of evidence. Even otherwise as observed, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out even a prima facie case to establish that any fraud has been practiced upon it, by changing rates quoted by it by putting whitener and inserting figure of lower rate. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that no case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.