JUDGMENT Manoj Misra, J. An international tender has been floated by the second respondent, which is an undertaking of the State Government, for the procurement of Agriculture Grade Gypsum. The project is described as U.P. Sodic Lands Reclamation III (Credit No.4640 IN). The project has been aided by the World Bank. The petitioner, who is one of the bidders for the contract, seeks a mandamus restraining the second respondent from giving effect to the bid awarded in favour of the fifth respondent; for quashing of the award of the contract to the fifth respondent and for constituting a technical expert committee for carrying out a cost benefit analysis before inviting fresh tenders. 2. At the hearing of the petition, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the tender has not been finalized or awarded. The learned Senior Counsel states that his statement in the aforesaid terms is based on instructions which have been received by him from the second respondent, a copy of which has been placed on the record. The instructions, so far as is material, state as follows: - ?In reply of para 16, it is stated that for UPSLRIIIP, the loan agreement was signed with the World Bank, Government of India and Government of Uttar Pradesh. As per the agreement, all procurement for UPSRIIIP will be executed according to the World Bank procedure and guidelines. The estimated value of Gypsum is approximately Rs.44.62 crore which was higher than the 30 million US $. Therefore the Gypsum procurement is under prior review of the World Bank. The received bids are evaluating by the Bid evaluation committee and after bid evaluation, the bid evaluation report with all facts and figures will be sent to the World Bank for their No objection. The Bid evaluation is confidential till issue of letter of award. The award of contract also will publish to the United Nation Development Business online and UPBSN website also i.e. www.upbsn.org.? 3. On the basis of the instructions which have been received by him, learned Senior Counsel states that the contract is being executed according to the procedures and guidelines of the World Bank and since the estimated value of Gypsum was higher than USD 30 million, the procurement would require a prior review of the World Bank. 3. On the basis of the instructions which have been received by him, learned Senior Counsel states that the contract is being executed according to the procedures and guidelines of the World Bank and since the estimated value of Gypsum was higher than USD 30 million, the procurement would require a prior review of the World Bank. At the present stage, it has been stated that the BEC will, in the process of evaluating bids and after the evaluation of the bid, send a report to the World Bank for its approval. No letter awarding the contract, it has been stated, has been issued. 4. At this stage, it has been stated on behalf of the second respondent that Clause 42.3 of the bid document provides a remedy to an unsuccessful bidder after the publication of the award of the contract, in the following terms: - ?After publication of the award, unsuccessful bidders may request in writing to the Purchaser for a debriefing seeking explanations on the grounds on which their bids were not selected. The Purchaser shall promptly respond in writing to any unsuccessful Bidder who, after Publication of contract award, requests a debriefing.? 5. In view of the statement which has been made before the Court on behalf of the second respondent, the petition is manifestly premature. No final decision has been taken for the award of the contract which, in any event, requires the prior review of the World Bank. 6. We are therefore, not inclined to entertain the petition, but we clarify that we have had no occasion, in the circumstances, to express any opinion on the merits of the issues which are sought to be raised, either in regard to the eligibility of the fifth respondent or that of the petitioner. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.