Order Challenging the communication dated 21.12.2013 by respondent no. 3 instructing Superintending Engineer to allot the work to the respondent no. 5 and communication dated 28.08.2013 by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation directing the Executive Engineer to enter into an agreement with respondent no. 5 and with a further prayer to cancel the agreement and allotment of tender to respondent no. 5, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a partnership firm having long experience in the field of micro lift irrigation, construction of ponds, dams etc. which it successfully completed over the years. A tender notice dated 12.11.2013 was published in the Hindi daily newspaper (Hindustan) inviting bids for the work of “Restoration of Tandwa M.I. Scheme, Block Pratappur, District Chatra” for an estimated cost of Rs. 1,69,65,000/. As many as eight bids were submitted including the bid by respondent no. 5 and when the bids were opened it was found that 6 bids were of the same value, i.e., for Rs. 1,50,93,094/. By letters dated 21.12.2013 and 28.12.2013, necessary instructions were issued for awarding the contract to the respondent no. 5M/s Naina Enterprise claiming that the M/s Naina Enterprise was registered on 08.10.2013 whereas, the petitioner M/s M.S. Traders was registered w.e.f. 12.10.2011 and thus, in terms of Government Circular of 1991, the petitioner being the senior most amongst the tenderers who participated in the bid deserved to be allotted the contract. In these facts, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 stating that an open tender through e-Procurement was invited for the construction of Check-Dam namely, Restoration of Tandwa M.I. Scheme and it was put on website on 19.11.2013. Since, the work experience of the petitioner company was not in the nature of similar work as required in N.I.T. and it was found that the work experience worth Rs. 83,39,642/- produced by the petitioner company indicated that the payment was made mostly against supply of materials, the respondent no. 5 was given preference. Since the petitioner had not requisite work experience, its seniority was not considered. An agreement with respondent no. 5 was entered into on 04.01.2014 and by the time the counter-affidavit was filed on 19.02.2014 about 10% work was already carried out. 5 was given preference. Since the petitioner had not requisite work experience, its seniority was not considered. An agreement with respondent no. 5 was entered into on 04.01.2014 and by the time the counter-affidavit was filed on 19.02.2014 about 10% work was already carried out. A comparative statement indicating rate quoted, registration, evaluation of experience in the same nature of work etc. has been annexed along with counter-affidavit. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since on an erroneous presumption that the bid submitted by the petitioner was 10% less in value compared to the bid submitted by the respondent no.5, communications dated 21.12.2013 and 28.12.2013 were issued therefore, the agreement entered into with respondent no. 5 and consequent allotment of tender work to it are liable to be interfered with by this Court. Relying on the Government Circular of 1991 which provides that if the rates quoted in 2 bids are similar, the senior most tenderer should be awarded the contract and referring to the chart produced by the respondent nos. 1 to 4, it is submitted that from the chart itself it is apparent that the petitioner is senior most and since the amount quoted by the petitioner and respondent no. 5 are equal in value, the petitioner should have been allotted the work. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that a bare perusal of the certificate dated 11.01.2012 would indicate that the works mentioned in the certificate includes the works carried out by the petitioner similar in nature to the works for which the tender in the present case was floated. Assailing the allotment of work to the respondent no. 5, it is submitted that such allotment is colourable exercise of power and in breach of rights conferred upon the petitioner under Article 15 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 7. Drawing attention of the Court to the work experience certificate dated 11.01.2012 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Chatra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that the work experience of the petitioner company was not of similar nature and since the respondent no. 7. Drawing attention of the Court to the work experience certificate dated 11.01.2012 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Chatra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submitted that the work experience of the petitioner company was not of similar nature and since the respondent no. 5 has better qualification in terms of work experience, it was awarded the work in question. It is further submitted that the Circular of 1991 is not mandatory and award of tender is an administrative function, a decision taken in pursuance thereof is generally not interfered with by the Courts. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 has submitted that the respondent no. 5 though was registered subsequently, in short span of time it has completed several works of similar nature. In so far as the present contract is concerned, about 90% work is complete and the respondent no. 5company has already received about 80 lakh rupees. 9. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the Superintending Engineer initially recommended for allotment of work in favour of the petitioner, no reason has been assigned by the respondents for not accepting recommendation of Superintending Engineer. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 11. It is noticed that the present writ petition has been filed taking a specific plea that though the rates quoted by the petitioner and respondent no. 5 are for the same value, on an erroneous assumption that the rate of M/s Naina Enterprise respondent no. 5 is 10% lesser compared to the rate quoted by the petitioner, the work in question has been awarded to respondent no. 5. In the writ petition the following prayers have been made : “a. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the letter of Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Ranchi (Respondent no.3), as contained in letter no. 2812 dated 21.12.2013 whereby and whereunder, instruction has been made to the Superintending Engineer to allow the work to the private respondent no. 5M/s Naina Enterprise with a wrong observation that the respondent no. 2812 dated 21.12.2013 whereby and whereunder, instruction has been made to the Superintending Engineer to allow the work to the private respondent no. 5M/s Naina Enterprise with a wrong observation that the respondent no. 5 had 10% less rate in the Tender dated 12.11.2013, published on 19.11.2013, floated in daily news “Hindustan” vide Tender Reference No. WRD/MID Chatra/F208/2013104, letter no. 1445 dated 12.11.2013 for construction of Check Dam namely “Restoration of Tandwa M.I. Scheme, Block Pratappur, District Chatra. b. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the letter no. 1480 dated 28.12.2013 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation, addressed to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department to enter into an agreement with the respondent no. 5 who had 10% less rate than others and to allot the work of tender, as contained in Annexure2 published in the newspaper “Hindustan” dated 12.11.2013 published on 19.11.2013 and allotted against the work for a sum of Rs. 1,50,53,093.55 paise, may also be quashed wherein conditions are also laid down of the agreement to be entered into.” 12. A bare perusal of the communications dated 21.12.2013 and 28.12.2013 indicates that nowhere it is mentioned in these communications that the work in question should be allotted to the respondent no. 5 because its bid was lesser compared to bid of the petitioner, by 10%. It is simply mentioned that bid of M/s Naina Enterprise is 10% below the estimated cost. When the prayers “a and b” in the writ petition are considered in the context of letters dated 21.12.2013 and 28.12.2013, I find that these prayers are misconceived and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit on appeal over the decision of the administrative authorities. The High Court does not act as an Appellate Authority and the scope of judicial review is very limited. The administrative decisions are not interfered with unless it has been made in violation of the principle of natural justice or contrary to statutory rules or in breach of statutory rights or fundamental rights of a person or when it is patently irrational or arbitrary. In the present case 6 bids for similar value were received. A comparative cart has been annexed by the respondent nos. In the present case 6 bids for similar value were received. A comparative cart has been annexed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to demonstrate that the award of work to respondent no. 5 was not arbitrary. I do not find any reason to interfere in this matter and accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.