JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Seeking a direction upon the Executive Officer, Zila Parishad-Cum-Deputy Development Commissioner, Sahebganj respondent no.4 to execute agreement with the petitioner, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner claiming himself a registered contractor and income tax assessee, participated in tender pursuant to NIT No. 01/2014-15 published in the daily newspaper (Hindustan) on 02.02.2015. The petitioner was declared successful for the work at item no.65 for construction of Guard Wall at village-Dompara, Agloi panchayat. The estimated value of the work was Rs.20,20,504/-. The petitioner deposited Term Deposit Certificate of Rs.41,000/- as advance deposit and subsequently, in compliance of letter dated 26.03.2015, he deposited Term Deposit Certificates of Rs.61,000/- for Security Deposit still, the work order was not issued to the petitioner and agreement was not executed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that between the period March, 2015 and 25.07.2015 several agreements were executed with respect to the works for which bids were invited pursuant to NIT No. 01/2014-15 however, agreement with the petitioner was not executed. It is stated that the bid of the petitioner was 10% below the estimated cost and accordingly, it was accepted on priority basis. The relevant record for execution of agreement with the petitioner was placed before the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC) however, in the meantime, D.D.C. was transferred and a new incumbent took over the charge of Deputy Development Commissioner. Alleging discrimination on the part of the respondents, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4 cannot justifiably refuse to enter agreement with the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mrs. Shweta Singh, J.C. to G.P.V appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand resists the prayer in the writ petition and submits that whether an agreement can be executed with a tenderer or not is a decision which the Competent Authority only can take. Execution of agreement with successful bidders is dependent upon fulfillment of several conditions and therefore, the writ Court cannot issue a direction to the respondent no.4 for executing agreement with the petitioner. 5. I find that the petitioner was declared successful and pursuant to letter dated 26.03.2015, he deposited Rs.61,000/- are not in dispute. Execution of agreement with successful bidders is dependent upon fulfillment of several conditions and therefore, the writ Court cannot issue a direction to the respondent no.4 for executing agreement with the petitioner. 5. I find that the petitioner was declared successful and pursuant to letter dated 26.03.2015, he deposited Rs.61,000/- are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that several agreements were executed with other parties however, a perusal of letter dated 25.07.2015 discloses that after it was detected that the fund for the scheme is not available, vide letter dated 04.07.2015 for execution of the pending schemes, letter for allotment of fund was written by the Deputy Development Commissioner. Letter dated 25.07.2015 discloses that after the allotment of fund, a decision on execution of agreement would be taken. The plea of the petitioner that he has been discriminated in execution of agreement, in the aforesaid facts, is not tenable. Considering the specific stand taken by the respondents in letter dated 25.07.2015, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.