JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, a Proprietorship concern, has filed this writ petition praying therein undermentioned reliefs:- "(i) the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the tender process in pursuance of Annex.3 and; (ii) the respondents no.5 may kindly be directed not to illegally restrain the petitioner to participate in the tender process and submit his tender documents in pursuance of Annex.3 and; (iii) in alternative, it is also prayed that if during the pendency of the writ petition, if the tender process in pursuance of Annex.3 with regard to the Gram Panchayat Ridmalsar is completed and work order is awarded in favour of any person/firm without considering the case of the petitioner then the same may kindly be quashed and set aside." 2. The facts, apposite for the purpose of this writ petition, are that petitioner-Firm, which is involved in construction work of building and roads, came across an advertisement dated 18.03.2015, issued by third respondent with the consent of Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti Bapini, inviting tender for the purposes of construction works/purchase of construction materials for different Panchayats under the schemes of Rural Development. As per the NIT, approximately, a work for a sum of Rs.35 Lakhs was incorporated in the advertisement for Gram Panchayat Ridmalsar. The case of the petitioner-Firm is that it was keen to participate in the tender process and therefore deposited a sum of Rs.400/- for obtaining the tender documents. Further it is averred that even after depositing 2% earnest money of the estimated cost of tender and efforts being made, the Firm was not provided copy of the tender form. In such a situation, the petitioner-Firm approached third respondent, and on its request tender form was issued to it on 06.05.2015 vide Receipt No.87. Thereafter, petitioner prepared a Demand Draft of Rs.70,000/- towards the earnest money, drawn in favour of Gram Panchayat and made endeavour to submit the tender documents. As per the version of the petitioner, in its tender documents, it offered the rates 15.09% below the BSR rates. The petitioner also made an attempt to make out a case that on 07.05.2015, its representative visited the office of Gram Panchayat, Ridmalsar with tender document but none of the members of the Purchase Committee were available and further no facility was available for depositing the tender form. The petitioner also made an attempt to make out a case that on 07.05.2015, its representative visited the office of Gram Panchayat, Ridmalsar with tender document but none of the members of the Purchase Committee were available and further no facility was available for depositing the tender form. It is also alleged that some incumbents, including the fifth respondent, who were supporter of present Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Ridmalsar, made an attempt to prevent the petitioner from submitting its tender form. This sort of situation prompted the petitioner to approach Vikas Adhikari, before whom the petitioner submitted its tender document to participate in the tender process. A representation in this behalf was also submitted by the petitioner before the Vikas Adhikari. In order to make out a case of personal vengeance, the petitioner has pleaded that respondent No.5 has acted with mala fide to prevent the petitioner from participating in the tender process and that is precisely the cause that its tender was not received by the Gram Panchayat within the stipulated period for processing the same. In order to crave the reliefs, mentioned supra, the petitioner has set out many grounds in the writ petition and has also made an attempt to invoke Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have submitted their reply, wherein certain preliminary objections are also raised. The respondents have asserted that the writ petition merits rejection solely on the ground that petitioner is guilty of misprision. It is also averred in the preliminary objection that the petition involves disputed question of facts for which writ petition is not an appropriate remedy. Availability of alternative efficacious remedy in the form of civil suit, is also cited as a reason for non-suiting the petitioner. On factual aspects, all the averments contained in the writ petition are refuted by the respondents. 4. The respondent No. 4 has also submitted reply to the writ petition and countered all the averments contained in the writ petition. It is specifically pleaded that when the petitioner has not submitted its tender document obviously there is no question of considering its tender and the question of processing its tender form does not arise. The so-called allegation of mala fide is also denied in the reply with full emphasis. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The so-called allegation of mala fide is also denied in the reply with full emphasis. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. After examining the lis involved in the matter threadbare, it is clearly borne out that the fact as to whether petitioner-Firm was permitted to submit its tender documents within the stipulated period or not is a disputed question of fact. Moreover, the allegations contained in the writ petition, in this behalf, that petitioner-Firm was prevented from submitting its tender form by some overt act of respondent No.5 due to mala fide is also wholly unfounded, absolutely vague, cryptic and unspecific. The entire edifice of the writ petition to allege mala fide is the so-called personal vengeance of fifth respondent but what was the cause of acrimony between them has not been disclosed in the writ petition, nor any document has been placed on record to substantiate this allegation. 7. It is trite, that if allegation of mala fide are made, then those allegations are required to be substantiated by submitting cogent and convincing material, and such allegations cannot be based on some wholly vague and unspecific averments. The averments, contained in the writ petition, in this behalf, are not inspiring confidence so as to make out a case of mala fide. As the petitioner has not participated in the tender process, obviously, the grievance ventilated by it through this writ petition is per se not tenable, which is edificed on whole vague and cryptic allegations. 8. Therefore, viewed from any angle, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. *******