JUDGMENT : Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J. 1. Vide tender notice No. 04 of 2015-16, respondent No. 2, for and on behalf of President of India, has invited open tender on prescribed forms for the work as mentioned in the tender notice. Date and time of submission and opening of tender has been fixed as 29.01.2016, in the office of Dy CE/C/JAT or CAO/USBRL Satyam Complex, Trikuta Nagar Jammu. 2. Admittedly, amongst others petitioner and respondent No. 4 have participated. It appears that the tenders submitted have been opened at both the places i.e. in the office of CE/C/JAT and CAO/USBRL Satyam Complex Trikuta Nagar. Respondent No. 4 has been found to be lowest tenderer whereas petitioner has been found second lowest. Petitioner noticing the same position has filed the instant petition and so far as succeeded in halting the process. 3. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the tenders were required to be opened at one place either in the office of Deputy CE or in the office of CAO as envisaged by the tender notice. The counsel for the respondents highlighted that the writ petition is premature because the first step after tenders were invited has been taken by the tender opening committee by opening the tenders. Then the same committee had to submit its report to the evaluation committee and in turn evaluation committee had to submit its report to the tender accepting authority. It is only thereafter the final decision could be taken. Petitioner if at all had any genuine grievances, which he has not, should have represented before the authorities. In addition, submitted that the petitioner has been beneficiary of the same tendering process as was initiated in the year 2014-2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted that in the tender notice of 2014-2015, it was envisaged that the tenders could be opened at both the places i.e. in the office of Dy CE and CAO whereas in the present tender notice for the year 2015-2016, it is envisaged that the submission and opening of tenders shall be either in the office of Dy CE or CAO. In short, he wants to project that when the word ‘or’ is used, it would mean that the tender had to be opened at one place. 5. The contention is totally misplaced. In short, he wants to project that when the word ‘or’ is used, it would mean that the tender had to be opened at one place. 5. The contention is totally misplaced. Process is one, for facilitating the submission of tenders and its opening, the tenders were allowed to be received at both the places. On receipt whereof in both the offices, tenders have been opened. Respondent No. 4 has been found to be lowest tenderer. When it is so, how could petitioner claim any type of grievance against such a process? Opening tenders at two places would not by itself constitute any valid ground for filing writ petition when neither any mala-fide nor any ulterior position is projected to be attributable to the process so initiated. 6. The ground projected that in view of word ‘or’ used, the tenders could be opened only at one place in absence of any allegation of mala-fide or any other fault of substance would by no means constitute any ground for throwing challenge to the process. 7. The submission of the learned counsel for the respondents to the effect that the writ petition is premature carries weight and prevails because tender opening committee has opened the tenders now has to submit its report to the evaluation committee, then the evaluation committee has to submit its report to the tender accepting authority, then only any final order will be passed. If at all at this stage, petitioner may have any valid grievance he can represent before the authorities for redressal of his genuine grievances. 8. Interim direction dated 18.02.2016 shall cease to be in operation. 9. Petition accordingly disposed of alongwith connected MP(s).