JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “A) That the respondents may kindly be directed to issue rate contract to the petitioner in compliance of acceptance letter dated 31.3.2015. B) That the role of respondents No.4 to 6 may kindly be inquired through an independent agency and same be directed to produce the report before this Hon’ble Court so that appropriate action in accordance with law be taken against respondents No.4 to 6. C) That the respondent State may kindly be directed to place on record the record of the case that why a delay has been occurred for non granting the rate contract to the petitioner.” 2. It is not in dispute that in terms of the tender notice, the petitioner had named respondent No.7 as the manufacturer of the goods which it would be supplying to respondents No.1 to 3. The petitioner though was declared the lowest tenderer but has not been awarded any contract and it is averred that it is only on account of the mischief played by respondents No.1 to 3 (who have also been arrayed as respondents No.4 to 6 in their personal capacity) that the contracts are not being placed as they were interested to ensure that the petitioner backs out so as to ensure that the same is awarded to their favourites. 3. In response, the respondents have categorically stated that though the letter of manufacturer was required to be submitted alongwith the tender, yet the petitioner who had failed to do so, was granted time to submit the same which is ample proof of their transparent working. It is further averred that even though the petitioner had subsequently submitted the letter of authorization of respondent No.7 but then no contract could be awarded in its favour because in the meanwhile the manufacturer i.e. respondent No.7 had withdrawn its authorization in favour of the petitioner. 4. Respondent No.7 in its separate reply has averred that the petitioner had only been given general authorization but the same could not have been submitted for the specified rate or tender that too for a gestation period extending to one or more than one year in view of the fluctuations and variations in the currency rates, exchange rates and ocean freight etc. in international market from where the material was to be imported and, therefore, it had withdrawn the authorization of the petitioner. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 5. At the outset, it may be observed that original records which were called by us do reveal that while submitting its tender, the petitioner had not submitted the following documents:- i) Authorization of Principal Manufacturer. ii) Sales Tax Clearance Certificate. iii) Original Affidavit of Non Blacklisting. iv) Attested Copy of Registration with National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC). 6. The records further reveal that the aforesaid documents were subsequently submitted from time to time by the petitioner, but then it is not in dispute that as on date the principal manufacturer i.e. respondent No.7 has withdrawn its authorization. Meaning thereby that petitioner cannot now as per the tender supply the product of respondent No.7, thus rendering its tender infructuous. 7. The petitioner would, however, still contend that irrespective of withdrawal of the authorization, it was still entitled to receive the orders being the lowest tenderer as it had already submitted fresh authorization on 15.05.2015 from one of the approved manufacturers i.e. ‘M/s Big Boss Technocrate Equipments’ and, therefore, the respondents be directed to place their orders with it in terms of such authorization. 8. We cannot agree with this submission for the simple reason that it would amount to re-writing of the contract which after finalization of the tender is impermissible in law. The petitioner has no right to submit an authorization of a manufacturer who is not mentioned or whose details are not given as per the tender notice. This would be notwithstanding the fact that the subsequent manufacturer may even be ready to furnish the same or better product at the same or even lower price. The mere fact that the manufacturer has been approved in case of another tender would not ipso facto accord recognition to the manufacturer in the case of the petitioner. 9. The petitioner would lastly argue that it is only because of respondents No.1 to 3 that respondent No.7 has withdrawn its authorization and, therefore, action be drawn against them. 10. We have no hesitation in observing that these are disputed questions of fact and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere. 9. The petitioner would lastly argue that it is only because of respondents No.1 to 3 that respondent No.7 has withdrawn its authorization and, therefore, action be drawn against them. 10. We have no hesitation in observing that these are disputed questions of fact and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek redressal of its grievances before an appropriate Court/Forum, but then no relief can be granted to it in the instant petition. 11. Having said so, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.