JUDGMENT : Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondents Nos.1 to 4. 2. The petitioner No.1 is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its main object being "event management". 3. The respondent No.2, Chief Executive Officer, Brahmaputra Literary Festival, 2017 issued an e-tender dated 17.12.2016 for event management of Brahmaputra Literary Festival, Guwahati 2017 at Sankardev Kalakhetra in 2(two) bid system - technical bid and financial bid, fixing 27.12.2016 for submission of e-tender up to 2:00 PM. The petitioner No.1, the respondent No5, the respondent No.6 and some others had participated in the aforesaid e-tendering process. 4. The technical bids of the participating tenderers were scrutinized by the Bid Evaluation Committee on 30.12.2016. The petitioner No.1 was one of the tenderers out of 4(four), who are short listed as having technically qualified. 5. The total score of the bidders is to be determined on the basis of 30% for financial score and 70% for technical score and the respondent No.5, on the basis thereof, emerged as the highest scorer and accordingly, it was recommended as the highest bidder. 6. It is averred in the writ petition that though the financial bid was opened on 03.01.2017, result of the bid was declared/digitally released on 07.01.2017 and it came to the knowledge of the petitioners on 09.01.2017. 7. Mr. Bora has submitted that the respondent No.5 is not an event management Company and it is not even qualified to participate in the tendering process. It is also argued that even if the respondent No.5 or for that matter, the respondent No.6, who is also placed above the petitioner in the ranking, are treated to be qualified tenderers, then also, the recommendation made is liable to be interfered with as scores are not awarded justly, and were awarded on irrelevant and extraneous consideration so as to deprive the petitioner No.1 from getting the order of settlement. 8. Minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 03.01.2017 (Annexure-F of the writ petition) has given in detail the scores obtained by 4(four) short-listed tenderers. 8. Minutes of the Bid Evaluation Committee held on 03.01.2017 (Annexure-F of the writ petition) has given in detail the scores obtained by 4(four) short-listed tenderers. The financial score, technical score as well as the total score of the aforesaid 4(four) bidders as indicated therein needs to be taken note of and accordingly, the charts are reproduced herein below:- "The financial Score of the Bidder has been evaluated as below: Sl. No. Name of the Bidder Value of his Bid Lowest evaluated Bid Financial Score 1 ART Entertainment & Services (P) Ltd. 63,18,000 63,18,000 1.00 2 Macons People (P) Ltd. 1,38,69,083 63,18,000 0.45554562 3 Priya Communications 64,74,500 63,18,000 0.97582825 4 Prodigy Communications & Marketing (P) Ltd. 76,23,314 63,18,000 0.82877342 Technical Score of Responsive Bidder has been evaluated as below: Sl. No. Name of the Bidder Total Marks obtained in Tech. Bids Highest Marks of Tech. Bids Technical Bid Score 1 ART Entertainment & Services (P) Ltd. 80.75 89.00 0.9073034 2 Macons People (P) Ltd. 84 89.00 0.9438202 3 Priya Communications 86.25 89.00 0.9691011 4 Prodigy Communications & Marketing (P) Ltd. 89 89.00 1.00" 9. The sum up of 30% of Financial Score and 70% of Technical Score has been determined as under to determine the total score of the bidders: Sl. No. Name of the Bidder 30% of Financial Scores 70% of Technical Score Total Score 1 ART Entertainment & Services (P) Ltd. 0.3 0.6351124 0.935112 2 Macons People (P) Ltd. Divine Plaza, Dispur 0.13666369 0.6606742 0.797338 3 M/s Priya Communications, Guwahati 0.29274847 0.6783708 0.971119 4 Prodigy Communications & Marketing (P) Ltd. 0.24863203 0.7 0.948632" 10. The Brahmaputra Literary Festival, Guwahati 2017 will be attended by authors, invitees, officials and media personnel from across the globe and thousands of people are expected to be present in the event which includes literary sessions, felicitation programmes and cultural programmes. 11. The technical bid was opened on 30.12.2016 and the petitioners are now questioning the technical credentials of the respondent Nos.5 and 6. 12. Though the recommendation in favour of the respondent No.5 was made on 07.01.2017, the Court is of the considered opinion that having regard to the fact that the festival is being organized on and from 28.01.2017, the approach made by the petitioners is a belated approach. 13. Delay in approaching the Court has to be judged on the basis of contextual facts and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula. 13. Delay in approaching the Court has to be judged on the basis of contextual facts and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula. If the petitioners were seriously interested, they ought to have approached this Court earlier so that their grievances could have been considered but as the festival is round the corner, any interference at this stage is not called for, more particularly, when, prima facie, a transparent procedure appears to have been adopted by the respondent authorities in evaluating the tenders. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.