JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be selected to execute the work pursuant to Ext.P1, in view of Exts.P3 and P4 orders issued by the Government of India dated 29.07.2003, and the Department of Industries, Government of Kerala dated 26.08.2011, respectively. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is a contractor who undertakes works of Kerala Water Authority. Third respondent invited on-line bids for the work of 'Amruth', providing a chlorinator system in Booster pump house at Anandavalliswaram, Kollam, evident from Ext.P1. The estimated amount of the work is Rs.11,50,000/-. Petitioner is the proprietor of a concern engaged in the work of manufacturing and supply of chlorinators. Petitioner participated in the tender and quoted an amount of Rs.8,62,615/-, which is less than 24.99% of the estimated PAC, evident from Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, 4th respondent is the only other person participated in the tender proceedings and the 4th respondent also quoted the same amount. 3. Since the amount quoted by the 4th respondent and the petitioner are one and the same, 3rd respondent was taking steps to conduct a toss to award the work. Petitioner was orally informed on 04.02.2017 that the toss would take place at 2.30 p.m. on 07.02.2017. It is submitted that petitioner's proprietary concern is a Small Scale Industrial Unit registered with National Small Industries Corporation (NSIC), which has got a right of price preference up to 15% over the quotation of other units in respect of the tenders floated by the Government Departments and Public Sector Undertakings, including the 2nd respondent, evident from Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is an acknowledgment issued by the Department of Industries, Government of Kerala dated 26.08.2011, which according to the petitioner, is an evidence to show that petitioner is registered as a Small Scale Industry. Even though petitioner has produced Exts.P3 and P4 before the 3rd respondent seeking preference, the 3rd respondent has not considered the same and is proceeding to conduct toss unmindful of the stipulations contained in the said notifications. That apart, it is contended that, if 15% preference is given, then petitioner is entitled to be awarded with the work in terms of Ext.P3. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 4. That apart, it is contended that, if 15% preference is given, then petitioner is entitled to be awarded with the work in terms of Ext.P3. These are the background facts projected by the petitioner to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 4. Respondents 2 and 3 have filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and contentions raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. However, the tender for the subject work was invited vide Ext.P1 tender notice published on 29.11.2016 in a leading newspaper and website of the Kerala Water Authority with the last date, 06.12.2016. Apart from the same, it is submitted that the tender was opened on 09.12.2016, and two firms viz., M/s. Jeekey and M/s. Universal Machines Services participated in the tender. Since both the firms have quoted a rate less than 25% of the PAC, the tender was cancelled. Later, the work was re-tendered vide notice dated 27.12.2016, and the tender was opened on 30.12.2016. On evaluating, it was found that during the re-tender both the firms were qualified for the tender and quoted the same rate i.e. 24.99% below the tendered PAC. It was thereupon decided to arrive at a decision by conducting a lot as per the existing and prevailing practices. Therefore, the tenderers were requested to attend the office at 2.30 p.m. on 08.02.2017, as per Exts.R3(a) and R3(b). Accordingly, petitioner and the 4th respondent attended the office on 08.02.2017 and both agreed for conducting the lot. The consent of both parties was sought and accordingly they participated wholeheartedly. Accordingly, lot was conducted in the presence of the representatives of both the firms in the 3rd respondent's office, evident from Ext.R3(c). Ext.R3(d) is a true copy of the extract of the register wherein the petitioner and the 4th respondent/representatives have signed in lieu of having participated in the meeting. Based on the above procedure, the 4th respondent was selected and selection notice was issued, evident from Ext.R3(e) dated 09.02.2017. 5. That apart, it is submitted that the nature of the subject work is an urgent one during this drought season. It is also stated that, initially, the water is pumped from Shasthamkotta Clear Water Lake which is approximately about 28 Kms. away from the Booster Pump house at Anandavalliswaram, Kollam. Once the water is pumped from Shasthamkotta, this water is filtered and disinfected. It is also stated that, initially, the water is pumped from Shasthamkotta Clear Water Lake which is approximately about 28 Kms. away from the Booster Pump house at Anandavalliswaram, Kollam. Once the water is pumped from Shasthamkotta, this water is filtered and disinfected. However, since the water is pumped from about 28 kms. before distribution in Kollam Municipality, the water is collected in a sump at Anandavalliswaram, Kollam. Before the distribution of water, the same has to be chlorinated for quality and safety. The above process is part of Ext.P1 tender, and taking into account the current situation and the drought which is set in force, to be faced by the State, any manner of delay, would have serious prejudice in the water distribution system. 6. Fourth respondent has also filed a counter affidavit almost on similar lines as that of respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, separate narration of facts recited thereunder are not required. Fourth respondent has also produced Ext.R4(a) series to establish that 4th respondent is engaged in similar works for the past several years and is undertaking the work of the respondents also. 7. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.3060 of 2017 and produced Ext.P6 order passed by the Government of Kerala dated 26.09.2013, which is providing some preferential claims to Micro Small & Medium Enterprises and therefore, according to the petitioner, petitioner is entitled to get certain preference over the 4th respondent. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Water Authority and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 9. Taking note of the respective submissions made across the Bar, the grievance projected by the petitioner is that the proposal for conducting toss, since the tender submitted by the petitioner and the 4th respondent being equal, cannot be sustained and the petitioner should have been provided with the tender work on the basis of the preference given under Ext.P3 to Micro Small Scale Industries. 10. However, from the documents produced by respondents 2 and 3, viz., Exts.R3(a) to R3(e), it is categoric and clear that petitioner agreed to participate in the lot to be conducted. Petitioner/representative has affixed his signature along with 4th respondent, agreeing for such a course adopted by respondents 2 and 3. 10. However, from the documents produced by respondents 2 and 3, viz., Exts.R3(a) to R3(e), it is categoric and clear that petitioner agreed to participate in the lot to be conducted. Petitioner/representative has affixed his signature along with 4th respondent, agreeing for such a course adopted by respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, petitioner cannot turn around and attack the said procedure adopted by the respondents. Moreover, in the counter affidavit, it is categorically stated that in the event of similar circumstances, the practice adopted by the Water Authority is to toss and finalize the successful tenderer. The said contention raised by respondents 2 and 3 is not disputed by the petitioner. 11. Moreover, claim of the petitioner is based on Ext.P3 issued by the Government of India. However, petitioner has not produced any document to show that petitioner is a registered organization in accordance with the terms of Ext.P3 issued by the Union Government. True, 15% price difference is given to Units like the petitioner's over the quotation of large scale units. The said stipulation contained thereunder shows that such a preference is entitled to be given to only SSI Units registered with NSIC under its Single Point Registration Scheme. Having not produced any document to show that petitioner is registered as per the stipulations contained under Ext.P3, it cannot be said that petitioner is entitled to get the price preference provided thereunder. However, petitioner has relied on Ext.P6 issued by the State Government, extending the benefits of Public Procurement Policy for Micro Small & Medium Enterprises Order, 2011 of Government of India to the Micro Small & Medium Enterprises in Kerala, registered under National Small Industries Corporation. However, it cannot be said that petitioner is entitled to get advantage of the same since he has not produced any document evidencing the registration as stipulated thereunder also. The sole document produced by the petitioner is Ext.P4, which is only an acknowledgment card issued by the Department of Industries. From the contents of the said document, it is not evident that petitioner is registered as stipulated either under Ext.P3 or under Ext.P6. 12. Moreover, on a perusal of Ext.P6, what I could gather is that the notification empowers the State Government to notify preference policies in respect of goods and services produced and provided by Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises. 12. Moreover, on a perusal of Ext.P6, what I could gather is that the notification empowers the State Government to notify preference policies in respect of goods and services produced and provided by Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises. Thereby, as per clause (a), all State Government Departments/Public Sector Undertakings/Local Self Government's/Development Authorities/Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board/KINFRA/Kerala Water Authority etc. etc shall set an annual goal of procuring a minimum of 20% of their annual value of goods or services from Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises working within the State, in a period of two years with effect from 2013-14. Therefore, if the petitioner was a registered establishment in accordance with the terms and stipulations contained under Exts.P3 and P6, petitioner along with other similarly situated Units are entitled to supply their services to the maximum extent of 20% from their annual value of goods or services. However, Ext.P1 tender shows that it is in respect of a construction to be carried out to have the advantage of chlorination and therefore, the said work cannot be divided and a portion of the same cannot be given to the petitioner. 13. However, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since there is a price preference and other preferences provided as per the aforesaid notifications, and since the tender submitted by the petitioner and the 4th respondent became equal, the tender ought to have been provided to the petitioner. Learned counsel has also drawn my attention to clauses (b) to (d) of Ext.P6 notification. However, the said clauses contained in Ext.P6 deals with procurement of materials which does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. 14. Taking note of the entire facts and circumstances, and the stipulations contained in the respective notifications issued by the Union Government and the State Government, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality, arbitrariness or other legal infirmities in the conduct of toss by respondents 2 and 3. Moreover, petitioner has cooperated with such a procedure. It is also well settled that having participated in a tender proceeding in accordance with the terms of the tender, due to any subsequent developments, the petitioner is not entitled to turn around and attack the method adopted by the tendering authorities. 15. Moreover, petitioner has cooperated with such a procedure. It is also well settled that having participated in a tender proceeding in accordance with the terms of the tender, due to any subsequent developments, the petitioner is not entitled to turn around and attack the method adopted by the tendering authorities. 15. Sequel to the above discussion is, petitioner has not made out a case warranting interference of this Court exercising the discretionary power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.