JUDGMENT : M.K. HANJURA, J. 1. In this writ petition, bearing OWP No. 1077/2017, filed by the petitioner, (M/s. Haji Goods Carrier, through Shri Nazir Ahmad S/O Ghulam Qadir R/O Mehjoor Nagar, Srinagar), under article 226, read with section 103 of the Constitution of J&K, the following reliefs have been claimed : (i). a writ in the nature of Prohibition be issued in favour of petitioner and against respondents prohibiting respondents especially respondent No.2, Managing Director, Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation and respondent No.3, Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, Jammu & Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation not to release any payment in favour of private respondent No.6, M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, Fruit Mandi Parimpora, Srinagar. (ii). A writ of Mandamus be issued in favour of petitioner and against official respondent No.5 to initiate appropriate action against all officials who have been indicted by Central Vigilance Organization in its report. (iii). A writ of Mandamus in favour of petitioner and against official respondents to initiate action for recovery of amount from Pvt. Respondent (M/s. Ladakh Road Lines) on account of pending challan and till then no payment be released in favour of said transport company.” 2. The grounds urged by the petitioner, Haji Goods Carrier, to seek the indulgence of this Court in granting him the above reliefs, as pleaded by him in his petition, are that he is running a transport business in the State of J&K and for this, he owns a fleet of 20 trucks/vehicles. The J&K State Road Transport Corporation (JKSRTC) invites tenders every year for the supply and utilization of trucks and supplies them to the intending departments, like Food Corporation of India and Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution. These departments utilize his trucks for carriage of various essential items to far flung areas of the State. The payments are released through JKSRTC, which, primarily, associates M/s. Ladakh Road Lines for the utilization of trucks. This is being done illegally and unlawfully with the aim and object to extend undue benefits to him. He has proceeded to state that although M/s. Ladakh Road Lines has an operational license from the statutory authority, yet on the ground they do not own and possess the requisite number of vehicles/trucks. This is being done illegally and unlawfully with the aim and object to extend undue benefits to him. He has proceeded to state that although M/s. Ladakh Road Lines has an operational license from the statutory authority, yet on the ground they do not own and possess the requisite number of vehicles/trucks. Therefore, the said Road Lines is not in a position to earn a contract for carriage of essential items, which, apart from other material, includes the food grains. To coup up the problem, M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, hires the trucks of various companies including that of his company. It has been further stated that for the years 2014-15 & 2015-16, he (the petitioner), kept his trucks at the disposal of the M/s. Ladakh Road Lines and the said company is in arrears to the tune of Rs.15/- crores. Although the said Road Lines has received the entire amount from the JKSRTC, yet it has not disbursed the amount so received to the companies to whom it owes money. He (the petitioner), filed a detailed representation before the respondent No.3, Managing Director, JKSRTC, wherein he brought into limelight the frauds committed by M/s. Ladakh Road Lines. He also brought it to the notice of the respondent No.3 that M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, has not produced the challans of the vehicles for an accumulated amount of Rs. 12/- crores and without asking the said Road Lines to submit the details, the respondent No.3 is bent upon to release the amount in his favour. He (the petitioner), has further stated that M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, has admitted the pendency of challans having not been submitted by them and despite that they claim the release of Rs. 12/- crores, without taking into account the loss caused to the State ex chequer. His complaint has been acknowledged by the respondent 1 to 5 but they have not initiated any action into it and as a consequence thereof, the public money will go down the drains. This is being done in collaboration with some higher ups. 12/- crores, without taking into account the loss caused to the State ex chequer. His complaint has been acknowledged by the respondent 1 to 5 but they have not initiated any action into it and as a consequence thereof, the public money will go down the drains. This is being done in collaboration with some higher ups. The Central Vigilance Organization has indicted the JKSRTC and M/s. Ladakh Road Lines for having committed various acts of serious nature that has caused huge loss to the State ex chequer and there has been a total failure on the part of the authorities, who are at the helm of affairs of JKSRTC and thereby they have failed to protect the State ex chequer. He (the petitioner), has further pleaded that since the respondents 1 to 5 have failed to take any action against M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, therefore, he is constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and this Court, being the guardian of public funds, has an onerous duty to save it from being looted and vandalized. 3. Along with the petition, the petitioner - Haji Goods Carriers, has filed a miscellaneous petition, primarily, on the grounds urged in the main petition and this Court, by order dated 27th of July, 2017, directed as under : “Issue notice in the main petition as well as in the MP returnable within a period of four weeks. List after the service is complete. In the meantime, subject to the objections of the other side and till the next date of listing before the Bench, no payment shall be released in favour of the private respondent No.6 (Ladakh Road Lines, Fruit Mandi Parimpora, Srinagar.)” 4. The respondent – M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, filed an LPA against the aforesaid order, which was decided by order dated 01-08-2017 of the Hon’ble Division Bench with the following directions : “1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 27-07-2017. That order is an ex parte order passed in OWP 1077/2017. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondents, who are present on advance notice, we are of the view that the present appeal can be disposed of by directing that the same be treated as an application for vacation/modification of the interim order dated 27-07-2017 which is impugned herein. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned counsel for the respondents, who are present on advance notice, we are of the view that the present appeal can be disposed of by directing that the same be treated as an application for vacation/modification of the interim order dated 27-07-2017 which is impugned herein. The matter be listed before the learned Single Judge day after tomorrow, i.e. on 3rd August, 2017. We request the learned Single Judge to decide the same as expeditiously as possible as the movement of trucks delivering food supplies is involved.” 5. On the face of the order of the Division Bench cited above, it is imperative to reproduce below the relevant excerpts of the LPA filed by the respondent – M/s. Ladakh Road Lines against the order dated 27-07-2017 of this Court, passed in OWP 1077/2017 : “………………………… (i). That in terms of order bearing No. JKSRTC/GML/RHQJ/CHT/2015-16/09 DATED 16-12-2015, the appellant has been allotted the contract for Kashmir Province for clusters K-1, K7, K8, K9 & K10 on the approved commission, shown against each, for a period of 12 months w.e.f 19-11-2015 to 18-11-2016 as he emerged as the successful bidder offering highest rate of commission in response to e-NIT No. JKSRTC/GML/CHT/2015-16/KMR/440 dated 15-05-2015. A copy of the order dated 16-12-2015 is annexed herewith as Annexure-L1. (ii). That the aforesaid CHT contract for 2015-16 was extended by the official respondents vide order no. JKSRTC/GML/CHT/EXT/2015-16 dated 28-12-2016 for the respective clusters stations/districts of province of J&K, w.e.f. 19-11-2016 on the approved rates of commission in lieu of clause 26 of the agreement for the year 2015-16. A copy of the order No. JKSRTC/GML/CHT/EXT/2015-16/888-93 dated 28-12-2016 is annexed herewith as Annexure – L2. (iii). That the respondent no.1 has not been allotted any contract by the official respondents, either for the period of 12 months, commencing from 19-11-2015 to 18-11-2016 or from 19-11-2016 till finalization of the tender for the year 2016-18. However, he has falsely filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Court stating therein that for the year 2014-15 and 2015-16, the petitioner Company has kept trucks at disposal of the appellant and the appellant in the arrears to the extent of 15/- crores and even though he has received the amount from JKSRTC, but he has not disbursed the same to the company, to whom the appellant owes money. He has also stated that the petitioner company had filed a representation with the MD, JKSRTC, but no action has been taken on the said representation, as such the respondents be directed not to release any payment in favour of the appellant. A copy of the writ petition along with all the annexures appended thereto, is collectively annexed herewith as Annexure – L3. (iv). That in the representation filed by the respondent No.1 along with the writ petition, it has been stated by him that the consignment challans to the tune of Rs.10/- crores to Rs. 12/- crores of service rendered through JKSRTC during the year 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 are lying with his firm, which has been kept unattended by M/s. Ladakh Road Lines against the invested hard earned money of Rs.15/- crores by the petitioner-company and he has accordingly requested the Managing Director to entertain thee pending consignment challans, which also involve crores of JKSRTC commission and release the payment in favour of the firm. It is thus obvious that consignment challans to the tune of Rs. 10 to 12 crores of service allegedly rendered by respondent No.1 are lying with him and he has therefore requested the Managing Director to entertain these pending consignment challans and release the payment, if any, due to him. There was thus no scope for the petitioner-company to file the writ petition against the appellant before the Hon’ble Court. The respondent no.1 has however with malicious intention filed the writ petition against the appellant before the writ court and has succeeded in obtaining the order dated 27-07-2017 from the Court, by misrepresentation of facts. (v). That the order dated 27-07-2017 passed by the writ court being illegal and improper and it having caused irreparable loss and injury to the appellant, therefore, the said order is challenged by the appellant on the following grounds. The grounds are taken in the alternative and without prejudice to each other : (a). That the writ court has passed the impugned order dated 27-07-2017 without application of mind. It has neither gone through the pleadings of the respondent NO.1 as projected by him in his writ petition nor has examined the documents, more particularly the representation filed by the respondent No.1 with the official respondents. That the writ court has passed the impugned order dated 27-07-2017 without application of mind. It has neither gone through the pleadings of the respondent NO.1 as projected by him in his writ petition nor has examined the documents, more particularly the representation filed by the respondent No.1 with the official respondents. The order dated 27-07-2017 having thus been passed by the writ court in total derogation of law and it having caused miscarriage of justice, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. (b). That the respondent no.1 has nothing to do with the contract allotted to the appellant vide order dated 16-12-2015 and extended on 28-12-2016. Since the appellant alone has been validly allotted the contract for supply of trucks to meet the left over demand of JKSRTC in Kashmir province for various clusters and the respondent No.1 has not been awarded any such contract, therefore, it is the appellant who is entitled to receive the payment after paying the commission to the JKSRTC strictly in accordance with the terms of the orders dated 16-12-2015 and 28-12-2016. The respondent no.1 having filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble court without any cause of action and that too to deprive the appellant to receive the payments from the official respondents, therefore, the order dated 27-07-2017 is legally perverse and is liable to be set aside. (c). That one of the communications dated 25-10-2016 placed by the respondent no.1 on record of the writ petition, also shows that certain challans are pending with the appellant but those challans pertain to the years 2014-15 and 2015-16 and the amount of Rs.12/- crore is due to the appellant on those challans from the respondents, subject to the payment of commission to the JKSRTC. The respondent no.1 has also stated in para no.7 of the writ petition that for the year 2014-15 and 2015-16 the petitioner company has kept trucks at disposal of the appellant and the appellant is in arrears to the extent of 15/- crores and though has received the amount from JKSRTC but he has not disbursed the same to the companies to whom the appellant owes money. In the representation however it has been stated that the consignment challans to the tune of Rs. In the representation however it has been stated that the consignment challans to the tune of Rs. 10 to 12 crores of service rendered to JKSRTC during the year 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 are lying with respondent no.1 which has been kept unattended by the appellant. Thee is therefore, conflict and contradiction in the stand taken by the respondent no.1in the writ petition as well as in the representation and as such the writ court was supposed to examine the pleadings as well as the documents before passing the order dated 27-07-2017. It having however not done so, therefore, the order dated 27-07-2017 is legally untenable and deserves to be set aside. (d). That by passing the order dated 27-07-2017, the official respondents have stopped the payment due to the appellant for the supply of trucks, which he was/is supposed to provide to JKSRTC in Kashmir Province on approved commission, as per the orders dated 16-12-2015 and 28-12-2016. Since the contract has been allotted to the appellant and he alone is entitled to receive the payment from the official respondents and the respondent no.1 has without any cause of action filed the writ petition before the Hon’ble court and has succeeded in obtaining the order dated 27-07-2017 by misrepresentation of facts, therefore, the said order deserves to be set aside, so that the appellant who is providing trucks to the JKSRTC in Kashmir province for clusters, K1, K7, K8, K9 &K10 is in a position to receive the payment from the official respondents, subject to approved percentage of commission as depicted in the orders dated 16-12-2015 and 28-12-2016 and liquidates the liabilities of the drivers, labourers and others. (e). That without prejudice to what has been stated above, it is further submitted that even if it be assumed that what ever has been stated by the respondent no.1 in the writ petition is true and correct, still it is a private dispute between him and the appellant. He is well advised to file a Suit for recovery of the amount due to him from the appellant before the appropriate court, because for setting private disputes, suit and not the writ petition is the remedy, as has been authoritatively pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He is well advised to file a Suit for recovery of the amount due to him from the appellant before the appropriate court, because for setting private disputes, suit and not the writ petition is the remedy, as has been authoritatively pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the writ court has not considered the said aspect of the matter before passing the impugned order, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. (f). That in case the order dated 27-07-2017 is allowed to remain in force, then the appellant would neither be in a position to provide trucks to JKSRTC or carry the stocks to the desired destinations which will create problem in the areas to which those stocks viz. food grains, wheat, sugar, atta etc. is meant for. It is therefore in the public interest to set aside the order dated 27-07-2017. It is very pertinent to mention here that the appellant is required to carry the stocks to Gurez, Leh and Kargil and the road to these areas gets closed in the month of October itself. It is therefore imperative for the appellant to carry stocks to these areas before October, 2017, but as the court in terms of impugned order has directed to stop the payments, he won’t be able to do the needful, resultantly not only the appellant but people at large will suffer irreparable loss and injury. (g). That the writ petition has been filed before the Hon’ble court on behalf of M/s Haji Goods Carriers, by some unknown person and not by Nazir Ahmad S/O Ghulam Qadir R/O Mehjoor Nagar, Srinagar. The appellant would request the Hon’ble court to go through the representation dated 18-07-2017 and see the signatures of Nazir Ahmad on the said representation the Hon’ble court may also examine the writ petition and the power of attorney along with it and see for itself as to whether the writ petition has been signed by the same person, who has signed the representation dated 18-07-2017. The writ petition having been filed by some unknown person and not by Nazir Ahmad, who has otherwise also no relation with the appellant or any cause of action to file the writ petition, therefore, also the order dated 27-07-2017 deserves to be set aside. (h). The writ petition having been filed by some unknown person and not by Nazir Ahmad, who has otherwise also no relation with the appellant or any cause of action to file the writ petition, therefore, also the order dated 27-07-2017 deserves to be set aside. (h). That the appellant has approached the Hon’ble court by filing the appeal against the order dated 27-07-2017 only because the appellants has to supply the trucks to JKSRTC and carry the stocks in those trucks to the destinations for which the contract has been finalized but as the Hon’ble court has directed the respondents not to make any payment to the appellant and has made the notice returnable within a period of four weeks and has also directed the order impugned shall remain in force till next date before the bench, which date is due to fall in the last week of August, 2017, therefore, the appellant has no option but to challenge the order dated 27-07-2017 as the said order has been obtained by the respondent no.1 by misrepresentation of facts and without he being entitled to any relief.” 6. Respondent No.2 - Vice Chairman, JKSRTC, has filed his objections, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner, who is a silent partner of respondent No.6, has lodged a complaint before him, claiming that challans of Rs. 10/- to 12/- crores of the respondent No.6 are lying with him, which have not been attended to due to the dispute that arose between them. 7. Heard & considered. 8. The first question that requires to be considered is whether the writ of prohibition can be issued in the facts and circumstances of this petition. The answer to this question is an emphatic “No”, in view of the law laid down in a catena of judicial pronouncements, a few of which are detailed below, for the convenience of ready reference. 9. In AIR 2003 SC 3298, the question raised above, has been answered as under : “On the basis of the authorities it is clear that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have power to issue writs, including a writ of prohibition. 9. In AIR 2003 SC 3298, the question raised above, has been answered as under : “On the basis of the authorities it is clear that the Supreme Court and the High Courts have power to issue writs, including a writ of prohibition. A writ of prohibition is normally issued only when the inferior Courts or Tribunal (a) proceeds to act without or in excess of jurisdiction, (b) proceeds to act in violation of rules of natural justice, (c) proceeds to act under law which is itself ultra vires or unconstitutional or (d) proceeds to act in contravention of fundamental rights. The principles, which govern exercise of such power, must be strictly observed. A writ of prohibition must be issued only in rarest of rare cases. Judicial discipline of the highest order has to be exercised whilst issuing such writs. It must be remembered that the writ jurisdiction is original jurisdiction distinct from appellate jurisdiction. An appeal cannot be allowed to be distinguished in the form of a writ. In other words, this power cannot be allowed to be used “as a clock of an appeal in disguise”. Lax use of such a power would impair the dignity and integrity of the subordinate Court and could also lead to chaotic consequences. It would undermine the confidence of a subordinate Court.” 10. A cue can also be had in this behalf from the law laid down in AIR 1962 SC 1893 , wherein it has been held that a writ of prohibition is an order directed to an inferior Tribunal forbidding it from continuing with a proceeding when the proceeding is without or in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of the land, statutory or otherwise. Paragraph (26) of the judgment is taken note of : “26. The first question is whether the petition filed by the appellants under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of prohibition, is maintainable in the circumstances of the case. A writ of prohibition is an order directed to an inferior Tribunal forbidding it from continuing with a proceeding therein on the ground that the proceeding is without or in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of the land, statutory or otherwise. (Mackonochie v. Lord Penzance, 1881 AC 494 and Halsbury’s Laws of England. Vol. 2. 3rd Edn.)” 11. (Mackonochie v. Lord Penzance, 1881 AC 494 and Halsbury’s Laws of England. Vol. 2. 3rd Edn.)” 11. Applying the ratio of the law laid down above to the facts of the instant case, it can be said with certainty that the jurisdiction for the grant of writ of prohibition is primarily supervisory, the object being to restrain the Courts or the inferior Tribunals from exercising jurisdiction, which they do not possess or to prevent them from exceeding the limits of their jurisdiction. To put it in other words, the writ of prohibition is issued to restrict the Courts or the Tribunals of inferior or limited jurisdiction and commanding them to be within the bounds of their jurisdiction. In the case on hand, it is not the case of the petitioner that a Court or a Tribunal of inferior or limited jurisdiction has exercised the jurisdiction, which it could not operate or put into action. Therefore a writ of prohibition does not lie in the instant case. 12. Looking at the case of the petitioner from another perspective, it will be of essence to state that the sum and substance of the petition of the petitioner is that he has not been allotted any contract by the official respondents. His contention is that for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16, his company has kept the trucks at the disposal of the respondent No.6 – M/s. Ladakh Road Lines, that has an operational license from the statutory authority and the said respondent is in arrears to the extent of Rs.15/- crores. The petitioner has further stated that even though the respondent No.6 has received the money, yet he has not disbursed the same to the companies to whom he is liable to pay the same. The petitioner has further pleaded that he filed a representation before the Managing Director, JKSRTC, but to his dismay, the representation has not been decided although the receipt thereof has been acknowledged. He has also stated that the Consignment Challans worth Rs.10/- to 12/- crores for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17, are lying with the firm. These have been kept unattended by respondent No.6 and that he has invested his hard earned money valued at Rs. 15/- crores in the respondent company. 13. From the pleadings of the petitioner himself, it can be said at the first blush that it is a case of civil liability. These have been kept unattended by respondent No.6 and that he has invested his hard earned money valued at Rs. 15/- crores in the respondent company. 13. From the pleadings of the petitioner himself, it can be said at the first blush that it is a case of civil liability. It raises a civil dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.6, the redressal of which can be sought by knocking the doors of the appropriate forum. The petitioner is neither a licensee nor is he involved in any direct transaction with the JKSRTC. The contract, at present, has been allotted to the respondent No.6 and in the past also, it has, admittedly, been allotted to him. The petitioner seeks the settlement of his monetary claim. According to him, respondent No.6 is his partner in the business run by him. These pleas cannot be raised in the writ jurisdiction when the dispute involved is purely of civil nature. Resort can be had in this behalf to the law laid down in the case of N.T.Abraham vs. State of Kerala & others, reported in 1999 (9) SCC 180 , which is as under : “1. The appellant was a PWD contractor for carrying out certain construction work on behalf of the respondents. On account of a dispute between the parties, an arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate upon the dispute. The arbitrator gave his award on 10-03-1980. On 12-06-1980, a decree was passed in terms of the award. Thereafter the respondents, on 19-09-1980, gave to the appellant a cheque for Rs.8,03,568.75/-. As a consequence, full satisfaction was recorded on the decree. 2. On 16-11-1981, the 2nd respondent wrote a letter to the appellant stating that there had been a mistake in calculating the amount due under the said decree and there had been an excess payment of Rs.1,59,939.75/-. By the said letter, the respondent asked the appellant to pay back the amount of Rs.1,59,939.75/-. Since the appellant did not return the said amount, the respondents have recovered this amount from other bills of the appellant. The appellant challenged this recovery by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. A writ appeal from the said decision has also been dismissed. 3. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature which has to be agitated in appropriate forum. The appellant challenged this recovery by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. A writ appeal from the said decision has also been dismissed. 3. The High Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature which has to be agitated in appropriate forum. Whether there has been a bona fide mistake or not in paying the excess amount to the appellant and whether the appellant is entitled to retain the said amount of Rs. 1,59,939.75/- or not, are all matters which have to be decided under civil law and these disputes cannot be decided under article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 14. The filing of the writ petition by the petitioner appears to be a subterfuge and a camouflage devised to settle a dispute with the respondent No.6, which has a civil lineage. 15. Looking at the petition of the petitioner from yet another angle, it will be profitable to state here that in terms of order bearing No. JKSRTC/GML/RHQJ/CHT/2015-16/09 dated 16-12-2015, the respondent No.6 has been allotted the CHT Contract for Kashmir province for clusters K1, K7, K8, K9 & K 10 on the approved commission, shown against each, for a period of 12 months w.e.f 19-11-2015 to 18-11-2016 as he emerged the successful bidder offering highest rate of commission in response to e-NIT No. JKSRTC/BML/CHT/2015-16/KMR/440 dated 15-05-2015, which CHT contract for the year 2015-16 was extended by the official respondents vide order No. JKSRTC/GML/CHT/EXT/2015-16/888-93 dated 28-12-2016 for the respective clusters stations/districts, of province of J&K w.e.f 19-11-2016 on the approved rates of commission in lieu of Clause – 26 of the agreement for the year 2015-16 till finalization of the tender for the year 2016-18. 16. The law is that the Government and its undertakings, originally, have a free hand in detailing the terms of the tender and it is only if they smell of arbitrariness, discrimination, mala fides or bias, that the Courts come to the fore and interfere in such actions. To support this contention, the law laid down in (2012) SCC 216, at paragraph (35), assumes significance : “35. To support this contention, the law laid down in (2012) SCC 216, at paragraph (35), assumes significance : “35. As observed earlier, the Court would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities, in view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the same was contrary to public interest and beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. We are satisfied that to have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road carrying passengers, the 2nd respondent thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and thought it fit that only manufacturers who satisfy the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in the tender. As noted in various decisions, the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere. The courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. In the case on hand, we have already noted that taking into account various aspects including the safety of the passengers and public interest, CMG consisting of experienced persons, revised the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these two conditions regarding pre-qualification criteria and the evaluation criteria. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned conditions do not, in any way, could be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.” 17. Respondent No.6, having offered highest rate of commission in response to e.NIT No. JKSRTC/BML/CHT/2015-16/KMR/440 dated 15-05-2015, emerged to be a successful bidder and was allotted the CHT Contract for Kashmir province for various clusters. Most of these areas are closed for winters and the food grains and other items require to be carried there by trucks and other transport vehicles before the month of November every year. Most of these areas are closed for winters and the food grains and other items require to be carried there by trucks and other transport vehicles before the month of November every year. The petitioner has not brought it to the fore, in any manner whatsoever, that the award of contract by the JKSRTC to the respondent No.6 was contrary to public interest or that it was unreasonable or discriminatory except for the fact that the Central Vigilance Organization has indicted the Road Transport Corporation and his complaint has not been processed. This, it is hoped, will be looked into with zeal and zest. It is also expected that the complaint of the petitioner shall be looked into and the inquiry shall be logically concluded. 18. The cumulative effect of all that has been said and done above is that it is not only the MP seeking interim relief but the petition of the petitioner also that are devoid of merit and substance and, as such, entail dismissal. Therefore, the petition is dismissed along with the ancillary application. 19. Before parting with it will be pertinent to note that as regards the other petition bearing OWP No. 731/2017, the same is de-linked and shall be taken up for determination separately. However, interim direction, if any in that case, shall continue to remain in force till such time that the same is listed before the bench holding the roster.