ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the direction has been sought for upon the respondent to cancel the work order issued in favour of the respondent no.5 in pursuance to notice inviting tender dated 05.07.2017 vide Reference no.UDD/NP/HZB/05/2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition is that the petitioner’s company is registered under Urban Development Department. The department has come out with notice inviting tender on 05.07.2017 for execution of different works inclusive of work pertaining to construction of culvert and drainage in Ward No.31, Anandpuri district Hazaribag. Different bidders have participated in the bid including the petitioner but the work order has not been issued in favour of the petitioner rather respondent no.5 has been found to be successful. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said action of the respondent authority has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition, inter alia on the grounds: (i) The notice inviting tender contains condition as contained under Condition nos. 5 and 8 to the effect that at the time of submission of the application for participation in terms of the NIT, one or the other bidder will have to furnish the certificate pertaining to completion of similar nature of work for three financial years, so that in case of equal rate the bidder who have completed more number of works will have to be given preference, apart from that condition, the preference has also been decided to be given to the bidders who have been registered under the department of Urban Development Department or Municipal Corporation, Hazaribag. The Condition no.8 provides a condition that no preference would be given to such bidders who have not completed the works complete. According to the petitioner, he has been registered under the Urban Development Department and as such the preference in allotment of the work ought to have been given to the petitioner, having not done so, the decision making process by the tender committee is questionable being not proper, hence not sustainable. (ii) The petitioner ought to have been given preference but ignoring the said condition stipulated in notice inviting tender, the work order has been issued in favour of the respondent no.5. (ii) The petitioner ought to have been given preference but ignoring the said condition stipulated in notice inviting tender, the work order has been issued in favour of the respondent no.5. (iii) The allegation of mala fide has been alleged against respondent no.4, that is the reason respondent no.4 has been impleaded as party by name apart from his impleadment through his designation, the port which he was holding at that time, the Executive Officer, Hazaribag Municipality but as it gathered from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3, Executive Officer, Hazaribag Municipality namely Ashish Kumar, respondent no.4 has sworn the affidavit and therefore, serious irregularities has been committed by the concerned respondent. (iv) According to the petitioner, the contractors who have not completed the work, no preference would be given who is the bidder herein, the petitioner has made out a case. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos.2 and 3, inter alia therein, the ground has been raised that there is no infirmity in the process of tender rather tender committee has scrutinized the bid of each participants and after following the terms and conditions as envisaged in the notice inviting tender the work order has been issued in favour of the respondent no.5. It has further been stated that respondent no.5 has completed substantial work. 5. Mr. Rohitashya Roy, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that the work order has been issued by the competent authority after proper assessment by the tender committee and as such there is no infirmity in the decision making process warranting interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India under the power of judicial review. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating the rival submissions, the fact which is not in dispute in this case is that one notice inviting tender has been issued on 05.07.2017 for execution of different nature of works, one of the work is construction of culvert and drainage in Ward No.31, Anandpuri district Hazaribag to be completed with six months (180 days) as would appear from the notice inviting tender dated 05.07.2017 wherein reference of work mentioned finds mentioned at Serial no.2. the special terms and conditions has also been stipulated in the said notice inviting tender. the special terms and conditions has also been stipulated in the said notice inviting tender. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the condition no.5 and 8, therefore, the condition nos.5 and 8 are being referred herein below for appreciation of the rival submissions on behalf of the parties. ^^5- foxr foÙkh; rhu o"kksZa dk leku :i ,oa ledksVh dk dk;Z iw.kZ djus lac/kh izek.k i= LovfHkizekf.kr izfr layXu djuk gksxkA rkfd le nj dh voLFkk esa vf/kd la[;k esa iw.kZ fd;s x;s dk;ksZa ds vk/kkj ij lEkosnd dks izkFkfedrk nh tk ldsA mijksDr 'krksZa ds lkFk uxj fodkl foHkkx@uxj fuxe] gtkjhckx esa fucaf/kr laosndksa dks izkFkfedrk nh tk ldrh gSA 8- ftu fdUgha Hkh lEosnd dk dk;Z yfEcr gksxk] ¼;kfu le;kof/k ds vUrxZr iw.kZ ugha gqvk gS½ mUgsa dk;Z vkoaVu esa izkFkfedrk ugha nh tk;sxhA^^ One or the other bidders are required to be tested certificate about completion of similar nature and similar category of work of last three financial years so that in the case of equal rate the work may be allotted in favour of the bidder on the basis of the number of completion of work. Apart from the said conditions the preference has been tested to be given, who is the bidders, who have been registered under the Urban Development Department (Municipal Corporation) Hazaribag. The case of such bidders in whose favour the work has been allotted is still pending, is not completed within the stipulated period as per the notice inviting tender, they will not be given preference in the allotment of work. So far as the petitioner along with others participated in the bid, altogether ten bidders and for scrutinizing the documents at the stage of technical scrutinization and subsequent thereto the assessment of the price a committee has been constituted consisting of four members. On comparative assessments of the documents of one or other bidders, all have been found mentioned to be the basis rate in the said work. One M/s Ashraf Ekram and M/s Deepak Construction have been found to be previously allotted work. The respondent no.4 has taken the stand that the rest four bidders have given their consent in favour of the respondent no.5, the same has been disputed by the petitioner by taking specific stand in this regard in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in response to the counter affidavit. The respondent no.4 has taken the stand that the rest four bidders have given their consent in favour of the respondent no.5, the same has been disputed by the petitioner by taking specific stand in this regard in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner in response to the counter affidavit. The respondents have allotted the work in favour of the respondent no.5. As would appear period of completion of work, as per the notice inviting tender which was to be completed within the period of six months, therefore, admittedly the work has been completed, this aspect of the matter has not been disputed either by the petitioner or by the respondents. 7. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the work has been completed as per the period mentioned in the notice inviting tender but the question herein is that, if any issue has been raised pointing out the illegality committed by the tender committee, the same is required to be answered. 8. This Court is not in disagreement with the aforesaid submission as because it is the prime duty of the Court that if any issue has been raised it cannot be disposed of simpliciter by holding it infructuous rather issue has to be answered and therefore, this Court is proceeding to answer the issues as has been raised by the petitioner. The first question which has been raised by the petitioner that he was entitled to work in his favour on the ground of preferential clause. There should not be any confusion and misconception about the interpretation of “preference”, preference cannot be said to be a pre-condition, preference is to be given to such bidder only if there is parity in all circumstances amongst the person concerned who are claiming preference, if there is no parity among candidature of one or other candidates there is no question of preference otherwise the preference will be said to be an eligibility criteria that is not permissible. 9. In the light of the said position, it has been scrutinized by this Court, as to whether the petitioner was entitled for preference of work or not ? 9. In the light of the said position, it has been scrutinized by this Court, as to whether the petitioner was entitled for preference of work or not ? Admittedly, in the condition no.5, the important condition preference of two counts that in case the bidders have completed three works for three consecutive financial years and if any certificate is being produced and if the situation will arise about the same rate after assessment in the price bid, the preference would be given to such bidders who have found to have completed more numbers of work and apart from that the registration condition is also to be seen before giving preference. The petitioner claims preference, on the ground that the registration has been given by the Urban Development Department, although this fact has not been disputed by the respondent but the question is, can only on the basis of registration of the Department of Urban Development, the petitioner is entitled for preference, the answer of this Court would be that the preference on the basis of registration to be furnished by the Department of Urban Development Department or the Municipal Corporation, Hazaribag would also depend on other condition of preference i.e. if one or the other bidder had produced the work experience certificate of its completion for last three financial years. Admittedly neither the petitioner nor the respondent no.5 has come out with the stand that they have performed the work for three financial years continuously for getting the benefit of preference on the basis of execution of more number of works, therefore, the argument which has been advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was entitled to get preference is not having force because it has not been pleaded about the completion of works of similar nature for last three financial years. So far as Condition No.8 is concerned which pertains not to provide preference, if any work of the department is lying pending with the said bidder by non-completion of the said work. Admittedly, no such stand has been taken by the petitioner that against the respondent no.5 any work was pending having been allotted by the respondent no.4 and as such on the ground of applicability of Condition no.8, the order of allotment of work in favour of the respondent no.5 cannot be said to be improper. 10. Admittedly, no such stand has been taken by the petitioner that against the respondent no.5 any work was pending having been allotted by the respondent no.4 and as such on the ground of applicability of Condition no.8, the order of allotment of work in favour of the respondent no.5 cannot be said to be improper. 10. The second point has been raised about furnishing of the affidavit on behalf of the respondent no.4, namely Ashish Kumar who was holding the post of Executive Officer, Hazaribag Municipal Corporation, against the said incumbent the allegation of mala fide was alleged as such he ought not to have sworn affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.3. Herein as would appear from the pleading made in the writ petition, more particularly at paragraph 14 thereof, the allegation of mala fide has been raised against the respondent no.4 in the matter of allotment of work in favour of respondent no.5 but on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, this Court has not come to the finding that the work order has been issued in favour of the respondent no.5 with an ulterior motive, however, so far as contention of the petitioner that the respondent no.4 since was one of the party to the proceeding, as such he ought not to have sworn the affidavit, however the said fact cannot be disputed but that will only be applicable if allegation of mala fide is established but as per the discussion made hereinabove this Court since has reached to the conclusion that the decision making process does not suffer with any ulterior motive, there for, is of the view that this ground is also having no force. 11. This Court after discussing the fact in entirety and going through the work since the same has been completed, therefore, deem it fit and proper by rendering it infructuous by answering the issues agitated by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of without passing any positive direction.