JUDGMENT : TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. 1. Affidavit-Of-Service filed by the petitioner be kept on record. 2. The present writ petition has been preferred primarily praying for the following relief: "(a) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus and/or of like nature commanding the Respondents to withdraw and/or cancel the office order dated 14.12.2018 in the light of facts and circumstances stated above." 3. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner emerged to be the lowest bidder in the tender process, the authorities illegally issued work order in favour of the private respondent no.5, who does not even fulfil the eligibility criteria. Though there was a tie in rate offered, the procedure prescribed in the event of such tie was not followed and the respondent no.5 was illegally issued the work order. The objection raised by the petitioner through a representation was also not considered by the respondents. 4. As work order has already been issued in favour of the respondent no.5, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim order in favour of the petitioner. However, the issues agitated need to be considered in details upon inviting affidavits from the parties. 5. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to file their affidavits-in-opposition within four weeks. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 6. The parties would be at liberty to mention the matter for final hearing after expiry of the period as fixed above towards exchange of affidavits.