JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to hold respondent No. 6 as ineligible for award of contract for transportation of Bulk POL products MS HSD and Branded fuels by road for locations in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh; Ex-Jammu, Srinagar, Leh and Bathinda in MSE (General Category) as Small Enterprises. He further prayed that the aforesaid contract be allotted to him. It is further prayed that registration certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 6, namely BBN Filling Station, by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Government of India be treated as illegal, as respondent No. 6 is not eligible. 2. Mr. K. S. Johal, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 issued tender for transportation of Bulk POL products MS HSD and Branded fuels by road for locations in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh; Ex-Jammu, Srinagar, Leh and Bathinda. The conditions in the tender document provided for reservation for different categories of bidders and one of the category for which reservation was provided for part of the work was Micro and Small Enterprises. There were some concessions available to them. He referred to the guidelines for Medium and Small Enterprises as provided in the tender document. For service industry, the investment in equipment could be upto Rs. 2.00 crores. This is one of the essential condition, which could not be ignored. List of eligible bidders in the aforesaid category was notified. Eligibility of the petitioner in that category is not in dispute (document sought to be referred in support of his contention at page 53 is not legible at all). He further referred to various conditions laid down in the tender document, in terms of which the tender of ineligible persons had to be rejected. He further submitted that the investment of respondent No. 6 in the vehicles would exceed much more than Rs. 2.00 crores, hence, he cannot be treated to be an eligible candidate under MSE Category. The certificate issued by the Ministry concerned to that extent deserves to be set aside (document not legible). He also referred to the application submitted by respondent No. 6 for competing in the category of MSE and tender document in support of his plea that if those are considered, the investment of respondent No. 6 would exceed Rs. 2.00 crores. The certificate issued by the Ministry concerned to that extent deserves to be set aside (document not legible). He also referred to the application submitted by respondent No. 6 for competing in the category of MSE and tender document in support of his plea that if those are considered, the investment of respondent No. 6 would exceed Rs. 2.00 crores. After the tenders were opened, the petitioner even made a representation objecting to the eligibility of the respondent No. 6. Even a reminder was also sent but the same was not considered. 3. The argument is that an ineligible person has been awarded the contract for transportation in the Category of MSE on the basis of a certificate which was got issued by misleading the authority. In case, it is set aside, the petitioner deserves to be awarded the contract. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the primarily, the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is to challenge the certificate issued by the Ministry concerned certifying the respondent No. 6 to be a MSE. It is not for the department to have gone into the validity of the certificate once it had been issued by the Competent Authority. In case the certificate issued by the Ministry concerned in favour of respondent No. 6 is to be challenged by the petitioners, the writ is not the appropriate remedy as the factual background and number of documents, which have been placed on record by the petitioner need to be considered. That would be appreciation of evidence. The writ court would not like to go into these factual matrix. 5. He further submitted that provisional letter of acceptance has already been issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 and it has been granted sixty days time to start the work. He further submitted that transportation of fuel in that area is possible only during this period of 3-4 months as otherwise the road connectivity remains closed. It is very strategic for the defence of the country. Hence, any delay in the process would jeopardize the interest of the State. In case the petitioners had any grievance against the same, they could have availed of their appropriate remedy. It is very strategic for the defence of the country. Hence, any delay in the process would jeopardize the interest of the State. In case the petitioners had any grievance against the same, they could have availed of their appropriate remedy. Till such time, the certificate exists, there is no ground available with the petitioner to question award of contract for transportation of fuel to the respondent No. 6. There is no price preference in favour of the bidders in the MSE category. 6. Mr. Rahil Raja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 raised a preliminary issue regarding the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the writ petition stating that tender was issued at Mumbai and all processes had taken place there, hence, the jurisdiction of this Court could not be invoked. He further submitted that in a contract matter, otherwise also writ is not the proper remedy. In the judicial review, only the process for award of contract could be gone into. In the present case, there is no irregularity committed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as such. The certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 6 by the Ministry concerned cannot be challenged on any ground. 7. In response, Mr. Johal, learned Senior counsel submitted that part of cause of action had arisen at Jammu as pre-bid meetings and reverse bids, were held at Jammu. He further submitted that in the response filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 they are silent about the eligibility of respondent No. 6. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 9. The main issue sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the present petition is with reference to the eligibility of respondent No.6 in the category of MSE for awarding of contract for transportation of Bulk POL products MS HSD and branded fuels by road for locations in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh, Ex-Jammu, Srinagar, Leh and Bathinda. For the purpose, issue is sought to be raised on the certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 6 by the respondent No. 5. 10. For the purpose, issue is sought to be raised on the certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 6 by the respondent No. 5. 10. To challenge the aforesaid certificate, while referring to the conditions under which an entity can be MSE, reference was sought to be made to various documents placed on record, showing that the investment of the respondent No.6 would exceed the maximum limit prescribed to be eligible in the MSE category. Further argument was sought to be raised that this issue should have been considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before awarding the contract to respondent No. 6. 11. In my opinion, the arguments raised are totally mis-conceived for the following reason that there is a certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 6 by the respondent No. 5 declaring him to be an eligible entity in MSE category. To challenge the aforesaid certificate, reference is sought to be made to number of documents placed on record by the petitioner to show that if the investment in the vehicles to be purchased by the respondent No. 6 is calculated, the amount may exceed the maximum limit to be an eligible in that category. These are factual issues, which cannot possibly be raised in the writ jurisdiction as it would require examination of evidence and recording of finding of fact. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could have not been possibly raised a dispute regarding the certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 6 by the competent authority namely respondent No.5 of its own. 12. As is evident from the purpose for which the contract is sought to be awarded, the same is for transportation of Bulk POL products MS HSD and branded fuels by Road for locations in Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh; Ex-Jammu, Srinagar, Leh and Bathinda. It is a matter of fact that the transportation of fuels to that area is possible only during these 3-4 months of the year. Further, the situation at the Indo-China Border at present in that area is not unknown. Delay in the process at this stage will result in less storage of fuel in that strategic area required during winter season, when the road connectivity will be closed. Any interference in the process to award contract for transportation of fuels to that area would not jeopardize the public interest but that would be against the national interest. Delay in the process at this stage will result in less storage of fuel in that strategic area required during winter season, when the road connectivity will be closed. Any interference in the process to award contract for transportation of fuels to that area would not jeopardize the public interest but that would be against the national interest. It is not a case in which the respondent No.6 has been awarded the contract at the rates in which the State is to suffer any loss. Personal interest, where only profit motive is involved, has to give way to the larger national interest in the circumstances we are going through. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the present petition. The same is accordingly, dismissed.