JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - Through the instant writ petition, the writ petitioner claims rendition of a direction, for, the quashing and setting aside, of, Annexure P-III. Annexure P-III embodies a short tender notice, for, conversion/supplies, of wheat into dalia. In Annexure P-III, a, mandate is cast qua the financial bids of the tenderers' concerned, being amenable for opening, only after the apposite tenderers, becoming declared to be technically qualified. Also in Annexure P-III, a, further recital is borne qua in case, the, date for opening of the enders, becoming declared a public holiday, thereupon, the tenders being amenable for being opened on the next working day, at the same time and place. However, a recital is borne in Annexure P-III, vis-a-vis, the signatory of Annexure P-III, hence reserving a right to accept or reject, any or all tenders, even without assigning any reason. 2. The gravamen of the onslaught, as cast, vis-a-vis, the allotment, of supplies/conversions, to, the respondents concerned, is, (a) rooted in fairness becoming compromised, by the respondents concerned, (b) in as much, as, though the mandate, of, the apposite rules, enjoin the simultaneous opening(s) of both the financial, as well as, of, technical bid, yet there existing a huge/big hiatus in time, inter-se the opening(s) of the financial bid, and, of, technical bid, of, the tenderers, (c) and, thereupon there occurring untenable disruption, vis-a-vis, entitlement of the writ petitioner, to, seek allotment of supplies/conversions, and, rather also the allotees concerned becoming favored by the respondent concerned. 3. In the reply furnished to the writ petition, by respondent No.1, all the afore averments, as, meted in the writ petition, became pointedly repulsed. Also, there exists a candid and un-rebutted disclosure, qua, the writ petitioner being earlier a successful bidder, and, his concomitantly being aware of all the processes, enjoined to be undergone, for the works/supplies being allotted, vis-a-vis, the floated tenders concerned. 4. Be that as it may, a circumspect perusal of Annexure P-III, fails to make any candid unearthings, qua the afore contests, as, reared in the writ petition, in as much, as, vis-a-vis, the respondents concerned, being enjoined, to, on the same date, open respectively both the technical and financial bids, hence therethrough(s) becoming well founded. 4. Be that as it may, a circumspect perusal of Annexure P-III, fails to make any candid unearthings, qua the afore contests, as, reared in the writ petition, in as much, as, vis-a-vis, the respondents concerned, being enjoined, to, on the same date, open respectively both the technical and financial bids, hence therethrough(s) becoming well founded. Contrarily, from the reply furnished by respondent No.1, and, also on a circumspect perusal, of, Annexure P-III, a conclusion becomes aroused qua the respondents concerned, becoming obliged, to, open the financial bid, only of those tenderers, who, do preceding thereto, qualify the technical bid. However, since the petitioner failed to succeed, in, the enjoined parameter(s) appertaining, to, his technical bid(s), hence, obviously he becomes barred, to, seek any injunction, becoming rendered against the respondents, qua, his financial bid, becoming amenable, for, being opened, (a) much less than his becoming enabled, to, espouse before this Court, qua, merely for lapse of time, inter-se, the opening of technical, and, of financial bids, there occurring compromise(s) with the rubrics, of, transparency, and, of fairness. Even otherwise a detailed unrebutted contention, on affidavit, exists in the reply of respondent No.1, qua, the happening of Covid 19, hence validly delaying the purported simultaneous opening(s) of technical, and, financial bids, of, the tenderers concerned. 5. Therefore, all the afore valid contentions, as, made on affidavit, do not, coax this Court, to, judicially review the relevant allotments, as, made by the respondents concerned, to the, suppliers/allottees concerned, (a) nevertheless the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has contended that there exists tangible proof, vis-a-vis, the respondents concerned rather alongwith the suppliers concerned, manipulating, fabricating and tampering, with the bids, of, the apposite allottees, hence, the entire apposite processes rather necessitating its' becoming judicially reviewed, and, also thereafter, a, mandamus being issued by this Court, for, therethrough the tender processes being re-conducted. 6. Even the afore submission, as, addressed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is, wholly rudderless, and, obviously it remains bed-rocked, upon, any firm evidentiary strata, rather, contrarily the unrebutted reply of respondent No.1, fully underwhelms, the, afore contentions. 7. 6. Even the afore submission, as, addressed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, is, wholly rudderless, and, obviously it remains bed-rocked, upon, any firm evidentiary strata, rather, contrarily the unrebutted reply of respondent No.1, fully underwhelms, the, afore contentions. 7. Further more, Annexure R-1, appended to the writ petition, does also foreclose the afore espousal, in as much, as, a recital exists therein, vis-a-vis, the portal appertaining, to, the bidding process, and, qua opening, evaluating, and, finalizing, of tenders, hence occurring on NIC Portal https://hptenders.gov.in, and, it being managed by Department of Information Technology, Himachal Pradesh. Further more, an open disclosure also becomes borne therein qua the technical and financial bids, being decrypted and opened by the DSCs of authorized Officers, in front of the Bid Opening committee, and, (i) thereafter the technical bids becoming evaluated by the Committee concerned, and, the summary of the technical bid being uploaded on the web portal. In addition, when also a further disclosure, is, borne therein, vis-a-vis, the financial bids being opened only upon prior, thereto, the bidder becoming declared, to be technically qualified, by the bid opening committee, thereupon an inference is stemmed, qua, the afore pandemic, and, also the enunciation(s) borne in Annexure R-1, and, supported by respondent No.1, all hence, for reiteration, foreclosing any address before this Court, that, there being, any, necessity of simultaneous opening(s) of technical bids and financial bids, of, the tenders concerned, (ii) as, the afore necessity, if any, may facilitate the rearing, of, a valid espousal by the writ petitioner, only, upon his technical bid, being declared successful, whereas the petitioner rather not qualifying the technical bid, hence does with aplomb fully benumb the afore argument. Since the afore disclosure existing in Annexure R-1, and, supported by the reply of co-respondent No.1, do, assume an aura of tenacity, and, vigour, and, thereupon, thereon, the afore address made before this Court, qua, even the virtues, of, transparency and fairness, becoming compromised, by the respondents concerned, in the latter allotting, the relevant works, and, supplies, to the, allottess concerned, does also concomitantly hence loose its vigor. 8. Even otherwise, the afore disclosure(s) would become scuttled, only upon, firm evidence becoming adduced by the writ petitioner, and, also upon adduction of firm evidence, for, hence repelling the afore firm disclosure(s) comprised in Annexure R-1, and, in the reply furnished by co-respondent No.1. 8. Even otherwise, the afore disclosure(s) would become scuttled, only upon, firm evidence becoming adduced by the writ petitioner, and, also upon adduction of firm evidence, for, hence repelling the afore firm disclosure(s) comprised in Annexure R-1, and, in the reply furnished by co-respondent No.1. However, the best evidence for repelling the afore conclusion(s)/enunciation(s), would be comprised rather in the official who swore an affidavit, in, support of the contents enunciated in Annexure R-1, stepping into the witness box, for, his being examined in chief, and, his being thereafter thoroughly cross-examined, (a) and also upon all the relevant document(s) being produced, before the Court, and, besides, the afore document(s) being put to the rigors of proof, admissibility and relevance. Necessarily, the afore imperative exercise(s), for shredding, the, efficacy, and, the prima-facie probative worth, of, Annexure R-1, and, its supported contents, as, borne in reply of respondent No.1, and, as endeavored before the writ Court, is, an emaciated endeavor, given, the afore imperative mechanism being precluded to be embarked upon by the writ Court. For reiteration, the effect of or the prima-facie hereat probative vigor of Annexure R-1, remains unshred, vis-a-vis, its efficacy, it being completely testable only before the Civil Court. The apt sequel thereof is that with the respondents concerned not compromising with the rubrics' of transparency, and, fairness, in, the allotment of relevant supplies, vis-a-vis, the allottess concerned, thereupon, there is no merit in the petition, and, hence the same is dismissed alongwith all pending applications.