ORDER : A. Rajasekhar Reddy, J. 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not following the procedure adopted in respect of the tender notification dated 20-6-2020 issued in respect of the fish stall in Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad as null and void and is in violation of the petitioners right guaranteed under Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to finalise the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent and to pass appropriate orders to meet the ends of justice. 2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of writ petition are as follows:- The petitioners are into the business of selling fish in different parts of the Hyderabad city from many years. That 2nd respondent issued a notification calling for tenders for allotment of the fish stall in Shantinagar Masab Tank, Hyderabad. According to the notification, the last date of submission of tenders was 30-06-2020 by 3.00 pm. That the petitioners have evinced interest for allotment of the stall and submitted their respective bids in a box kept for that purpose in the premises of the 2nd respondent office. 3. That the 6th petitioner was the last to submit his bid on 30-06-2020 and the serial no. given to him was 9 in the list kept near the box. That after his tender application was submitted, the box was sealed and kept aside in the premises of 2nd respondent office. That on 03-07-2020 at 5 pm, to the surprise of the petitioners, they received a Whatsapp communication and list along with names of bidders who participated in the tenders, which showed total 11 bidders, while the petitioners stated that the 6th petitioner was the last one to file the bid and the box containing the tenders was sealed. That the names of the two bidders, i.e. 3rd respondent and another bidder at serial no. 11 were not there on the list on 30-06-2020, when the tender box was sealed in front of the 6th petitioner. That the petitioners apprehend that the 2nd respondent has called for tenders for formality sake and opened the tenders without informing the participants with a dishonest intention to declare the 3rd respondent as successful bidder. 4. 11 were not there on the list on 30-06-2020, when the tender box was sealed in front of the 6th petitioner. That the petitioners apprehend that the 2nd respondent has called for tenders for formality sake and opened the tenders without informing the participants with a dishonest intention to declare the 3rd respondent as successful bidder. 4. That the 2nd respondent did not call any of the petitioners at the time of opening of the tender as the tender. As the notification was manual, the 2nd respondent was duty bound to call and intimate the date and timing of opening of the tenders to the petitioners. That the entire procedure followed for allotment of fish stall by way of bids by the 2nd respondent is not open, fair and transparent as the petitioners were not called during the time of opening the tenders and communicating the name of the successful bidder through Whatsapp is nothing but depriving the petitioners their legal rights and casts shadow on the allotment process of the tender in favour of the 3rd respondent. 5. The counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent wherein inter-alia it is stated that the Telangana State Fisherman Cooperative Societies Federation Ltd., (TSFCOF) issued an official notification for leasing of a fish stall in Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad on 20-06-2020 in GHMC edition of Namaste Telangana and invited applications from the interested individuals or associations with last date of receipt of tenders by 30-06-2020 at 3.00 pm. That a total of tenders were received and tender box was sealed in the presence of the higher officials of the department. It is denied that there was any list of names of the tenderers kept at the box as alleged by the petitioners. A total of 10 participants submitted their tenders and after opening it was found that 4th petitioner filed two tender applications, within one cover, hence, total number of applications received was 11. That the procedure followed was as per the tender notification conditions. As per the notification, the covers containing the price quotations were kept aside and the documents to be enclosed were verified in the first round by the Committee. That the highest bid quoted was Rs. 2,50,144/- by the 3rd respondent and the second highest bid quoted was Rs. 2,50,000/- by the 1st petitioner. As per the notification, the covers containing the price quotations were kept aside and the documents to be enclosed were verified in the first round by the Committee. That the highest bid quoted was Rs. 2,50,144/- by the 3rd respondent and the second highest bid quoted was Rs. 2,50,000/- by the 1st petitioner. That in view of COVID-19 and restrictions imposed by the Government under Epidemic Diseases Act, a Committee was constituted by the Managing Director, TSFCOF/Commissioner of Fisheries with officials and non-official for opening of tenders received from the interested persons/parties. The said Committee consisted of the Joint Director of Fisheries as Chairperson, the General Manager and the Dy. General Manager of the TSFCOF and the Dy. Director of Fisheries as official members and the President of the District Fisheries Coop. Society, Hyderabad as non-official member. The said committee met on 03-07-2020 from 11.00 am and opening of tenders in the presence of the Committee members was video graphed. That following the tender conditions, the offer was given to the highest bidder vide Lr. No. 629/TSFCOF/2019 dated 03-07-2020 to pay the rent quoted minus EMD amount of Rs. 10,000/- and execute the agreement bond on or before 10-07-2020. The highest bidder who is 3rd respondent has paid the agreed lease amount through demand draft No. 013538 dated, 10-07-2020 in HDFC Bank, Vanasthalipuram, LB Nagar branch, Hyderabad and executed the agreement on 10-07-2020 with the Federation. But possession of the fish stall was not handed over in view of the interim orders passed by this Court. 6. Sri L. Ravichander, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners contended that as on the date of closing the tenders only 9 tenders were received and the box was also sealed in front of the 6th petitioner and the names of the bidders was also displayed there is no scope for submission of tender by the 3rd respondent, but surprisingly he emerged as the successful bidder. The learned senior counsel also contended that counter filed by R-3 is exactly like that of official respondent and certain aspects which were not known to other bidders were stated by R-3, which goes to show that the official respondents are hand-in-glove with R-3 in awarding tender and on that sole ground award of contract is liable to be set aside. 7. 7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Fisheries submitted that the entire process of opening to finalization of the tenders was video graphed and the tenders are finalized by a Committee constituted for that purpose. It is further submitted that the 6th petitioner in this writ petition was evicted from the stall in question on 27-04-2018 in the presence of the Revenue and Police Departments pursuant to the directions of this Court passed in WP No. 8817 of 2016 as he was illegally occupying the stall for several years without paying rent to the Federation. It is also stated that the 3rd respondent being the highest bidder, the bid was finalised in his favour subject to following the tender conditions, which he has complied. Sri DL Pandu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the entire process of allotment is transparent and there is no scope for any bias or favouritism and the 3rd respondent become the successful bidder as he being the highest bidder. 8. The short point that arise for consideration in this case is whether the procedure followed in allotment of fish stall was in accordance with the tender conditions; and whether the process of allotment is free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala-fides. 9. The tender notification dated 20-06-2020 reads as follows: "Telangana State Fisherman Co-op. Societies Federation Limited, Hyderabad Lease Rental Auction Notice It is hereby informed that the Fish stall in Shantinagar, Masab Tank, Hyderabad with an area of 110sft located in the premises of the Animal Husbandry Department will be given on lease in as is wherein condition to the interested persons or associations for the purpose of fish business only. The person or association whoever quotes the highest lease amount per annum will be considered for giving on lease. The last date for receipt of the sealed application is 30-6-2020 by 3.00 PM along with a non-refundable application fee of Rs. 2,000/- and the EMD of Rs. 10,000/- drawn in favour of General Manager, TSFCOF and contact person is Sri P. Mahipal, Dy. General Manager - 9849990292. The application can be downloaded from the www.fisheries.telangana.gov.in. Sd/- Managing Director" 10. The tender notification clearly specifies the terms & conditions of the tender. It notified the last date for accepting the tenders from the interested parties, EMD amount and the name of the person it is to be drawn. General Manager - 9849990292. The application can be downloaded from the www.fisheries.telangana.gov.in. Sd/- Managing Director" 10. The tender notification clearly specifies the terms & conditions of the tender. It notified the last date for accepting the tenders from the interested parties, EMD amount and the name of the person it is to be drawn. It also specify the procedure to be followed in allotment of the stall. There is no condition as alleged by the petitioners that the tenders would be opened in the presence of all the tenderers. Merely not inviting all the tenderers at the time of opening the tenders will not itself invalidate the allotment of tender in favour of the 3rd respondent. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. AMR Dev Prabha (Civil Appeal No. 2197 of 2020, order dated 18-03-2020) held that writs are impermissible when the allegation is solely with regard to violation of a contractual right or duty and the persons seeking writ relief must also actively satisfy the Court that the right it is seeking is one in public law, and not merely contractual. The Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 29 held as follows:- "29. The scope of judicial review in tenders has been explored in-depth in a catena of cases. It is settled that constitutional Courts are concerned only with lawfulness of a decision, and not its soundness. (Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 ) & Siemens Aktiengeselischaft & Siemens Ltd. v. DMRC Ltd., (2014) 11 SCC 288 ). Phrased differently, Courts ought not to sit in appeal over decisions of executive authorities or instrumentalities. Plausible decisions need not be overturned, and latitude ought to be granted to the State in exercise of executive power so that the constitutional separation of powers is not encroached upon. (Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Limited (2000) 2 SCC 617 ). However, allegations of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety would be enough grounds for courts to assume jurisdiction and remedy such ills. This is especially true given our unique domestic circumstances, which have demonstrated the need for judicial intervention numerous times. Hence, it would only be the decision making process which would be the subject of judicial enquiry, and not the end result (save as may be necessary to guide determination of the former)." 12. This is especially true given our unique domestic circumstances, which have demonstrated the need for judicial intervention numerous times. Hence, it would only be the decision making process which would be the subject of judicial enquiry, and not the end result (save as may be necessary to guide determination of the former)." 12. In Shobikaa Impex (P) Ltd. v. Central Medical Services Society at paragraph 11, it has been noted as follows:- "....the State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It has been further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point." 13. The allegations of the petitioners is that they were not invited at the time of opening tenders cannot be a ground to invalidate the award of contract in favour of R-3, as tender conditions did not provide for such an invitation and it is an universally known fact that COVID-19 pandemic is still very much prevalent and because of that reason a Committee consisting of officials of the Federation and a non-official, who is the representative of the fisher societies in Hyderabad participated in the process of finalisation of the tenders and finalized the bid of the 3rd respondent, who is admittedly the highest bidder. As per the tenders condition, the tender is to be finalised in favour of the highest bidder, the 3rd respondent is the highest bidder and hence, no exception can be taken in allotment of the fish stall to the 3rd respondent being the highest bidder. The petitioners have not attributed any mala-fides against any particular official of the Federation except stating that the tender box consisted only 9 bids but ultimately turned out to be 11, which is seriously disputed by the 2nd respondent including the display of names of the tenders beside the box, such allegations being disputed questions of fact and requires a roving enquiry cannot be enquired in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No mala-fides attributed or arbitrariness is made out in the process of finalization of the tenders. There is no trace of any sufferance of public interest as the contract is awarded to the highest bidder. In the circumstance, the writ petition fails being devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. 14. Petitioners have filed the above contempt case alleging violation of the interim order passed by this Court on 13-07-2020. Letter of confirmation of the bid in favour of the 3rd respondent, he being the highest bidder, was issued vide Lr. No. 629/TSFCOF/2019, dated 03-07-2020 to pay the rent quoted minus EMD amount of Rs. 10,000/- and execute the agreement bond. It is stated that the 3rd respondent has paid the agreed lease and executed the agreement on 10-07-2020 with the Federation which is prior to the interim orders of status passed by this Court. Inasmuch as it is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that possession of the fish stall has not been handed over to the 3rd respondent in view of the status-quo orders passed by this Court, it is substantial compliance of the interim order passed by this Court. In the circumstances, no further steps needs to the taken in the contempt case. 15. In the result, both the writ petition and contempt case are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed.