ORDER : 1. By filing this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ directing upon the respondents to produce the concerned file including the comparative statement in connection with Tender Ref. No. WRD/SMP/SDD-2, Chandil/F2-22/2016-17 for the work ‘Special Repair of Road from Mukhiya Hotel to Dam between 1 KM to 2 KM’. It is also prayed for further direction for allotment of the work of construction of the aforesaid standard in favour of the petitioner being the senior to private respondent no. 8, Gourav Construction Pvt. Ltd. as also a local contractor. 2. The facts of the case is that a tender was floated by the Department of Water Resources, wherein, the petitioner as well as private respondent no. 8 participated. The work was awarded in favour of respondent no. 8 in the year 2017. Thereafter, the writ application has been filed, inter-alia, on the ground that the respondent has put up documents in his bid document, which are not genuine. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents at the outset has submitted that the work has already been executed and that there is nothing remains to be decided in the writ application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that an application was filed before the Lokayukta, Jharkhand and in that application, a clear finding has been given that the documents filed by private respondent no. 8 are forged documents, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhash Projects and Marketing Limited vs. W.B Power Development Corporation Limited and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 438 , a monetary compensation should be awarded in favour of the petitioner. However, we find that no ratio has been laid down as to the conditions that are required to be fulfilled before issuing writ of mandamus for payment of compensation to the aggrieved party in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. However, we find that no ratio has been laid down as to the conditions that are required to be fulfilled before issuing writ of mandamus for payment of compensation to the aggrieved party in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, in a case arising out of an order of this Court, in N.G. Projects Limited vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 127 , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if the Court finds that there is total arbitrariness or that a tender has been granted in a mala fide manner, still the Court should refrain from interfering in grant of tender but instead relegate the parties to seek damages for the wrongful exclusion rather than to injunct the execution of the contract. The injunction or interference in the tender leads to additional costs on the State and is also against the public interest. 6. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that awarding of compensation requires a decision on complicated questions of facts as well as mixed question of law and facts, which cannot be properly adjudicated in a writ application, the decision of which is based mainly on the documents and the affidavits filed by the parties. Hence, we are not inclined to pass any order for payment of compensation in favour of the petitioner. However, we further observe that if the petitioner has grievances arising out of the tender matter, then it may approach the appropriate civil court for proper redressal. 7. With such observations, the writ application stands disposed of. 8. There shall be no orders as to costs. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 10. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.