Order : 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in defeating the petitioners’ right to participate in the tender process by not accepting the hard copy of the application filed through online portal within time. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents have put a tender NIT dated 09.09.2023 for various civil construction works and invited application from various interested persons. 3. In pursuance of such tender, the petitioners had submitted an online tender application on 20.09.2023 and the last date for submission of a hard copy of the tender application to the concerned authority was 21.09.2023. On the last date, when the petitioners went to submit the hard copy of the online tender application, the regular E.O. was on sick leave and the Junior Engineer-Rameshwar was holding the additional charge of the E.O. and he was also not present in the office for the whole day and one Nand Kishor was present in the office and he refused to receive the hard copy of the tender application as he was not the authorized officer to receive such application. According to the petitioners, the entire exercise has been done at the behest of some of the tenderers to defeat the participation of other tenderers including the petitioners. Therefore, they have preferred the present writ petition seeking cancellation of the entire tender process. 4. The respondents case is that in pursuance of NIT, successful bidders have been granted a work order on 27.09.2023 whereas the writ petition was filed on 05.10.2023, registered on 06.10.2023 and listed on 10.10.2023. By the time the writ petition has been filed the majority of work under the work order has already been done. It is also the case that the relevant documents for the tender process including the demand draft and other relevant documents were filed within time. As such, the writ petition has devoid of merits, there is a general denial of the allegations made with regard to the absence of the authorized officer to receive the hard copy of the tender application. 5. As such, the writ petition has devoid of merits, there is a general denial of the allegations made with regard to the absence of the authorized officer to receive the hard copy of the tender application. 5. As seen from the NIT, the hard copy is required to be submitted to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board, Ladnun and it is also not denied that the Executive Officer of the Municipal Board was on sick leave on the last date and Junior Engineer- Rameshwar was having additional charge of E.O. on that day and there are specific averments by the petitioners that E.O., the person who was holding additional charge was also completely absent on the said date and he was on the field duty and one Nand Kishore was present in the office and he refused to receive such hard copy. When such specific allegations have been made, a counter affidavit of the respondents shows only a general denial without specifically adverting to the grievance made by the petitioners. 6. Since the present writ petition involves the disputed question of fact, this Court cannot go into such disputed question of fact in this writ petition. Further, in pursuance of the NIT, successful bidders were granted a work order and the majority of the work has been done. 7. In the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the tender process. However, since there is a general denial on the part of the respondents when there are specific averments made with regard to the absence of the officers to receive the hard copy and such absence, according to the petitioners is motivated and intended to defeat the legitimate entitlement of the petitioners in the participation of tender process. 8. In view of such serious allegations, the petitioners are given the liberty to file appropriate proceedings seeking damages, if any, upon proof of such a disputed question of fact. 9. The present writ petitions is thus, disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.