( 1 ) THE Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single judge dated 4-4-2000 made in Writ Petition no. 248 of 2000 dismissing the writ petition. The factual background for filing this writ appeal be noted first. As directed by the court, learned Senior Standing Counsel for central Government produced the entire original records of the case for our perusal, and accordingly we perused the same. The facts stated hereinbelow are the facts gathered by us from the original records and the documents filed by the parties in this case.

( 2 ) THE appellant No. 1 is a private limited company and is a registered Government contractor engaged, inter alia, in the business of Civil and Construction works. Appellant No. 2 is the Managing Director of appellant No. l. The respondent Nos. l to 4 are the authorities in the Ministry of defence, and who are the relevant authorities responsible for taking a decision with regard to the matter in issue in the writ appeal. Respondent No. l is the Union of india represented by its Secretary; respondent No. 2 is the Engineer-in-Chief, engineer-in-Chief s Branch, New Delhi; respondent No. 3 is the Chief Engineer (Factory), Hyderabad; Respondent No. 4 is the Quarter Master General, Army headquarters, New Delhi and Respondent no. 5 is M/s. P. L. Raju Constructions limited, Hyderabad in whose favour the subject work contract has been awarded by the official respondents.

( 3 ) THE Ministry of Defence on 7-9-1998 accorded goahead sanction for the works "provision of Minimum Essential Technical storage and Accommodation at Pulgaon" at an estimated cost of Rs. 25. 79 crores vide government of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. l5/39/97 (I)/do-II/d (Works) dated 7-9-1997. The works were to be executed under the Fast Track Procedure (F. T. P.) laid down by the Government of india, Ministry of Defence. This project is meant for technical accommodation for storage of sophisticated weapon systems of strategic and tactical importance under controlled temperature and humidity conditions and has to be completed within a time-frame laid down by the Ministry of defence. It was emphasized that any delay in execution of the project would be detrimental to the national interest. Under the F. T. P. , tender schedules were issued to 10 super special contractors by the third respondent on 19-11-1998. On 1-2-1999 four quoted tenders were received and they were opened and it was found that the 5th respondent s tender was the lowest. The first appellant was not invited to bid in the first call tender. The lowest tender of respondent No. 5 was scrutinized and was recommended for sanction by the government as per F. T. P. The lowest tender of the 5th respondent contains some corrections using correction white fluid. On 16-4-1999, the second respondent who is the highest technical adviser to the Ministry of defence, after thorough scrutiny of the tender of the 5th respondent, submitted the same to the 4th respondent seeking administrative approval from the Ministry of Defence to award the contract to the lowest tenderer, the 5th respondent. On 20-4-1999 the 4th respondent after necessary processing of the tender submitted the proposal to the Ministry of Defence for according administrative approval for the work at an estimated cost of Rs. 2,482. 57 lakhs based on the lowest tender of the 5th respondent. On 5-5-1999 the proposal sent up by the 3rd respondent was concurred by the Ministry of Defence (Finance), and ultimately approval was accorded by the ministry of Defence. The approved Draft government Letter was sent to the 4th respondent for making fair stencils for issue. At this stage, on 8-5-1999, the office of the 4th respondent found certain corrections by using white correction fluid in the tender documents submitted by the 5th respondent, and therefore, it brought those corrections to the notice of the office of the 3rd respondent. Should it be noted at this juncture itself