( 1 ) THE petitioners have preferred this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for setting aside/quashing the award of contract on 28. 3. 1995 itself to respondent No. 4 for the construction of Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House, Phase II, New Delhi, with a further direction to the respondents to award the work/contract relating to construction of Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House, Phase II, New Delhi (Superstructure) to the petitioners. In the writ petition the following prayers have been made by the petitioners:-

1. This Hon ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/order or dircclion in the nature of certiorari/mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction selling aside/quashing the decision of considering again on 28. 3. 1995 at 4 P. m. the tender for construction of Doordarshan Bhawan - Mandi House, Phase II, New Delhi and quash award of contract on 28. 3. 1995 itself to respondent No. 4.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to award the work/contract relating to "construction of Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House, Phase 11, New Delhi - Super structure to the petitioners".

3. Issue appropriate writ/direction restraining the respondents from awarding the work/contract relating to construction of Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House, Phase 11, New Delhi - Super structure to any other agency except petitioners.

( 2 ) THE petitioners earlier approached this court in a writ petition namely - C. W. P. No. 3426/ 1994 with the prayer for quashing/setting aside the conditions in the pressnotice dated 27. 6. 1994, inasmuch as, according to the petitioners, the said conditions were said to be arbitrary and irrational. This courl by judgment and order dated 7. 2. 1995 allowed the writ petition holding that the petitioners should be allowed to exercise their right to tender in respect of the works as mentioned in the press-tender notice, in view of the fact that the conditions mentioned in the impugned press tender notice in the light of the facts appeared to he arbitrary and untenable. During the course of the hearing of the said writ petition the respondents brought to our notice that an action for blacklisting of the petitioners in C. W. P. 4388/1994 by the respondents was pending. However, as on the dale of disposal of the writ petition No. 3426/1994 the petitioners were not blacklisted, it was held by this court in the said judgment that the said fact had no relevance to the facts and curcumstances of the case and that the petitioners could not be deprived of their right to participate in the tender proceedings.

( 3 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition No. 3426/1994 an order was issued by the Chief Engineer (Civil), All India Radio, Civil Construction Wing, New Delhi on l0 ). 10 ). 1994 debarring petitioners from tendering against the works in the Construction Wing of All India Radio and the banning of business with the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid order dated 10. 10. 1994 the petitioners again moved this court seeking to challenge the said order in C. W. P. 4388/1994. This court issued notice on the writ petition to the respondents. The writ petition No. 3426/1994 as slated hereinabove was disposed of on 7. 2. 1995.

( 4 ) IN pursuance of the directions issued by this court on 7. 2. 1995 in C. W. P. 3426/1994 the respondents constituted a Works Advisory Board for Consideration of awarding tender for the work of construction of Doordarshan Bhawan, Mandi House, Phase II, (Superstructure ). The said Works Advisory Board, it appears, approved the acceptance of the lowest lender submitted by the petitioners. However, on 27. 3. 1995 a notice was issued fixing 28. 3. 1995 for reconsidering the tenders for construction of work in dispute and finally on 28. 3. 1995 the contract for construction of the aforesaid work was awarded to the respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of contract in favour of the respondent No. 4 by the department the petitioners have filed th