Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.- The main grievance of the writ petitioners in all these writ petitions is almost common. These writ petitions are, thus, heard together with the consent of the parties and the same are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The writ petitioners are contractors. They are aggrieved by the decision of the Tender Committee, whereby the allotment of the works has been made in respect to the tender invited by the Drinking Water and Sanitation Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, being No.1 of 2006-07.

3. Notice was published inviting the said Tender (NIT for short), bearing No.1 for construction/installation of 17,000 tube-wells in 22 districts of the State of Jharkhand.

4. The petitioners, being old registered contractors of the department, participated in the said tender for different circles, namely, Deoghar, Ranchi, Chaibasa, Gumla, Medninagar and Giridih Circles.

5. A decision was taken by the Tender Committee in the meeting -held on 20th April, 2007 that the person having Rig Machine registered in the State of Jharkhand and those persons, who are having Rig Machine, registered in other State as also persons having lease deed for the purpose of Rig Machine, the contract shall be awarded in the ratio of 4:3:2 and in any case maximum upto 125 tube-wells per Rig Machine.

6. The petitioners were in the hope of getting the works in accordance with the said ratio/decision. But deviating from the said decision, either no work was allotted to the eligible petitioners or the works allotted to some of them were not in accordance with the proper ratio. On the contrary, works were allotted to the private respondents even in contravention of the terms of the NIT.

7. The petitioners subsequently came to know that Tender Committee by its decision dated 8th February, 2007 sought to add one more condition that in spite of fulfilling other requirements, works will be allotted to only those tenderers, who furnish written consent/undertaking that, on allotment, they will commence the work within one week. No notice was served on the petitioners regarding the subsequent addition of the term and for want of knowledge they could not furnish the undertaking, which could have been easily done while the persons to whom favour was to be made they were informed about the same and undertaking was obtained and work was allotted.

8. Grievance of the petitioners is that the decision taken by the Tender Committee dated 8th May, 2007 is arbitrary and illegal, beyond the scope of NIT and was intended to exclude the experienced contractors and to favour the contractors of the choice of the respondents. The said decision provided a ground to discriminate the tenderers who could not furnish written undertaking within time for want of knowledge about such decision of Tender Committee taken behind their back.

9. The State respondents contested the said writ petitions, denying the allegations of the petitioners. According to the State-respondents, the decision of the Tender Committee dated 8th May, 2007 is not in violation of or contrary to the terms specified in the NIT, rather it is in consonance with the terms of the NIT.

10. It has been stated that Clause-11 of the said NIT already provides that if within one week of the allotment of work order to any contractor, the work is not commenced, the said work order will be cancelled and steps shall be taken for blacklisting of those contractors. The primary object was to ensure that hand-pumps/tube-wells are installed in all the districts of the State of Jharkhand to provide drinking water within the stipulated time. The decision dated 8th May, 2007 was taken in the public interest, keeping in view the extreme heat of summer and to provide drinking water without any delay and with that public interest in view it was decided to give preference to those contractors, who submitted their tender and furnished their written consent/undertaking for starting the work forthwith. The said deci