Markandey Katju, CJ.

This writ appeal has been filed against the interlocutory order dated 20.10.2004 in WPMP No.36898 of 2004 in W.P. No.30434 of 2004. With the consent of the parties we are disposing off the writ appeal as well as the writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The facts of the case are that a tender notice was advertised in the newspaper inviting bids from the manufacturers of Ductile Iron pipes. The conditions of the tender notice including eligibility criteria have been mentioned in the aforesaid tender notice dated 22.9.2004.

4. The appellant challenged this tender notice on the ground that it would create a monopoly as only two companies in India are fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in the tender notice.

5. Admittedly the appellant is not a manufacturer, but is the marketing agent of a Hongkong firm which in turn is the marketing agent of a manufacturer in China. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation {(2001)8 SCC 491}. We have carefully perused the said decision. In our opinion the said decision has no application in this case. It