( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to issue a work order in its favour and further to cancel and set aside any work order, if issued, in favour of respondents No. 5 and 6.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the case of the petitioner respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 floated global tender to bid for supply of rock phosphates. The petitioner, claims that it fulfilled all the requirements laid down by respondent No. 3 and in the tender the petitioner quoted lowest rate of S. 52. 57 while the rates quoted by respondent No. 5 and 6 were higher. However inspite of the fact that the rate offered by the petitioner was lowest, no work order has been issued in its favour.

( 3 ) IT is well settled that award of a contract by the State or a public authority can be judicially reviewed but a Court would interfere only if it comes to the conclusion that the award of contract is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality or irrationality. The scope of interference in such matters has been considered in detail in Tate Cellular versus Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 561 (AIR 1996 SC 11)