The Control Board has the authority to accept or reject the recommendations of the Progress Reviewing Committee, and its decision will not be interfered with by the court if it is based on a comparative analysis of rates and a consideration of the feasibility of getting the work done through departmental machines.

( 1 ) THE brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner firm is registered as A-IV Class Contractor. The respondents called for tendering for Mahanadi project for remodelling, earth work and construction of Kirana Distributory and its minors of Bhatapara Branch Canal Group No. 42/g. The notice inviting tender was issued on 7-3-1991. The petitioner submitted its tender in the office of Superintending Engineer, MRP Disnet Circle, Raipur on 14-5-1991. The tender was for sum of Rs. 67,05 lacs. After opening the tenders, a note was prepare by the Executive Engineering recommending that out of seven tenders the tender of the petitioner being lowest and reasonable, be accorded necessary approval. This agenda note was recommended by the Superintendent Engineer, MRP Disnet Circle, the tender above Rs. 50/- lacs was required to be placed before the Progress Reviewing Committee. The Committee is obliged to submit its recommendation to the Control Board for major projects. The tender was required to be placed before the Control Board by the said committee with its recommendation but instead of placing the tenders before the said committee the Chief Engineer rejected the tender on the ground that there was wide difference between first and second tenders. The Chief Engineer accordingly rejected the tender. The order of rejection was challenged by the petitioner- firm on the ground that Chief Engineer had no jurisdiction to accept or refuse thetender because under the rules it could only be accepted or rejected by the Control Board. This Court in M. P. No. 2729/91 decided in favour of the petitioner quashed the order of rejection and directed further that quashment of the order passed by the Chief Engineer shall not preclude the Control Board from exercising its powers of rejection in respect of the tenders in question after applying its mind to the facts of the case. The respondents took up the matter to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 14274/93 but it was dismissed after notice to the petitioner on 7-2-1994. The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project prepared the agenda note and observed that the price of the tender was above 3. 30% in comparison to the rates of C. S. R. of 4/91 if similar type of the tender is called for the same project, the possibility of higher rates from 15 to 25 percent cannot be ruled out. He also observed that calling of the fresh tender may cause unnecessary delay. He was also of the opinion that as there was no work in Dharsiwa Legislative Assembly area, on execution of the work, fleeing away of the labours can be checked. The Chief Engineer also recorded a note that in case the petitioner's tender is accepted, then an affidavit be obtained from the present petitioner contractor that price adjustment G. C. 32 shall not be from publication date of tender but from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court i. e. 7-2-1994. The proposal for securing affidavit was not accepted as it was not in accordance with law. The matter was placed before the Progress Reviewing Committee. The Committee was informed that the percentage of soil work was about 40% and construction work was about 60%. It was also informed that the department would suffer less expenses if the soil work was carried out by the machines of Land Development Corporation. The Chief Engineer also stated that if the escalation of price is calculated from the year 1991, then an amount of 17% extra would be payable to the contractor and as such the tender shall be 20% higher. On the recommendations of the Chief Engineer, the Progress Reviewing Committee refused to recommend the tender of the petitioner to the Control Board. The rejection of the tender is being challenged before this Court on the ground that Chief Engineer at one place has stated that the earth work cannot be got done through machines and on the other hand has recommended that the earth work should be done through the machines. The Control Board reject