WP(C) 3439/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE IA ANSARI Pursuant to a Notice Inviting Tender, dated 30-03-2007, for the work of construction of doctor’s quarter (one Unit) and Nurse’s quarter (three units) (A ssam Type), at Gauripur CHC, in Dhubri District, issued by the respondent No.2, namely, Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Guwahati, Assam, the petitioner, amongst others, submitted tender. One of the conditions under the NIT was that the tend erer shall affix Court Fee of Rs. 1.25 with the tender. When the tender, submitt ed by the bidders, were opened, the petitioner was found to have not affixed the requisite Court Fees with the tender papers. Treating the tender papers, submit ted by the petitioner, as invalid, comparative statement in respect of other val id tenderers was prepared. On the following day of the opening of the tender pap ers, the petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure - C) informing the resp ondent No.2 to the effect, inter alia, that due to oversight, the petitioner had not affixed the Court Fees with the original tender papers and, on coming to kn ow that the tender papers shall be accompanied by Court Fees, the petitioner had dropped an envelope containing the requisite Court Fees into the box meant for submission of tender papers. When the petitioner’s tender was not treated as val id, the petitioner came to this Court with the help of a writ petition made unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ application gave rise to W P(C) No. 2327/2007, which was disposed of, on 25-05-2007, with direction to the respondents concerned to consider the petitioner’s representation and dispose of the same according to the relevant Rules and Regulations. Having considered the petitioner’s representation, respondent No. 3, passed an order, on 28-06-2007, rejecting the petitioner’s said representation. Aggrieved by rejection of the re presentation, the petitioner has, once again, come to this Court with the help o f the present application, made under Article 226, seeking issuance of the appro priate Writ(s). Heard Mr. B Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. R Deka, learned Standing counsel, PWD, Department, appearing on behalf of the responden ts. I have carefully perused the petitioner’s representation, dated 13-04-20 07, aforementioned and what I notice is that in the representation, the petition er had not mentioned that the petitioner was present at the time, when the tende r papers were opened nor did the petitioner point out to the respondents/ author ities concerned by the said representation that though the petitioner had not af fixed the requisite Court Fees with the tender paper, he had dropped the Court F ees in an envelope with proper address. In such circumstances, when I consider t he impugned order, dated 28-06-2007, what I find is that according to the respon dent No. 2, it was only on the following day that the petitioner had submitted t he representation. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner ha d brought it to the notice of the respondents/ authorities concerned at the time , when the tender papers were opened that the petitioner had submitted the Court Fees in a separate envelope. While consider the impugned order, it needs to be borne in mind that the order to be passed by the respondent No. 2 was an administrative order. The sco pe judicial review in respect of such an order is limited to the extent of exami ning if any relevant factor had been excluded, while considering the representat ion, or an irrelevant factor had been taken into account, while making the order . On a careful examination of the impugned order, I find that the respondent No. 2 had taken into account all the relevant factors into consideration and had no t taken into account any factor, which was irrelevant. Considered thus, it is cl ear that the impugned order is not one, which warrants interference by this Cour t in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India . In view of the above, this writ petition is not admitted and the same sh all accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.