WA 153/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOEL THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY A.K. Goel, J This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge qua shing the allotment of canteen to the appellant at the police headquarters on th e ground that quotation of the appellant had been earlier found to be invalid by a committee and there was no valid reason for the higher authority to interfere . The case of the private respondent-writ petitioner was that though the bid given by the appellant was higher, the committee constituted to evaluate the bids fou nd the same to be invalid as follows: Bid amount in figure is over written and the words are illegible. Hence declar ed invalid. Also Rs.52,800/- is not workable at all. However, the Home Department directed allotment to the appellant, ignoring the r eason for rejection of the bid of the appellant, which was arbitrary. The appellant contested the writ petition and pointed out that observation of th e committee quoted above, were not correct. The bid amount was not over written and the words were legible. The bid was certainly workable and therefore, the Home Department was justified in interfering with the observation of the review committee. Under the circumstances, cancellation of allotment in favour of the a ppellant was not called under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learne d Single Judge having accepted the writ petition, this appeal has been preferred . We have heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Chakra borty, learned counsel for the respondents. A perusal of original record shows that the bid submitted by the appellant shows is legible and there is no over writing. As regards the bid being unworkable, t he same is a matter of perception and as per letter dated 2nd February,2011 writ ten by the Govt. of Mizoram, it was observed that if higher amount is received b y the Department, there is nothing to consider the bid to be unworkable. Interference by this Court in a tender matter is permissible only on the ground of illegality, irrationality or procedural irregularity as held in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11. In the present case, there is no ground for interference. Though, the review com mittee observed that there was over writing in the figure and the words were not legible, original record does not bear out this observation. The review commit tee further observed that the bid quoted was not workable but the higher authori ty did not approve this observation for a valid reason. Under the circumstances , allotment in favour of the appellant and the orders of the higher authority ar e neither illegal nor suffer from irrationality or irregularity. In this view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the view taken by the learn ed Single Judge for interfering with the allotment of canteen in favour of the a ppellant. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed.