WP(C) 6089/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTIC B P KATAKEY Heard Mr C Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs HM Phukan , learned state counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the notice inviting tender(NIT) dated 2nd November, 2010 floated by the Director of Handloom and Textiles, Assam, Guwahati , for construction of Assam-type office buildings for setting up offices of the Superintendents of Handloom and Textiles, Assam, at Jonai as well as at Dhemaji in Dhemaji district. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the est imate for the works prepared by the authority concerned, which is indicated in t he NIT is not in conformity with the schedule of rates of the PWD as, such estim ate was not prepared taking into account 15% to be increased over the present sc hedule of rates so fixed. It has also been submitted that the NIT was floated by giving only 14 days’ time i.e. till 16.11.2010 to submit the tender papers and same was also not published in newspapers. Learned counsel, therefore, submits t hat the NIT dated 2nd November 2010 requires interference by this Court. Learned state counsel, on the other hand, placing reliance on averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, has submitted that the petitioner has, in f act, participated in the tender process and NIT has also been published in newsp apers. It has also been submitted that the authority prepared such estimate in t erms of the schedule of rates fixed by the department. Learned counsel, therefor e, submits that the writ petition may not be entertained. Though the petitioner has alleged that the NIT was not published in news papers, the same has been belied by the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the res pondents. The petitioner, in the affidavit-in-reply, has also accepted the posit ion that such publication was made in newspapers. The petitioner, in fact, has s ubmitted his tender papers in pursuance of the aforesaid NIT. The estimate on wh ich the authority wanted to get the job done is to be prepared by the authority and that cannot be interfered with by the writ court in exercise of its jurisdic tion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That being the position, I do not find any merit to entertain this writ petition and hence it is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. No costs.