Judges note that not only has work been assigned but considerable work has been done according to respondents, though that factor alone would not suffice as we had made clear vide our interims orders that the respondent No.3 would have to meet the benchmark of the eligibility norms and any work done was at its risk and cost. 21. We are, thus, of the view that the tendering process in question does not call for any interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there is no arbitrariness, illegality or perversity involved in the same. On the other hand, the concerned authorities have duly verified the experience of respondent No.3 and, undisputedly, the financial terms are the best as offered by respondent No.3. 22. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.