that had he been able to succeed or was found to be L-1, in all probability it would not have raised any objection for opening of the financial bids. It is clearly an after thought in approaching the Court and now questioning the qualification of respondent No.3. No such scrutiny as is expected by the petitioner in these peculiar circumstances can be undertaken. 20. Besides, it is quite evident that even the petitioner could influence a Member of Parliament to raise the issue, whereby, the later address a letter to the Chief Engineer of the National Highway Region, New Mumbai on 05.07.2024 expressly informing that according to his information and knowledge and expressly referring to the works in hand of respondent No.3 and also apparently, in consonance with the stand of the petitioner, pointing out the bid capacity of respondent No.3 in the light of different works it has undertaken and also expressly alleging that respondent No.3 was non-compliant, its proposal was false and bogus and even expecting forfeiture of the EMD and directing it to be black listed. The very fact that a copy of such correspondence between the Member of the Parliament and the respondent No.2’ s office is a part of the petition clearly demonstrates the petitioner’s over enthusiasm while participating in a tender process of a public work. We need not delve any more. As has been held in the matters of N.G. Projects Ltd. and Tata Motors Ltd. (supra) and several other judgments, there is inherent limitation in undertaking judicial review in the matter of contracts. Even some irregularities have to be ignored unless there are strong and
