Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to the respondent No 1, the State of Bihar, and respondent No.3, the Patna Regional Development Authority to discharge their obligation by engaging the petitioners at Architect for the development of Chandralok Complex near General Post Office, Patna, to be developed by the Patna Regional Development authority in pursuance of the selection/appointment of the petitioners as Architect and for quashing the order of selection/ appointment of respondent No.8 as Architect. 2. The Patna Regional Development Authority (respondent No.3) had conducted a Design Concept Competition for Surya Vihar Complex at Patna on all India basis in the year, 1987 in which nine firms participated in the open tender and out of them three tenderers including the petitioners were selected as Prize Winning Architrcts The other two Architects were M/. Shrivastava A Jaiswal and M/s. Sen and Lall (respondent No.8 ). Later on the proposal to develop the Surya Vihar Complex was abandoned and the decision was taken for development of Chandralok Complex on a Government land near General Post Office, Patna. 3. The case of the writ petitioners is that petititioner No.2 is a registered firm of Architects and Interior Designers and Petitioner No.1 is one of its partner. The firm deals in Architectural Design of different types of complex amongst other things in India Respondent No.3 had conducted all india Competition for Surya Vihar Commercial with wide publicity through media in which nine firms participated and offered their design concepts the Board of Assessors, duly appointed/selected three Prize Winning architects, namely, M/s. Shrivastava and Jaiswal, M/s. Behal Joshi and Associates (Petitioner) and M/s. Sen and Lall (respondent No.8 ). Later on the programme to develop Surya Vihar Complex was abandoned and thereafter the respondent authorities then decided to construct another commercial complex known as Chandralok Complex near Pafna General Post Office on 4-1-1988 The authorities of the State Government then decided to consult hudco and DDA at Delhi to obtain guidelines with regard to develop the aforesaid complex. Thereafter, after discussing the matter with HUDCO and dda at Delhi, it was decided to allot the aforesaid work amongst three prize winning Architects selected for development of Surya Vihar complex. Thereafter, after discussing the matter with HUDCO and dda at Delhi, it was decided to allot the aforesaid work amongst three prize winning Architects selected for development of Surya Vihar complex. Accordingly, the Urban Development Department vide letter No.284 dated 21.12.1989, as contained in Annexure-1, invited a limited design competition for the proposed Chandralok Complex and requested the three prize Winning Architects only to offer comprehensive design concept for the aforesaid complex. It was provided therein that selection of the Architects shall be made by a Board of Assessors and their decision shall be final. The said decision of the authorities was in accordance with guidelines prescribsd by the Counsel of Architecture under the Architects Act, 1972, and in accordance with the Technical Circular No.140, deal-ing with Mode of Consultants fcr complex jobs like Chandralok Complex. 4. Thereafter, the State Government in February, 1989 constituted a sub-committee (Board of Assessors) for selection of Architects/consultants consisting of Secretary, Urban Development Department, as Chairman and its five members, namely, Vice Chairman, P. R D. A , Chief Engineer, p. R. D. A , Chief Architect, Government of Bihar, and one representative of Indian Institute of Architects Government of India, as members. The Committee was to evaluate the entries of the participating Architects and select the best Architect for appointment On 14-3-1989, the petitioners and other two Prize Winning Architects M/s. Shrivastava and jaiswal and M/s Sen and Lall respondent No.8) submitted their design concepts for development of the said complex. The petitioners submitted their proposal in two envelopes, namely, envelope a containing concept drawings in 16 Nos. project report, etc. and the other Envelope b consisting of Financial quotation in terms of letter dated 21 2 1989, as contained in Annexure-1. The petitioners submitted their proposal in two envelopes, namely, envelope a containing concept drawings in 16 Nos. project report, etc. and the other Envelope b consisting of Financial quotation in terms of letter dated 21 2 1989, as contained in Annexure-1. The receipt of the entries and the two envelopes from each of the Architects were notified to the Architects and the representatives at about 400 P M. on the same date (14 3 1989) and the then Vice Chairman advised them to stay for consultation with the Board of Assessors and Export Members, if necessary on 15/16 March, 1989, the said committee (Board of Assessors) scrutinised and evaluated all the received papers filed by the three Architects and found that the entries of M/s. Shrivastava and Jaiswal and that of M/s. Sen and Lall (respondent No.8) wanting unsuitable, while the design entry submitted by the petitioner was considered to fulfil all the aspirations and requirements of the promoters and therefore adoptable. The Board of Assessors unanimously selected the petitioner design concept as best suited and adoptable. A copy of the report and recommendation of the sub-committee (Board of Assessors) dated 16.3 1989 selecting the petitioner as Architect, has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ application. Thereafter, on receipt of the said report on 17.3.1989, Chief Town Planners forwarded all the papers relating to selection of Architects to the Secretary Urban Development department for initiating further action and implementation of the project. On 13 7 1989 the Chief Town Planner forwarded all the papers regarding selection of the Architect to the P. R. D. A. for implementation of the project. Thereafter respondent authorities did not proceed promptly in the matter and adopted delaying tactics with ulterior motive. On 8 1.1990 the then Minister Urban Development took up the matter and wrote a letter to the Commissioner and Secretary, Urban Development Department that as architect and Design has already been selected, steps should be taken for Foundation Laying Ceremony on 14.1.1990. A copy of the aforesaid letter has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ application. On 8 1.1990 the then Minister Urban Development took up the matter and wrote a letter to the Commissioner and Secretary, Urban Development Department that as architect and Design has already been selected, steps should be taken for Foundation Laying Ceremony on 14.1.1990. A copy of the aforesaid letter has been annexed as Annexure-8 to the writ application. On 10.1 1990 the Secretary Urban Development Department addressed a letter to the Vice Chairman, P. R. D. A. bringing to his notice that in spite of request made earlier vide letter dated 13 7.1989 by Chief Town Planner no proposal by the P. R. D A has been furnished to the Department as well and asked to furnish the proposals to the government. The Vice Chairman of the P. R. D. A. also on the same day wrote a letter to the secretary, Urban Development Department for release of the required fund, and formal transfer and possession of the land to P. R. D. A. 5. It appears that a meeting was held at the government level presided over by the Chief Minister and it was decided that re-evaluation of the three entries earlier evaluated by the Board of Assessors be made and, accordingly the Minister Urban Development Department constituted a Sub-Committee (Board of Assessors) to re-evaluate the design entries evaluated earlier, sub-Committee meeting was held consisting of seven officials Professionals, which re-evaluated the aforesaid three entries received for chandralok complex and unanimously selected the design concept of the petitioner for appointment of the Architect for chandralok Complex. A copy of the decision of this Committee has been annexed as annexure 20 of this petition. The entry of respondent No.8 was outrightly rejected by the aforesaid Committee for non-submission of Model and nonfulfilment of the basic requirements of the design for chandralok Complex. The petitioner firm, as stated above, was selected and he was asked to carry out minor modifications as deliberated upon by the sub-committee (Board of Assessors) in the said meeting. The model submitted by the petitioner, which was duly accepted by the two sub-committees on 16.3 1989 and on 16 1.1990, was advertised in newspaper on 26- 1- 1990. The petitioner firm, as stated above, was selected and he was asked to carry out minor modifications as deliberated upon by the sub-committee (Board of Assessors) in the said meeting. The model submitted by the petitioner, which was duly accepted by the two sub-committees on 16.3 1989 and on 16 1.1990, was advertised in newspaper on 26- 1- 1990. A copy of the said model has been annexed as annexure-4 to the writ application M/s. Shrivastava and Jaiswal aggrieved by the selection of the petitioners filed a writ application in this Hon ble court being CWJC No.629 of 1990 and the same was dismissed on 19 2 90 a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application. In the said case a counter-affidrvit was filed by respondent No.3 (P R. D. A.)wherein it was clearly stated that petitioners firm has been selected as architect. A copy of the counter-affidavit has been annexed as Annexure-S to the writ application. On 3.2 1990 the State Government (Urban Development department) directed the P. R D. A. to obtain sanction under of Bihar Regional Development Authority Act, 1982. S.6 (4)On 7- 2-90 the Vice chairman wrote a letter to the government for approval of the appointment/selection of the petitioner as a Architect for the Project. A copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-26. On 30th May, 1990, the Urban Development Department, Government of Bihar communicated the acceptance of the proposal of selection/appointment of petitioner as Architect for Chandralok Complex and directed the p. R. D. A (respondent No.3) to inform regarding the fees to be paid to the appointed firm of Architects so that Government may accord its approval. A copy of the said letter has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ application. In the meantime, the details of the agreement to be incorporated were discussed in between the petitioners and the respondent authorities. The other details with regard to the implementation of the project were also discussed and meetings were held___. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The petitioners on being appointed as Architects vide Annexure-8 submitted the detailed scheme, consisting of Modified Design, Plans/drawings and Model, Project Estimates, etc. The other details with regard to the implementation of the project were also discussed and meetings were held___. . . . . . . . . . . . . . The petitioners on being appointed as Architects vide Annexure-8 submitted the detailed scheme, consisting of Modified Design, Plans/drawings and Model, Project Estimates, etc. In the office of P R. D. A , the petitioners In the said scheme also met the clarifications/requirements observed and suggested by the Subcommittee as well as the Additional Requirements suggested by the director (Planning ). 6. Envelope-b, which contained the Price Bid according to the terms contained in Annexure-I, was to be opened for consideration only after selection of Architect The said envelope suddenly became untraceable in the office of P R D A The same was done by certain vested interests with a view to cause damage to the petitioner. While the matter was pending on 27-7-1991 the government issued a letter to the Joint Secretary, department of Urban Development (respondent N6- 4) to the effect that a fir be lodged with regard to missing of Envelope-B of the petitioner and the authorities should immediately take a decision for removing of the encroachment from the proposed site of the Chandralok Complex and also an open competition be held for appointment of a new architect, a copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure-10 to the writ application. The aforesaid decision of the State Government was again reiterated by the government vide letter dated 23 12 1991 contained in annexure 24. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Government, the authority decided to invite open design competition for selection of Architect and on 12.1 1992 a tender notice was published in the daily newspaper the Times of India inviting seald offers from individual consultants and consultancy firms of repute and duly registered under Council of Architecture in India for proposed construction of Multi-storied Commercial Complex named Chandralok Commercial Complex. A true copy of the tender has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ application The said decision of the authority to invite open tenders in respect of selection/appointment of the petitioners as Architect was objected by the Chief Town Planner, Bihar, vide Annexure 12, by the Chairman of the Bihar State Housing Board, members of the P. R. D A. Vide annexure-13 Even Minister, Building Construction Housing Department, govt. of Bihar, brought to the notice of the Chief Minister the aforesaid illegality in inviting fresh tenders. The Chief Minister vide Annexure-15 on 11.2.1992 ordered for stay of the fresh tenders and take work from the selected Architect. After issuance of the aforesaid tender notice the petitioners purchased the bill of quantity and filed a letter of protest on 3 3 1992 (Annexure-15) to the Vice Chairman, p. R. D. A. stating therein that he has already been selected on Architect. 7. On 3 3 1992 fresh tenders were opened and thereafter a sub-corn-mitttee for selection of Architect was constituted and the said committee selected respondent No 8 as an Architect for developing the aforesaid complex. According to the petitioner once he was selected/appointed as architect, the action of the respondent authorities in taking the fresh process for appointment of Architect was wholly arbitrary specially when no reason has been assigned for ignoring the petitioners. Fresh process has been started on extraneous consideration. It is also stated that after selection of the petitioner as Architect by the authorities, they were directed to inspect the place and area and submit area calculation, photograph of the complex etc. Thus, after the work having been allotted to the petitioners, they have spent a huge money and in that view of the matter subsequent decision to select another Architect is arbitrary and viplative of article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. The counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of respondent No.1, the state of Bihar, and the other by respondent Nos 3,4, 6 and 7, and a caveat petition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.8, which has been treated as a counter affidavit The stand of the respondents Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 is that the authorities decided to construct the Chandralok committee Complex opposite General Post Office in the town of patna. Before any step could be taken by the authority (respondent No.3) in respect of construction of the complex, the Government of Bihar decided to hold a limited design competition for the purpose of said complex and asked the three Prize Winning Architects, as mentioned above, to submit their papers. Three Architects submitted their proposals to the Subcommittee appointed by the government and the said Committee submitted its report to the government. The Government of Bihar asked the Vice-Chairman. Three Architects submitted their proposals to the Subcommittee appointed by the government and the said Committee submitted its report to the government. The Government of Bihar asked the Vice-Chairman. P. R. D A. to finalise the fees of the petitioners for consultancy of work in respect of construction of Chandralok complex and submit a report to the government for its approval. While the matter of fixation of fees was under consideration the Government made available 4 6 acres of land for the said complex instead of 3.48 acres which was originally earmarked for the Chandralok complex and as such the concept of requirement of project was also considerably changed as per the government policy. Thereafter, the entire scheme was to be re-fixed and accordingly the proposal submitted by the petitioner could not materialise and a fresh step was taken for the appointment of the Architect by the Government. On 22nd of October, 1991 the government vide Annexure-A/4 directed that for the purpose of execution of the soheme regarding construction of Chandralok complex the tender should be invited on all India basis and it should be published in all important National and State level newspapers in view of the aforesaid direction the respondent authorities published tender notice in all the important newspaper) and several firms and individuals purchased the bill of quantity including the petitioner. The tender papers were submitted by them including the petitioners, which were opened in presence of the authorised persons of the firms. So far the tender paper submitted by the petitioners was concerned, it was found that they had not submitted the bill of quantity and duly filled up papers. He only filed a letter of request for allotment of work on the basis of tender submitted earlier, i e. a limited design competition. The tender papers submitted by all the tenderers were examined by the Board of Assessors and thereafter respondent No.3, Patna Regional Development authority, considered the entire matter including the papers submitted by respondent No.8. He only filed a letter of request for allotment of work on the basis of tender submitted earlier, i e. a limited design competition. The tender papers submitted by all the tenderers were examined by the Board of Assessors and thereafter respondent No.3, Patna Regional Development authority, considered the entire matter including the papers submitted by respondent No.8. The design of respondent No.8 was selected and accepted in its resolution dated 25-9-1992 the entire papers including resolution of the Authorities were sent to the government and government approved the appointment of respondent no 8 as Architect.1 he resolution of the Board has been filed as Annexure-B/4 and the approval given by the government as Annexure-C/4 to the counter-affidavit The work order was issued to the respondent No 8 on 18-12-1992. The respondent No 8 has already taken up the work and was submitted several sketch plans to the authorities and the authorities in its meeting dated 9-2-1993 approved the same The respondent No 8 has completed the substantial work in the field of consultancy and for that the authority has already paid Rs.3.25 lacs. Respondent No.8 has also prepared project report and other relevant documents required for obtaining loan from HUDCO and the Regional Technical committee of the HUDCO recommended for loan and a sum of rs 3 25 lacs has become due for payment to respondent No.8 According to them, there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection respondent no.8 as Architect for the aforesaid complex. 9. The State Government in its counter-affidavit has stated that there was a limited design competition in which the petitioners were selected by the Sub-Committee. It is also stated that no order selecting the petitioners was communicated to them nor any agreement was executed by P. R. D. A. in favour of the petitioners. As a matter of fact the appointment of the petitioners was never appointed under Sec.6 (4) of the P. R. D. A. Act by the Mate Government. According to the State Government, after taking into account the relevant facts it decided to invite open tender for selection of the Architects. Accordingly, the advertisement was made and the petitioners and others submitted their papers for competition and thereafter respondent No.8 was appointed/selected for the work of the said complex by a committee of qualified persons. According to the State Government, after taking into account the relevant facts it decided to invite open tender for selection of the Architects. Accordingly, the advertisement was made and the petitioners and others submitted their papers for competition and thereafter respondent No.8 was appointed/selected for the work of the said complex by a committee of qualified persons. It was further stated that advertisement inviting tenderers was done on all India basis in the public interest in which several Architect firms and individual participated and thereafter respondent No.8 was selected as architect. 10. The stand of respondent No.8 is that the decision of the government to select/appoint Architect on the basis of limited design competition was not in the public interest and later on the respondent authorities decided to invite open tender on all India basis in the public interest in which several architects firms participated and the Committee after consideration of all the cases selected respondent No.8. Thereafter, the work order (Annexure-P) was issued in favour of respondent No 8 and respondent No.8 has submitted entire Architects plan for the said project and the same has been accepted by the respondent authorities. The petitioners have filed several reply petition and the supplementary affidavits wherein they have reiterated the facts stated in the main writ petition. 11. The respondents have also filed petition during the coarse of hearing. From the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents authorities 3, 4, 6 and 7 dated 23.12.1993, it appears that out of 4.60 acres of land, on which the complex is to be constructed, the Patna Regional Development authority is in possession of only 0.59 acres of land and the remaining land has not been given to the authority. It has also been stated therein that as per design concept and model submitted by respondent No.8, the authority moved to HUDCO for sanction of loan, and the HUDCO sanctioned a loan of Rs 1 50 crores. The respondent No.8 has also filed an affidavit on 25.11.1993 stating therein the details of work completed by him. It has further been stated that payment of Rs.5,68,750/- has already been made to him and further a sum of Rs.5.70.000/-would be payable to him for the works already completed by him 11 (a ). The respondent No.8 has also filed an affidavit on 25.11.1993 stating therein the details of work completed by him. It has further been stated that payment of Rs.5,68,750/- has already been made to him and further a sum of Rs.5.70.000/-would be payable to him for the works already completed by him 11 (a ). Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that once the petittoner No.1 was selected/appointed as an architect /consultant and the same was approved by the government under section 6 (4) of the Bihar regional Development Aurthority Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the act) the respondents authorites were not justified in not allotting the work the petitioners and taking fresh steps for appointment of a Architect/consultant. It was further submitted by him that even if it is assumed that the petitioners were not finally selected as an Architect even then it is an admitted fact that selected of the petitioners was at a final stage and the authorities instead of taking final decision in the matter arbitrarily decided to invite fresh tender for selection of Architect/consultant. The action of the respondents-authorities in inviting fresh tender for appointment of Consultant/architect for design competition for the purpose construction of Chandralok Complex was arbitrary, discriminatory and as such violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India. It was further contended that selecion of respondent No.8 as an Architect/consultant is arbitrary as in the earlier limited competition his case was considered in detail and it was rejected and subsequently he has been selected by the authorities for extraneous reasons. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-authorities as well as respondent No.8 on the other hand contended that a decision to hold a limited design competition amongst the three Prize Winning Architects chosen from open competition for another commercial complex, namely, Suryalok, was itself arbitrary and discriminatory as it is well setting that the government or the instrumentality or the agency of the State which are stated within the meaning of article-12 of the Constitution of India are governed by rule of law and while dealing with public property either in the field of entering into contract or conferring benefits and largess, they have to adopt certain norms and standard. The decision to invite fresh tender for selection of Architect/consultants by an open competition was in public interest and in pursuance of which the respondent No.8 and others including petitioner participated and the Board of Assessors selected respondent No 8. . Thereafter, work order had been issued to respondent No.8 and more than 30% work had been done by him. It is also contended that petitioners were not finally selected or nor any any document selecting them as architect was communicated and as such no right accrued in favour of the petitioners. Lastly, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that there was delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in moving to this court and on this ground alone this writ application has to be dismissed. 13. Before adverting to the respective submissions advanced at the bar. it is to be stated that it is well settled that the government or the instrumentality or the agency of the State which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are governed by rule of law and not by the rule of man while dealing with a public property either in the field of contract or conferring benefits largess. The public authorities have to maintain certain norms and standard and they cannot act arbitrarily or at their whim. They have no free direction like citizen dealing with a private porperty, who can deal with the property in any manner which he likes. It is equally well settled the every action of the public authority has to fulfil the requirement of article 14 of the Constitution of India which strikes at arbitrariness and should also confirm the judicially evolved rule of administrative law which requires that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standard by which it professes, its actions are to be judged and it must be scrupulously observed chose standards on pain of invalidatior of an act in violation of them. Once the State or its instrumentality decides to grant any right in the nature of contract then have no absolute discretion and they have to be guided by rule of law and have to follow certain standard or norms in the public interest it is now well-settled rule of law that if the State or its instrumentality want to confer any benefit or enter into a contract or sale the public property then the same should be done either by the public auctioner by inviting tender. The dealings of the authority should be legitimate and it should be above board. Nothing should be done by them giving an impression of favour and and nepotism The said general rule may be departed from only in cases of compulsion on compelling reasons. 14. The apex court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty V/s. The international Airport Authority of India and Ors , 1979 Supreme Court 1828 held as follows in paragraph 12 :- "the power of discretion of the government in the grant of largess including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, licences, etc must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norms and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. " In paragraphs 20 and 21 of the said case, it was further held as follows :- "now obviously where a Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would ba in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same constitutional or public law, imitations as Government. The rule inhibiting arbitrary action by Government which we have discussed above must apply equally where such corporation is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contract or otherwise, and it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will, but its action must be in conformity with some principle which meets that test of reason and relevance. " Paragraph 21 (-It must, therefore, follow as a necessary corollary from the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 that though the State is entitled to refuse to enter into relationship with anyone, yet if it does so, it cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for entering into such relationship and discriminate between persons similarly circumstances, but it must act in conformity with some standard or principle which meets the test of reasonableness and non-discrimination and any departure from such standard or principle would be invalid unless it can be supported or justified on some rational and non-discriminatory ground " 15. The same view has been reiterated by the apex court in the case of Kasturilal Laxmi Ready V/s. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1980 Supreme Court 1992 ; Fertiliser Corporation, Kamgar Union v Union of India, 1981 Supreme court 344 ; Ram and Shyam V/s. State of Haryana, 1985 Supreme Court 1147; mahavir Auto Stores v Indian Oil Corpn , 1990 Supreme Court 1031 ; and srilekha Vidyarthi V/s. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1991 Supreme Court 537. Recently the apex court in case of Sterling Computers Limited v M/s M and N publications Limited and Others, reported in 1993 (1) SCC page 445 has held as follows ;- "once the State decides to grant any right or privilege to others, than there is no escape from the rigour of article 14, the executive does not have an abolute discretion, certain precepts and principle have to be followed, the public interest being the paramount consideration. It has also been pointed out that for securing the public interest one of the methods recognized is to invite tenders affording opportunity to submit offers for consideration in an objective manner. However, there may be cases wherein the special facts and circumstances a nd due to compelling reasons which must stand the test on Article 14 of the Constitution, departure of the aforesaid rule can be made. This Court while upholding the contracts by negotiation in the cases referred to above has impressed as to how in the facts and circumstances of those cases the decisions taken by the State and authorities concerned were reasonable, rational and in public interest. This Court while upholding the contracts by negotiation in the cases referred to above has impressed as to how in the facts and circumstances of those cases the decisions taken by the State and authorities concerned were reasonable, rational and in public interest. The decisions taken in those cases by the authorities concerned, on judicial scrutiny were held to be free from bias, discrimination and under exigencies or the situation then existing to be just and proper. On the basis of those judgments it cannot be urged that this Court has left to the option of authorities concerned whether to invite tenders or not according to their own discretion and to amend contracts involving the procedure which are basic in nature, taking into account factors which are not only irrelevant but detrimental to the public interest. " 16. Now the first question to be considered is as to whether the decision to hold the limited competition was a just and valid decision and was in public interest or it was arbitrary and discriminatory and violativs of article 14 of the Constitution There is no dispute with the proposition that if the authority wants to enter into contract with public then its action must satisfy the court about reasonableness and public interest. In this case from the materials which have been brought to on the record and which are not jn dispute. It is clear that as Back as in the year 1917, the respondent No 3, P. R. D. A, floated a design concept competition for a Suryalok Complex at Patna on all-India basis on the basis of advertisement nine tenderers including the petitioner, respondent No.8 M/s. Shrivastava and Jaiswal and others participated and amongst them three architects were selected as Prize Winning Architects, namely, petitioner, respondent No 8, and one M/s. Shrivastava and Jaiswal. Thereafter, the proposal to develop the Suryalok Complex was abandoned and the Government decided to develop the Chandralok Complex. It was further decided to contact HUDCO and D D A at New Delhi to this connection. After detailed deliberations and consultation with the aforesaid authorities, a decision was taken to hold a limited design competition for selection of Architect by inviting only three Prize Winning Architects selected for developing the Chandralok Complex. These facts are clear from Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ application. After detailed deliberations and consultation with the aforesaid authorities, a decision was taken to hold a limited design competition for selection of Architect by inviting only three Prize Winning Architects selected for developing the Chandralok Complex. These facts are clear from Annexures-1 and 3 to the writ application. The question is as to whether this limited design competition in the facts of the case was in public interest or not Under the provision of the architects Act, 1972 a Council of Architecture has been constituted. The said Council has issued Architectural Competition Guidelines The schedule of the Architectural Competition Guidelines provides types of competitions. There are three types of competitions, namely, Open Competition, limited Competition, re competition by Invitation and Special competitions. The Guidelines of HUDCO, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure 2, shows that for complex jobs, Limited Competition restricted to a few choosen Architects of established merit would be most appropriate. Thus it is clear that for a big complex job even Limited Competition is also one of the type of Competitions for selection of Architects. In the present case, as noticed above, as competition was held on all India basis for selection of Architect Designer and three Architects were selected as Prize winning Architects and as such the decision of the State Government to select Architect from amongst the Three Prize Winning Architects only for developing the Chandralok Complex cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory The said decision was taken after consulting HUDCO and d. D. A Delhi and in our opinion the said decision satisfies the requirement of reasonableness and public interest. 17. The next question is as to whether the petitioners were selected or appointed as Architect/consultant for the development of the proposed complex or not. In this connection it is clear that by Annexure-1 a notice was given to the petitioner and other two Architects including respondent no.8 to offer comprehensive design concept for. the proposed Chandralok complex. It was stated therein that the selection of Architects shall be made by the Board of Assessors and their decision shall be final in this regard. In this connection it is clear that by Annexure-1 a notice was given to the petitioner and other two Architects including respondent no.8 to offer comprehensive design concept for. the proposed Chandralok complex. It was stated therein that the selection of Architects shall be made by the Board of Assessors and their decision shall be final in this regard. There is no dispute between the parties that a Board of Assessors or committee was constituted by the Government consisting of the Secretary urban Development Department, Government of Bihar as Chairman, Vicechairman, p. R. D. A. , Chief Engineer, P R. D. A, Chief Architects building and Housing Department, Bihar, Chief Town Planner, Government of Bihar and one representative of Indian Institute of Architect, Government of India, as members. The Committee held its meetings, on 14/15 March, 1989 the Lxpert Member, namely, Mr. Agnihotri scrutinised the Design concept and other entries submitted by the three Architects, nameiy, petitioner, respondent No.8 and one M/s. Shrivastava and Jaiswal. The entries and design etc given by the petitioners was marked as b and after going into the details of the matter Mr Agnihotri recommended for selection of the petitioners as Architect. The Committee after going through the matter in detail accepted the Report of Agnihotri The Committee submitted its Report and recommended the case of the petitioner for selection of as Architect. A copy of the said report has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. Thereafter it appears that the Chief Town Planner, Government of bihar submitted all the relevant papers to the State Urban Development department No 3 for necessary action. On 8 11990 vide Annexure-8 the respondent Minister, Urban Development Department directed the authority to take steps for fixing a date for foundation laying ceremony. However, it appears that in the meantime again the Minister Urban development Department constituted a Sub-Committee for selection of the architects in spite of selection of the petitioners as Architect by the Board of assessors This Sub-Committee consisting of seven persons held its meeting on 16.1.1990 for re-evaluation of the Three Entries for Chandralok Complex and unanimously selected the design concept of the petitioners for appointment as architect. A true copy of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting held on 16.1.1990 has been annexed as Annexure-21 to the writ application. A true copy of the minutes of the aforesaid meeting held on 16.1.1990 has been annexed as Annexure-21 to the writ application. After report of the aforesaid Committee, the PRDA advertised in the newspaper the selected design/model given by the petitioners. A copy of the said Model has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ application. In the meantime, it appears that M/s Shrivastava and Jaiswal, who was not selected by the two Committees as stated above, challenged the decision of the Committee (Board of assessors) recommending the case of the petitioners for appointment as architect. In the said writ application the P. R. D A filed a counter-affidavit. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5, wherein a categorical statement has been made that two committees after having considered the case of the Three Architects has recommended the case of the petitioners for appointment as an Architect. In Paragraph-4 of the said affidavit it has been observed as follows :- "that at the outset it is stated that the authority after conceiving the idea of Chandralok decided to examine various concepts of development at the earliest and the process of Selection of Architect was initiated as far back as March, 1989. The Chief Town planner, Bihar constituted a Sub-Committee and issued letters to shri R. N. Agnihotri, Dean of India School of Planning and architecture, New Delhi and also to Vice Chairman and Chief engineer of the P. R. D. A. including the Chief Architect, department of Building, Govt. of Bihar. The meeting was held on 14.3 1989. The concept of the development was submitted by petitioner firm as well as two other respondents 8 and others. The Expert opinion as given by said Shri Agnihotri and in his report he recommended the concept of development suggested by respondent No.8. It is relevant here to state that the concepts examined as per Annexure-1 were the same concepts which are examined by the Sub-Committee on 14.3 1989. This time also the Sub-Committee took unanimous decision accepting the concept submitted by respondent No 8. Thereafter the aforesaid writ application was dismissed on 9.2.1990. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6. In the meantime, it appears that several meetings were held between the petitioners and the chairman and ors. Officials of the respondents and the petitioners submitted new Site Plan after selection by the Two Committees. Thereafter the aforesaid writ application was dismissed on 9.2.1990. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6. In the meantime, it appears that several meetings were held between the petitioners and the chairman and ors. Officials of the respondents and the petitioners submitted new Site Plan after selection by the Two Committees. These facts are clear from Annexure-7 of the writ application. 18. On 30th May, 1990, it appears that the Patna Regional Developauthority had sent a letter to the State Government for giving its approval for appointment of the petitioners as consultant as required under Section 6 (4) of the Act. On 30th May, 1990 the State Govt. (Urban Department)informed the Vice Chairman, P. R. D. A. that according to recommendation of the two committees, the petitioners has been selected as the Architect and approval has been granted to his appointment as architect. However the authority was directed to inform the Government with regard to the fees which is to be paid to the petitioners so that a Final approval as required under Sec.6 (4) of the Act may be given A copy of the said letter has been marked as Annexure-8 to the writ application. The discussions were held between the petitioners and the p. R. D. A ard the petitioners submitted detailed Plan which are borne out from the relevant documents filed by the petitioner. These facts are not disputed On the basis of the letter of the government contained, in Annexure-8, the assertion on behalf of the petitioner is that he was finally selected as Architect and the same has not been cancelled as yet and without cancellation the same the respondents authorities were not justified in law to invite fresh tender for selection of an architect. We are unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner. Section 6 (4) of the Act provides that the authority may appoint a consultant on hire to assist in planning and other tasks, provided that in case a consultation fee exceeds rupees five thousand, prior approval of State Government shall be necessary. So in this Annexure-8, in our view, was not an approval as contemplated under Sec.6 (4) of the Act as it is clear from the said letter that the Government had asked the authority to inform about fee payable to the petitioners under Sec.6 (4) of the Act. So in this Annexure-8, in our view, was not an approval as contemplated under Sec.6 (4) of the Act as it is clear from the said letter that the Government had asked the authority to inform about fee payable to the petitioners under Sec.6 (4) of the Act. There is no dispute between the parties that as the fee exceeds Rs.5000/- the appointment or selection as Architect shall be final only when there is approval under Sec.6 (4) of the Act. In our view, on the basis of Annexure-8 it cannot be said that the petitioner was finally selected, and as such the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that they were finally selected as Architect is without any substance. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that as respondents P R. D. A. has taken work from the petitioner they are now bound by the pro missory estoppel. In this connection he relied upon several decisions. However, we are of the view that as no final order appointing the petitioners as Architect was passed by the inquiry authority, even if there was some discussions with the petitioners and officers of the P. R. D. A. and the petitioners submitted some papers the same shall not confer any right to the petitioners and the petitioners cannot claim right to work as a consultant on the principle of promissory estoppel. There is another reason to hold that the petitioners were not finally elected as Architect. Admittedly, the order becomes effective when the same is communicated to the person concerned. There is no material on the record to show that any order was communicated to the petitioner informing about his selection is Architect. 19. However, from the facts stated above, it is clear that the two committees had recommended the appointment or selection of the petitioners as Architect and it is also not in dispute that the land belong to the State government which has to be developed by the P. R D. A. for the commercial complex. From the materials on the record, it is clear that three tenders were required to submit two envelopes, one consisting of Design concept marked as Annexure-A and the other consisting of price list marked as Annexure-B, it appears while the matter was pending before the state for final decision, Envelope-B of the petitioners was missing. From the materials on the record, it is clear that three tenders were required to submit two envelopes, one consisting of Design concept marked as Annexure-A and the other consisting of price list marked as Annexure-B, it appears while the matter was pending before the state for final decision, Envelope-B of the petitioners was missing. This envelope according to the terms of the Architects, contained in annexure-1, was to be opened on the selection of the Architect. The authority informed the Government that envelope B was missing from the office, and thereafter, according to the Government decision, the authority was directed to lodge an FIR with regard to the missing of Enveiope-B. The respondent Authority No 3 (P. R. D. A.) was directed to take steps for removal of encroachment from the site of the proposed Chandralok complex. It was also decided that in case there was necessary to (?) develop the cbandralok Complex, then there should be open competition for drawing and concept design and it would be very appropriate if the work is done by the government bodies like I. I. T. , Kharagpur, School of Architect, etc. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter it appears that respondent authority decided to hold open competition for drawing design concept for the proposed chandralok Complex It also constituted an enquiry committee to find out the missing Envelope-B of the petitioners. In the meantime, it appears that missing Envelope was traced out in the office and it was brought to the notice of the State Government. Thereafter, again the Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar informed the Vice Chairman to invite a tender on all India basis for the design concept for the proposes complex as stated in the earlier letter dated 27.7.1991 (Annexure-10) A copy of the letter dated 22nd of October 1991 has been annexed as Annexure A/l The aforesaid decision to invite fresh on all India basis for selection of Architect was opposed by the two members of the Board vide Annexures-12 and 13. However, the authorities P. R D. A. issued an advertisement for selection of Architect on all India basis. A copy of the said tender has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ application. 20. However, the authorities P. R D. A. issued an advertisement for selection of Architect on all India basis. A copy of the said tender has been annexed as Annexure-14 to the writ application. 20. Respondent No.8 and others filed their tender papers, though it is not stated on behalf of the respondents P. R. D. A. as how many tenderers submitted their tender papers in persuance of fresh advertisement. After coming to know about the aforesaid advertisment, dated 12.1.1992, the petitioners filed a petition on 3.3.1992 before the Vice Chairman P. R. D. A. informing that their Design Concept has already been selected and accepted by the Competent Authority. However, the authority proceeded with the selection of the Architect and accepted the case of Respondent No 8 on 25.9.1992. On 3.12.1992 vide Annexure-C/4 the Government approved the appointment-of respondent no.8 as consultant and thereafter the work order was issued in favour of respondent No.8 on 18.12.1992 vide Ext. C/4. According to learned counsel tor the petitioners even if there was no final selection of the petitioners as architect or consultants but when the matter was pending before the respondent authorities after the two committees had recommended case of the petitioners the respondents-authority cannot take decision in the matter arbitrarily by inviting fresh tenders for selection of the consaltant for the proposed complex. According to him the decision taken by the State Government as well as the P. R. D. A. authorities to invite fresh tenders on all India basis was arbitrary illegal and bad in law. The stand of the respondents authority regarding inviting fresh tenders for selection of Architect is not legal and valid especially when from perusal of two letter dated 27.7.91 (sic) and 22.9.91, it is clear that no reasons have been given for holding fresh tenders on all india basis. 21. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State it is stated that the Government reconsidered the whole issue in respect of the earlier dcission to the envelope containing the financial bid of the petitioners was reportedly lost by the P. R. D. A and the same reappeared under mysterious circumstances The State Government also took into account the fact that for a project of such a heavy cost and importance, any offer for consultancy would be decided only through open competitive bid with due publicity at the national level. In the counter-affidavit, it is stated that as the area of proposed site increased from 3.40 acres to 4.60 acres, a decision was taken to invite tender on all India basis. The aforesaid assertion is not supported by any contempofaneous documents. On the other hand from the documents filed by the respondent it is clear that no reasons or grounds have been given by them for inviting fresh tender- No doubt, even after a tender is offered/submitted by a person then the authority is not bound to accept the same and it can reject or accept the same on valid grounds. However, while accepting or rejecting the tender the authorities are required to adopt reasonable standard and norms and they cannot reject the offer submitted by a person on extraneous ground. In the case of Food corporation of India V/s. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC 71 , the Food Corporation of India invited tender for disposal of stock of damaged foodgrains. The tender of M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries was the highest one but the same was not accepted and the Corporation invited all the tenderers to participate in the negotiation and in the said negotiation, the corporation was offered an excess amount of Rs.20 lakhs by other tenderer V/s. M/s Kamdhenu cattle Peed Industries challenged the aforesaid action of the Food Corporation of India before the High Court and the High Court allowed the writ application and thereafter the judgment of the High court was challenged before the Supreme Court dealing with the said matter, it was held in paragragh Nos.7 and 8 of the judgment as follows:- Para-7. In contractual sphere as in all other State action, the state and all its instrumentalities have to conform to article 14 of the Constitution of India of which nonarbitrariness is significant fact. There is no unfettered discretion in public law ; A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fair play in action : Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his inter-action with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process In all State action. To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a state action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bonafides of decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power as it is uarealistic, but provides for contract of its exercise by judicial review. Para-8. The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen in such a situation may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor rewriting for consideration in a fair decision making process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the context is a question of fact in each case Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimants perception, but in larger public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bonafide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of nonarbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the rule of law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to this extent. " thus, it is clear that even if the offer is the highest the same cannot be accepted, and it ean be rejected by adopting certain standard and norms and on cogent reasons. 22 The question in this case is as to whether the decision to invite fresh tender after having accepted the recommendation of the two Committee for appointment of petitioners as consultant is based on certain norms and standard and is in public interest. 22 The question in this case is as to whether the decision to invite fresh tender after having accepted the recommendation of the two Committee for appointment of petitioners as consultant is based on certain norms and standard and is in public interest. In our view, no valid reasons have been given by the respondents State or the P. R. D. A. for not accepting the offer made by the petitioners as a consultant or Architect. As stated above, two committees appointed by the respondents authority recommended for appointment of the petitioners as architect and the reasons given by the respondents as mentioned above are not convincing. The earliest documents which has been mentioned above sent by the state Government to the P R. D. A. did not disclose any reason for inviting fresh tender. In the counter-affidavit a vague statement has only been made that in view of the fact that project was a big one a decision was taken to invite fresh tender for consultancy on all India basis. The stand of the p. R. D. A. authorities is also inconsistent. So far the statement made by them in the counter-affidavit is concerned that is contrary to their documents and thus the same has to be rejected. The ground given for inviting fresh tender for consultancy, in the mem-randum dated 23.12.1991 (Annexure-24) is based on non-existence ground. It is incorrectly stated therein that the committee constituted to select the Architect had not taken any final decision. As stated above, it is evident that the Committee has taken a final decision in favour of the petitioners. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the decision to invite a fresh tender for. appointment of consultant was not taken in public interest and is not based on any valid ground or was taken for serving the public interest or cause. 23. Thus, in our view, the respondents authorities (P. R. D. A.) acted arbitrarily in deciding to invite fresh tender for appointment for Architect/consultancy. However, it is admitted position that after the fresh advertisement the respondent No.8 and others applied The petitioners though purchased the bill of quantity but did not submit his tender papers. He filed only a petition which is in the nature of protest. However, it is admitted position that after the fresh advertisement the respondent No.8 and others applied The petitioners though purchased the bill of quantity but did not submit his tender papers. He filed only a petition which is in the nature of protest. Therefore, the sub-committee constituted by the respondents authorities (P. R. D. A ) selected the respondent No 8 and his selection has been approved by the State Government under Sec.6 (4) of the Act and the work order has been issued on 18.12.1992 in favour of respondent No.8 from various counter affidavits and documents filed by respondent No.8 and the respondents that more than 30% work has been done by the Architect and payment of Rs 5,68,750/- has already been paid to him and further a sum of Rs.5,70,000/- has already become due and has not been paid In such a situation, whether it would be proper for this Court to interfere at this stage and quash the selection of rsspondent No 8 as Architect and direct the respondents authority to consider the case of the petitioners first in view of the earlier reports of the sub-committees. In my view, it is not proper to interfere at this stage due to delay and latches on the part of the petitioners. In this connection, it it to be mentioned that the advertisement was made as back as on 12.1.1992 vide annexure-14. The petitioners filed a petition on 3.3.1992 that this design concept has been selected vide Annexure-16 and this letter in our view was protest Letter filed by the petitioners. If no action was taken by the Authority in pursuance of the said letter within a reasonable time the petitioners should have filed a writ application this court but he awaited for a long time and has filed the present writ application 17.5.1993. In the meantime, as stated above, respondent No.8 was appointed on 3.12.1992 and work order has been issued to it on 18.12.1992. 24. The explanation for delay in filing the writ application given by the petitioners is that no information was given by the State Government or by the P. R. D. A to them their Design Concept has been cancelled and adverse order has passed- The petitioners could not know as to whether he was appointed as an Architect or not. 24. The explanation for delay in filing the writ application given by the petitioners is that no information was given by the State Government or by the P. R. D. A to them their Design Concept has been cancelled and adverse order has passed- The petitioners could not know as to whether he was appointed as an Architect or not. For the first time, on 28.3.1993 when a news item was published in a daily newspaper the Nav Bharat Times he came to know about the allotment of work to the respondent No 8 and thereafter he filed the present writ application a copy of the said news item has been annexed as Annexure-32 of the writ application. It is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary one and in exercise of its discretionary power the High Court does not assist thoso who are sleepy, tardy, acquiescent and lethargic. Due to belated resort to writ jurisdiction the person become disentitled to the relief as granting relief at a belated stage is likely to cause public inconvenience. It will also prejudice and affect the rights accrued in favour of 3rd party. The apex Court in case of State of Madhya. Pradesh and Ors etc- V/s. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors ete. (1987 Supreme Court 251), held in paragraph 23 as follows : "now it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the party of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and as such delay is not satisfactorily/explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of latches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. If there is inordinate delay on the party of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and as such delay is not satisfactorily/explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of latches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of infliecting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled wifh the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weights with the high Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction. We do not think it necessary to burden this judgment with reference to various decisions of this Court where it has been emphasised time and again that where there is inordinate and unexplained delay and third party rights are created in the intervening period, the High Court would decline to interfere, even if the State action explained of is un-constiutional or illegal. We may only mention in the passing two decisions of this Court one in Ramanna Dayaram Shetty V/s. International Airport Authority of india, (1979) 3 SCR 1014 3 ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) and the other in Ashok Kumar V/s. Collector of Raipur, (1980) 1 SCR 491 : ( AIR 1980 SC 112 ). Wo may point out that in R. D Shetty s case (supra), even though the State action was held to be unconstitutional as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the writ petition had been filed by the petitioner more than five months after the acceptance of the tender of the fourth respondent had incurred considerable expenditure aggregating to about Rs 1 25 lakhs, in making arrangements for putting up the restaurant and the snack board. Of course, the role of latches or delay is not a rigid rule which can be cast in a strait-jacket formula for there may be cases where despite delay and creation of third party rights the High Court may still in the exercise of its discretion interfere and grant relief to the petitioner. But such cases where the demand of justice is so compelling that the High Court would be inclined to interfere in spite of delay or creation of third party rights would, by their very nature, be few and far between. Ultimately, it would be a matter within the discretion the Court ; ex hypothesi every discretion must be exercised fairly and justly so as to promote justice and not to defeat it. " 25. In the present case, if it is difficult to accept the stand taken by the petitioners for explaining the delay. When the protest of the petitioners was not considered by the authorities and they proceeded to take steps for appointing as Consultant on the basis of the fresh advertisement, in our view the petitioners should not have awaited for a long time and he should have come to this Court for redressal of his grievances he came here after more than a year after the fresh advertisement and as a result of which as mentioned above, the work order has been issued in favour of respondent No.8 He has filed several documents and from affidavits on record from which it appears that he has submitted plan maps and he has done more than 30% of the work allotted to him and huge amount has paid to him as stated above. Taking into consideration the said facts, it would not be proper to interfere to this stage by this High Court in public interest and accordingly we are of the view that on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the petitioners in moving to this Court, we are not inclined to exercise our discretionary in favour of the petitioners. 26. In the result, this application it dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed