JUDGMENMT - H.W. DHABE, J. :---Parties by counsel. Rule. Heard forthwith. It will be convenient to dispose of the Writ Petition No. 2040 of 1994 which is claimed to be a Public Interest Litigation while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1994. 2. The facts in Writ Petition No. 1562 of 1994 are that, the petitioner therein is the lessee of Plot Nos. 183 and 184 situated at Ayurvedic College Lay out, Umrer Road, Bhande Plot Chowk, Nagpur. According to the petitioner, he has built up huge structure thereon consisting of Ground plus four stories each storey admeasuring 5500 sq.ft. as Carpet Area and the built up area is more than 6,500 sq.ft. in each floor. Further, according to the petitioner, there are other facilities such as Toilet, Water, Bath Room etc. On the ground floor. According to him, on each side, there is an open space of 17' wide and 100' long. There is also a facility of lift and two separate staircases to his building. 3. On 2-2-1993, the Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited i.e. the respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement in which it invited offers for housing its offices. The interested parties were requested to send their offers with full details along with the clear terms and conditions and Lay-out plans within 15 days from the date of the said Advertisement. Accordingly, it appears that the petitioner. M/s Parkan Developers, who are represented by the respondents 4 to 7, the Nagpur Improvement Trust and others sent their offers to the respondent No. 2 Corporation for housing its offices. The respondent No. 2 Corporation had appointed a Committee to go into the offers in this regard, by its order dated 17-2-1993. The said Committee consisted of very high officers of the Forest Development Corporation and also from the State Government. Perusal of the said letter dated 17-2-1993 would show that the said Committee was to examine the proposals and assist the respondent No. 2 Corporation upon the suitability of each building on the following points viz. 1. Rental, 2. Location, 3. Type of construction and its suitability for the purpose of the offices of the FDCM Ltd. and 4. Terms and conditions of the owners of the buildings. 4. 1. Rental, 2. Location, 3. Type of construction and its suitability for the purpose of the offices of the FDCM Ltd. and 4. Terms and conditions of the owners of the buildings. 4. The said committee thereafter visited the proposed buildings of the offerers and after considering the various proposals in its meetings held on 3rd, 4th and 5th March, 1993 in the light of the various criteria adopted by it, submitted the report of its recommendations to the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 Corporation. It appears from its recommendations that the petitioner was given 14 points, whereas M/s Parkan Developers and the Nagpur Improvement Trust got 19 points each. It, however, recommended that the building of M/s. Parkan Developers by name Rawal Plaza was most suitable as it had distinct advantages of being modern, clean, convenient having scope for alterations at the cost of the owner as per the requirements of the respondent No. 2. Never-the-less, it opined that the owner i.e. M/s. Parkan Developers should be requested to reduce the rent, after negotiations, with a view to reduce the financial liability of the respondent No. 2 Corporation. However, if for any reason the offer of the M/s. Parkan Developers was not acceptable it recommended the building of the Nagpur Improvement Trust in the Gokulpeth Market area as an alternative offer. 5. It then appears that the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 Corporation instructed the committee to hold negotiations with M/s. Parkan Developers for reduction of rent. Accordingly on 17-5-1993 the said committee held negotiations with the representatives of M/s. Parkan Developers and thereafter submitted its report to the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 in that regard on 18-5-1993 pointing out to him the minimum rent which the aforesaid owner viz. M/s. Parkan Developers was ready to accept and the additional facilities offered by it to the respondent No. 2 Corporation. It also appears that the Nagpur Improvement Trust was also specifically requested to suggest the solution for the vexed problem of parking of vehicles of the respondent No. 2 Corporation and its entire staff and in particular about closed and exclusive parking arrangements in its building in the Gokulpeth market area vide letter of the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 dated 10-5-1993. However, no reply was received from the Nagpur Improvement Trust to the said letter. 6. However, no reply was received from the Nagpur Improvement Trust to the said letter. 6. The committee however, again considered the rival claims of the N.I.T. building in Gokulpeth market and the building known as Rawel Plaza belonging to M/s. Parkan Developers, in its meeting held on 7-6-1993. Various facets of the rival offers were considered and ultimately after examining the rival claims on the basis of the comparative parameters, the committee was of the opinion that the offer of M/s. Parkan Developers was comparatively considerable befitting the Corporate requirements of the respondent No. 2 Corporation for its offices. 7. It further appears that on the basis of the report the committee the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 formulated his own proposals and placed them before the meeting of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 2 Corporation first on 14-1-1994 and thereafter on 31-3-1994. In the meeting held on 31-3-1994, the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 2 Corporation decided to accept the offers of M/s. Parkan Developers and to shift the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation to its building known as Rawel Plaza at Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur, from its present registered office in Papinwar Bhawan, 6-A, Nawab Layout, Tilaknagar, Nagpur. Feeling aggrieved by the acceptance of the offer of M/s. Parkan Developers, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court challenging the said decision of the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 2 Corporation. 8. It is material to see that after the offer of M/s. Parkan Developers represented by the respondents 4 to 6 was accepted by the Board of Directors of the respondent No. 2 Corporation, parties entered into a contract and even the building of M/s. Parkan Developers is actually occupied by the respondent No. 2 Corporation. 9. The petitioner has challenged the acceptance of offer of M/s. Parkan Developers on the ground that the area offered by it was not as per the advertisement in question of the respondent No. 2 Corporation published in the issue of daily "Nav Bharat" dated 2-2-1993 in which the area which was notified as required by the respondent No. 2 Corporation was 18,000 sq.ft. builtup area. The challenge also is that, even rate-wise, the offer given by the petitioner was much better as compared to the offer given by M/s. Parkan Developers, which was very high. builtup area. The challenge also is that, even rate-wise, the offer given by the petitioner was much better as compared to the offer given by M/s. Parkan Developers, which was very high. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also contested the reason given by the respondent No. 2 Corporation in its return for rejecting its offer, viz. that its building was away and was situated near the outskirts of the city. 10. It is well settled that all State actions, although may be administrative in nature, have to conform to the requirements or the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent No. 2 Corporation is undisputedly State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and its administrative actions therefore need to conform to the standards and requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. An Administrative Authority, as is well settled, has to act in a fair and reasonable manner. In the case of (Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries)1, (1993)1 Supreme Court Cases 71, it is observed that in contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law. A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good which imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action'. 11. In the case of (Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M N Publications Limited and others)2, (1993)1 Supreme Court Cases 445, it is further held by the Supreme Court that in contracts having commercial element, some more discretion has to be conceded to the authorities so that they may enter into contracts with persons, keeping an eye on the augmentation of the revenue. It is held in the said case that the Courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of "play in the joints" to the executive. It is also well settled that by way of judicial review the Court cannot act as a Court of appeal. 12. It is held in the said case that the Courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of "play in the joints" to the executive. It is also well settled that by way of judicial review the Court cannot act as a Court of appeal. 12. In its recent judgment in the case of (Tata Cellular v. Union of India)3, J.T. 1994(4) S.C. 532, the Supreme Court has laid down the following principles in para 113 of its judgment after taking review of its previous decisions : "(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure". 12(A). It is in the light of the above principles that we have to consider the question whether the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 Corporation in accepting the offer of M/s. Parkan Developers about its building known as Rawel Plaza is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. 12(A). It is in the light of the above principles that we have to consider the question whether the decision taken by the respondent No. 2 Corporation in accepting the offer of M/s. Parkan Developers about its building known as Rawel Plaza is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. As regards the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution that all persons similarly situated must have an opportunity to make their offers for giving on rent their buildings for locating the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation, the said requirement is satisfied in the instant case as the respondent No. 2 Corporation has issued an advertisement in a daily news paper regarding its requirement for housing its offices thus giving all concerned an opportunity to make their offers about the same. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the criteria which it has adopted in consideration of the offers are relevant to the purpose sought to be achieved by the advertisement. As regards this question, it is material to see that there is no dispute raised in this writ petition as regards the criteria which are actually adopted by the committee constituted by the respondent No. 2 to consider the various offers made by the parties. Even otherwise, perusal of the same or in other words the various parameters taken into consideration by the committee clearly show that they conform to the object of having a proper building at reasonable rate of rent for locating the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation. 14. Keeping this in mind, we proceed to examine the report of the committee which is constituted by the respondent No. 2 Corporation for examining the various offers/proposals received by it pursuant to its advertisement for a building on rent to locate its offices and to make recommendations in that regard. In considering the report of the committee, it is first necessary to see that it is a committee constituted of very high officers of the respondent No. 2 Corporation as well as the State Government. It is then necessary to see from its report that the committee has evolved certain criteria/parameters in considering the rival claims of the parties. In considering the report of the committee, it is first necessary to see that it is a committee constituted of very high officers of the respondent No. 2 Corporation as well as the State Government. It is then necessary to see from its report that the committee has evolved certain criteria/parameters in considering the rival claims of the parties. The statement enclosed with the report of the committee which is filed with the return of the respondent No. 2 Corporation shows that the said criteria are as follows : i) Area available with storey. ii) Rent offered including taxes per sq. ft. iii) Statute : Ready/Party ready/To be ready. iv) Location : Excellent/Very good/Good. v) Approach : Excellent/Very good/Good. vi) Quality of construction : First Class/Moderate/Old. vii) Ventilation : Adequate/Inadequate. viii) Water supply : Adequate/Inadequate. ix) Toilets : Adequate/Inadequate. x) Parking : Adequate/Inadequate. xi) Surroundings : Excellent/Very good/Good. 15. It may be seen that in the aforesaid statement to the report of the Committee about its recommendations made in the minutes of its meetings held on 3rd to 5th March, 1993 the Committee has not given any points regarding the area offered on each floor, the rate of rent including taxes etc. and the status of the buildings. It has however given points to each of the parties regarding the other factors considered by it in the aforesaid tabular statement. In particular as regards the location, the petitioner is given 2 points, the Nagpur Improvement Trust three points and M/s. Parkan Developers, 2 points. As regards the Parking, the petitioner is given zero point and the Nagpur Improvement Trust and M/s Parkan Developers are given 1 point each. However, so far as the total of all the points is concerned, the petitioner has received 14 points whereas Nagpur Improvement Trust and M/s. Parkan Developers have received 19 points each. 16. The Committee, has, thereafter, as already shown above considered the rival claims of the Nagpur Improvement Trust regarding its building in Gokul Peth Market, Nagpur and the claim of M/s. Parkan Developers regarding its building by name Rawel Plaza in Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur as they had secured equal points. It has evaluated their rival claims under the following criteria/parameters viz. The Committee, has, thereafter, as already shown above considered the rival claims of the Nagpur Improvement Trust regarding its building in Gokul Peth Market, Nagpur and the claim of M/s. Parkan Developers regarding its building by name Rawel Plaza in Kadbi Chowk, Nagpur as they had secured equal points. It has evaluated their rival claims under the following criteria/parameters viz. the area offered, the floors, rent with taxes, parking facilities, capital expenditure on partitions, Fire extinguishers, Elevators, Attached Toilet to M.D.'s Chamber, Washing place and Toilet for Drivers, and the protection from Direct sun. 17. Before considering their rival claims it had as instructed by the Managing Director negotiated with M/s. Parkan Developers for reduction of rent and for additional facilities which are contained in the minutes of its negotiations with it held on 18-5-1993. As regards the rate of rent with taxes, M/s. Parkan Developers had agreed to reduce the rate from Rs. 6.38 to Rs. 2.75 for its building and Rs. 1.25 for service charges per sq.ft. of the built up area excluding taxes. Inclusive of Corporation taxes, according to the respondent No. 2 as well as M/s. Parkan Developers, the said rate was about Rs. 5.15 per sq.ft. of built up area. From the Nagpur Improvement Trust, the respondent No. 2 had, as referred to above, called for solution to the vexed problem of parking arrangements for the vehicles of the respondent No. 2 Corporation and its Officers in the busy Gokulpeth market area. However, there was no response to the same by the Nagpur Improvement Trust. 18. The Committee thus considered the plus and minus points of the Nagpur Improvement Trust building in Gokul peth Market area and the Rawel Plaza Complex in Kadbi Chowk area belonging to M/s. Parkan Developers in its meeting held on 7-6-1993 in the light of the material available with it and it was of the opinion that the offer of M/s. Parkan Developers was comparatively considerable and satisfied the requirements of the respondent No. 2 Corporation for locating its officers. It, therefore, recommended its offer to the respondent No. 2 Corporation. It, therefore, recommended its offer to the respondent No. 2 Corporation. The criteria/parameters adopted by the Committee, evaluation of the claims of each party by it and its ultimate conclusion that the offer of M/s. Parkan Developers is comparatively considerable and satisfies the requirements of the respondent No. 2 Corporation for locating its officers can not be said to be arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. 19. So far as the specific challenges raised on behalf of the petitioner are concerned, the first challenge on his behalf is that the area which is given by the respondent No. 2 Corporation in its Advertisement is 18,000 sq.ft. built up area, whereas the area offered by M/s. Parkan Developers is less. Perusal of the advertisement would show that the area requirement respondent No. 2 Corporation as given therein is approximate. When the area requirement is given, in the advertisement, it does not mean that unless the offer of the area is exactly 18,000 sq.ft. built up area, the respondent No. 2 Corporation cannot accept such offer although it may be convenient to it and satisfy all its requirements. Merely because the area offered by M/s. Parkan Developers is less it cannot be said that the offer should not have been accepted by the respondent No. 2 Corporation, unless it was shown that the other offerers have offered the same facilities required by the respondent No. 2 Corporation with built up area of 18,000 sq.ft. or more as given in the advertisement at a reasonable or lower rate of rent with taxes. The above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the area offered by M/s. Parkan Developers was less and therefore, it should not have been accepted is therefore, rejected. 20. The next question which arises for consideration is about the alleged lower rate of rent with taxes offered by the petitioner as compared to the rate of rent with taxes offered by M/s. Parkan Developers. The rate of rent with taxes offered by M/s. Parkan Developers as worked out by it is Rs. 1.15 per sq.ft. inclusive of taxes whereas according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is Rs. 5.18 per sq.ft. The rate of rent with taxes offered by M/s. Parkan Developers as worked out by it is Rs. 1.15 per sq.ft. inclusive of taxes whereas according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, it is Rs. 5.18 per sq.ft. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the rate offered by the petitioner is lower and therefore, the respondent No. 2 Corporation would have gained by accepting his offer, particularly when area offered by it was also more. The calculations are submitted before us and it is sought to be shown to us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the rate offered by the petitioner would work out to Rs. 3.95 per sq.ft. built up area inclusive of Corporation taxes and service charges. However, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, the rate offered by the petitioner would work out to Rs. 4.75 sq.ft. of built up area inclusive of Corporation taxes and services charges. It is then brought to our notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the rate quoted by the Nagpur Improvement Trust was also lower than the rate quoted by M/s. Parkan Developers because it was Rs. 5/- per sq.ft. of built up area inclusive of service charges as the Trust was not required to pay any Corporation taxes upon its building. 21. In our view, if the rate was the only criteria for securing accommodation for housing the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation, there could have been some force in the above submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, but as is clear from the report of the Committee, the offers of the parties are considered and scrutinized not solely on the basis of the criteria of rate of rent offered by the parties, but also on the basis of the other factors/criteria/parameters which as we have held hereinabove are rational criteria which are relevant for housing the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation comfortably and conveniently. Moreover, there is no challenge by the petitioner to the said factors/criteria/parameters which have been taken into consideration by the Committee in evaluating the offer of each of the parties. Moreover, there is no challenge by the petitioner to the said factors/criteria/parameters which have been taken into consideration by the Committee in evaluating the offer of each of the parties. If the offer of the party has to be considered in the light of all the aforesaid parameters/criteria, then it cannot be said that only because the petitioner has offered a lower rate of rent, his offer should be accepted. 22. Of course, it is true if there is not much difference in other facilities offered by the parties the offer of the party which quotes lower rate of rent inclusive of taxes should normally be accepted as it imposed lesser burden upon the finances of a public body which is State within Article 12 of the Constitution. However, evaluation of the offers of the petitioner and M/s. Parkan Developers in the light of other factors/parameters evolved by the Committee shows that the accommodation offered by M/s. Parkan Developers for housing the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation is much more convenient and comfortable as compared to the accommodation offered by the petitioner as is clear from the fact that the total points awarded to the petitioner are 14, whereas M/s. Parkan Developers are awarded 19 points by the Committee. We shall refer to in this regard to some of the factors which are considered in favour of the offer of M/s. Parkan Developers by the Committee. 23. For instance, as regards the question of location or even assuming that 2 points are granted to both the petitioner as well as to M/s. Parkan Developers by the Committee, even location or situation wise the reasons for giving preference to the building of M/s. Parkan Developers, is that although distance wise the difference between them may not be much, the building of the petitioner is situated on the outskirts of the city whereas the building of M/s. Parkan Developers is situated in the heart of the city itself, not very much away from the market or the Railway Station. It is thus convenient from the point of view of location of the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation. The above reason cannot be said to be irrelevant from the point of view of location of the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation. 24. It is thus convenient from the point of view of location of the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation. The above reason cannot be said to be irrelevant from the point of view of location of the offices of the respondent No. 2 Corporation. 24. It is then pointed out on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Corporation that after the building of the petitioner was visited by the Committee it was found that although in its map it was shown that there was parking on one side of the building, there was no parking available because on the ground floor there were already trucks parked as the ground portion was given to the workshops. 25. It cannot thus be said that there is any illegality committed or that there is any breach of the constitutional mandate of Article 14 committed by the respondent No. 2 Corporation in rejecting the offer of the petitioner for housing its offices in its building. 26. As regards the case of the Nagpur Improvement Trust, whose offer, according to the petitioner, should have been accepted by the respondent No. 2, it is first necessary to see that the Trust has not moved this Court to claim the relief to itself. However, even on merits the decision of the Committee in giving preference to the building of M/s Parkan Developers and not to the building of the Trust is unassailable. It may be seen that since both had equal points in initial evaluation of their offers, the Committee, after seeking information from them, had again evaluate their offers and had thereafter recommended the offer of M/s Parkan Developers. In particular, it is material to see that the trust had not responded to the letter of the respondent No. 2 Corporation about solution to the vexed problem of parking in its building on the busy Gokulpeth market area. The trust did not provide it with closed parking arrangements which M/s. Parkan Developers did. It is pertinent to see in this regard that so far as the building of the Trust is concerned, it is actually situated in the busy market area of Gokulpeth where there is difficulty of parking of vehicles whereas the building of M/s. Parkan Developers is not located in the market area. However, as already pointed out it is not far away either from the market area or the Railway Station. However, as already pointed out it is not far away either from the market area or the Railway Station. Regarding the factor about the rate of rent with taxes offered by the trust being lower than the rate offered by M/s. Parkan Developers we have considered the said question while dealing next with the connected Writ Petition No. 2040 of 1994. 27. We now consider the claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2040 of 1994 which according to him is a public interest litigation which he has initiated as a public spirited citizen and a tax payer of this city of Nagpur. He has challenged the acceptance of offer of M/s. Parkan Developers by the respondent No. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the instant writ petition. What is sought to be urged before us is that the claim of the Nagpur Improvement Trust which is also a public body should have been accepted instead of the claim of a private party because in that case the pecuniary benefit would have gone to another public body. Although the above contention is sought to be raised in the instant writ petition, the Nagpur Improvement Trust is not made a party to the said writ petition, much less its consent obtained to show whether it was still ready and willing to proceed with its offer. We had therefore, directed that the Nagpur Improvement Trust should be noticed in this public interest litigation. 28. After notice, the learned Counsel for the Nagpur Improvement Trust has stated before us that the Trust is not ready to offer its building unless the respondent No. 2 Corporation gives it the rate of Rs. 7/- per sq.ft. of built-up area, because it proposes to have a lift in its building in question in Gokulpeth area. If this is the offer which the Trust makes now, it is pertinent to see that with the facility of the lift which is already available to the building of M/s. Parkan Developers, its rate then is much lower than the above rate offered by the Trust. As regards the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition, they have already been considered above. As regards the other submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition, they have already been considered above. The only factor in favour of the trust as compared to M/s. Parkan Developers was its rate of rent but now the said factor is also not in favour of the trust in view of the above offer of rate of rent of Rs. 7/- per sq.ft. made by it. The respondent No. 2 Corporation cannot now be compelled to accept its offer as urged on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition since it would cast heavy financial burden upon its exchequer. There is thus no merit in this public interest litigation also. 29. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 2040 of 1994 has relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and another)4, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1992, which lays down the same well known principles in regard to such matters, which have already been adverted to hereinabove by us. It is pertinent to see that in the said case, although there was no advertisement issued inviting offers, the offer of the party concerned in that case was accepted in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances in the said case. Moreover, no such proposition as is sought to be canvassed before us viz. that in preference to a private body the contract must be given to a public body, even when the rate offered by a private body is lower, is considered in the said Judgement. 30. In the result, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.