M. K. Sharma ( 1 ) THIS writ petition filed by the petitioner is directedagainst the award of contract to the respondent No. 2 for supply of 40 PC ATS 386dx with Ink Jet Printer to Modi Olivetti; also the contract awarded to respondentno. 3, HCL for the supply of 140 PC ATS 386 DX with DMP, and also contractawarded to respondent No. 4, CMP for the supply of 150 PC ATS 386sx with DMP,with a further prayer for issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamusdirecting the respondents to award the contract to the petitioner on the quotedprices. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the present writ petition are that the petitionerexclusively deals with manufacturing and marketing of various range of computersystems from Micro Computers to Mini Computers. The petitioners have beenrecently awarded ISD 9002 Certification which is International Standard Qualitycertification. The respondent No. 1 issued an invitation to the petitioner toparticipate in the tender by their letter dated 6. 10. 1994 asking the petitioners tosubmit their quotations complete in all respects. The said letter dated 6. 10. 1994further contained a clause that the quotations should also contain broad details ofitems as listed in Appendix a alongwith price, all taxes, freight, insurance,installation, warranty, maintenance and annual maintenance charges after warranty expires. According to the petitioner, the requisite forms duly and fully filledin were submitted. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 held interview individually ofall the invitees including the petitioner. However, respondent No. 1 by letter dated24. 2. 1995 awarded contracts to the respondents No. 2 and 4 inspite of the fact that thepetitioner was the lowest in the tender. ( 3 ) BY our order dated 2. 3. 1995 passed in the aforesaid writ petition wedirected the respondent No. 1 to produce the relevant file before us and onproduction of the same before this Court we directed the respondents to file anaffidavit explaining the contents of the record. The respondent No. 1 has filed thereply affidavit. ( 4 ) WE have carefully perused and considered the records of the case placedbefore us by the respondent No. 1. Mr. Bhasin, learned Counsel for the petitionersubmitted before us that the petitioner is the lowest in his bid and accordingly heshould have been awarded the contract in preference to the respondents No. 2 and4. ( 4 ) WE have carefully perused and considered the records of the case placedbefore us by the respondent No. 1. Mr. Bhasin, learned Counsel for the petitionersubmitted before us that the petitioner is the lowest in his bid and accordingly heshould have been awarded the contract in preference to the respondents No. 2 and4. He further submitted that the decision of the respondent No. 1 in awarding thecontracts to respondents No. 2 and 4 is irrational and unreasonable and according tohim conditions have been brought in by the respondents with the sole idea ofousting him from getting the contracts. ( 5 ) WE have also heard Mr. Shali, the learned Counsel appearing for therespondent on the issues raised before us by the petitioner. ( 6 ) ON perusal of the records we find that the Price Negotiation Committeesubmitted a report on the negotiations held on 18th and 19/01/1995. The saidcommittee "after detailed discussion and after considering prevailing markettrend as well as the annual maintenance charge awarded during the last few yearsof maintenance of personal computers in its report has recorded that the offer of thepetitioner of an extended warranty followed by a rather low AMC rate appearedto be a bidding strategy and that no credence ought to be given to the same. It isfurther recorded in the said report that the quote of M/s. HCL - HP was lowest for386dx with DMP and for 386 DX with IJP. The Committee had decided torecommend M/s. Modi Olivetti in view of the Super VGA Monitor (SVGA), higherhard disc capacity offered and the higher file transfer speed. It may however, beementioned herein that one of the Committee members namely -the Financerepresentative in the said Committee gave a dissenting note thereto stating thereinthat though the quotes of M/s. HCL -HP were the lowest for PC AT 386 DX withdmp without AMC being taken into consideration, however, once AMC for 5 yearsis taken into account then the petitioner becomes the lowest and the differencebetween M/s. HCL-HP vis-a-vis the petitioner works out to Rs-8. 08 lacs, which isa very substantial amount. Similarly, according to him there would be a differenceof Rs. 2. 78 lacs in the case of the bid of M/s. Modi Olivetti vis-a-vis the petitionerand about Rs. 3. 01 lacs for PC AT 386 DX with IJP with AMC being taken intoconsideration. 08 lacs, which isa very substantial amount. Similarly, according to him there would be a differenceof Rs. 2. 78 lacs in the case of the bid of M/s. Modi Olivetti vis-a-vis the petitionerand about Rs. 3. 01 lacs for PC AT 386 DX with IJP with AMC being taken intoconsideration. The records further disclosed that the aforesaid dissenting note ofthe Finance Representative was circulated amongst the other members of the Price Negotiation Committee, who considered the same dissenting note alongwith theirearlier decision and on careful consideration of the same came to a definiteconclusion that the petitioner using a 3 years free guarantee followed by 3. 5% AMCfor 3 years is a clever bid to bag the contract at a higher price. It further held thatthe track record of DCM on maintenance of PCs is not something which inspiresconfidence. The Committee further recorded that the fact that out of 138 PCspurchased from them in December, 1993,16 developed major problems includinghard-disk drive failure within one year of installation. Considering all the aforesaid aspects the Committee, except the Finance Representative came to the conclusion that they see no reason to re-consider the decision arrived at on 18th/1 9/01/1995. ( 7 ) IN Sterling Computers Limited v. M/s. M and N Publications Limited;reported in 1993 (1) SCC 445 the Apex Court observed as follows:-"under some special circumstances a discretion has to be conceded to theauthorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess theover all situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract beawarded and at what terms. If the decisions have been taken in bona fidemanner although not strictly following the norms laid down by the Courts,such decisions are upheld on the principle laid down by Justice Holmes, thatcourts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions mustgrant certain measure of freedom of play in the joints to executive". ( 8 ) AGAIN in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation; reportedin 1993 (3) SCC 499, the Apex Court held thus "the Government had the right toeither except or reject the lowest offer, but that of course is done on a policy andshould be on some rational or reasonable grounds. " ( 9 ) IN Tata Cellularv. ( 8 ) AGAIN in Union of India v. Hindustan Development Corporation; reportedin 1993 (3) SCC 499, the Apex Court held thus "the Government had the right toeither except or reject the lowest offer, but that of course is done on a policy andshould be on some rational or reasonable grounds. " ( 9 ) IN Tata Cellularv. Union of India; reported in JT 1994 (4) SC 532, it has beenheld that "the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal to merely review the mannerin which the decision was made". It has further been held "the Court does not havethe expertise to correct the administrative decision and that if a review of theadministrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision withoutthe necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. " ( 10 ) BASED on the aforesaid legal principles when we examine the facts of thepresent case and the contents of the records produced before us, we find that thedecision/recommendations of the Price Negotiation Committee on the basis ofwhich the impugned contracts have been issued by the respondent No. 1 are basedon reasons. It is neither our duty nor our intention to substitute our opinion to thatof the experts in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in relation to the scopeof judicial review REFERRED TO herein above. The Court is hardly equipped tometiculously Judge and examine the feasibility and correctness of the decision/recommendations of the Expert Committee and come to a contrary finding. In ouropinion, such a course is neither permissible nor desirable. The aforesaid reasonsrecorded in the decision/recommendations by the Expert Committee cannot besaid to be, on the face of it, in any way irrational or unreasonable nor could it be saidto be in any manner arbitrary. Further, it has been stated in the counter affidavitfiled by the respondents that the orders have already been placed with respondentsnos. 2 to 4 on 24. 2. 1995 and that the entire contract is at very advanced stage ofimplementation and that the said purchases have to be effected during the presentfinancial year which is expiring on 31. 3. 1995. In view of the aforesaid facts statedin the affidavit, interfering with the order awarding contracts to the respondents 2and 4 may involve heavy administrative burden and lead to delay and possiblefinancial complications in a vital field like Defence. 3. 1995. In view of the aforesaid facts statedin the affidavit, interfering with the order awarding contracts to the respondents 2and 4 may involve heavy administrative burden and lead to delay and possiblefinancial complications in a vital field like Defence. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid findings, we hold that this writ petition has nomerit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. We however, make no order as to costs.