Judgement ORDER :- The question involved in this Writ Petition about the procedural fairness in the realm of allotment of contract by the public authority. The Respondent No. 2, The Chief Engineer, (TandT), Assam, State Electricity Board, invited sealed tender from reputed manufacturer-cum-Erectors for supply and execution of some works. This case is concerned with the tender specification No. ASEB/CE/TT/TR-67(B) for construction of 220 K.V. D/C Tower foundation erection of towers as per approved drawing of ASEB, string of zebra conductor ground wise testing and commissioning B. G. Railway track crossing by existing 220 KV D/C towers at 7 (seven) locations. Clause A-II-10 contained the provisions of past experience e.g. "The Tenderer shall submit their tender alongwith their detailed past experience. 2-3. As per the specification contained in bidding document tender was required to submit with his bids in two separate envelopes viz. the technical and commercial bid and other for the price bid. As per NIT if the bidder is not found qualified in the technical and commercial bid then his tender would be entirely rejected. 4. Altogether 4 (four) parties submitted their tenders paper including that of the Petitioner. On 26-12-95 the technical/commercial bid of the tenderers were opened and duly examined by the design circle transmission of the Board which is headed by an Engineer of the rank of Superintending Engineer. It was asserted by the Petitioner that on 6-2-96 the Superintending Engineer after examination of the tender had submitted his report after scrutinising and examining the matter in depth and forwarded the same to the Chief Engineer (T and T). The petitioner asserted the Chief Engineer is the final authority to accept or reject the tenders and in the instant case the Chief Engineer delegated his function to the Deputy Manager, Accounts and on the basis of Deputy Manager, Accounts note the Chief Engineer, (T and T) decided not to accept the tender of the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner he is one of the experienced Contractors in the line and more so he tied up with M/s. Ananta Chowdhury who is also experienced in the trade. But the authority without considering his experience and financial credibility rejected his tender arbitrarily and capriciously. The authority also fell into serious error on rejection of the tender on irrelevant consideration. The Respondents filed its affidavit and contested the claim of the Petitioner. But the authority without considering his experience and financial credibility rejected his tender arbitrarily and capriciously. The authority also fell into serious error on rejection of the tender on irrelevant consideration. The Respondents filed its affidavit and contested the claim of the Petitioner. The Respondents narrated that the contract relates to the matter of great public importance relating to construction of B.G., railway line from Bongaiga to Guwahati via Panchratna ghat across the river Brahmaputra and the said railway line to pass into various places beneath the high tension 220 KV line namely Agia Sinha line. According to the Board the authority while constructing the railway line the railways collected high earth for the Railway track and thereby vertical clearance between the said EHV line and the ground level drastically reduced far less than the statutory vertical clearance under the provisions of the Electricity Acts and Rules. The Board (ASEB) through its officers brought the same to the notice of the Railway and thereafter it was decided that the Respondent/Board shall renovate the existing line on all crossing points providing for required vertical clearance in accordance with its relevant laws as early as possible. After a joint survey the Board submitted its provisional estimate to the Railway and in pursuance of which a notice tender were so invited. According to the Board, the report of Superintending Engineer (designed) and the office note from the office of the Chief Engineer (T and T) were referred to Deputy Manager, Accounts for verification and scrutiny. The Deputy Manager, Accounts gave detailed report on 28-3-96 which revealed that the tenders submitted by the petitioner and M/s. Shri Ram Construction and Associates were not complete as per tender specification and hence were not acceptable. According to the said note nothing was submitted regarding supply of insulator and accessories of Tower, Conductor, Nuts and Bolts etc. As regards experience of the petitioner, he submitted information only of maintenance works and not original construction works of the kinds. According to the said note the Petitioner does not have required practical experience to undertake erection work of the kind which requires considerable knowledge and practical experience. According to the Board an affidavit of Mr. As regards experience of the petitioner, he submitted information only of maintenance works and not original construction works of the kinds. According to the said note the Petitioner does not have required practical experience to undertake erection work of the kind which requires considerable knowledge and practical experience. According to the Board an affidavit of Mr. A. Chowdhury was submitted undertaking to assist the petitioner in connection with the works, but the name was not considered sufficient to meet the requirement of the board and the alleged experience of Sri Chowdhury could not be considered as the experience of the petitioner. The said note also contained that the financial position of the petitioner was also not sound and adequate. According to the Board the experience of the petitioner is only confined to maintenance work and, therefore, respondents were not in a position to accept the tender of the petitioner. The Board also asserted that the tenders of the remaining two other tenderers, viz. DeeBee Construction and Transpower (P) Ltd. were found to be adequate for opening the price bid tender as they executed considerable number of similar works as evident from the list of works completed by them as shown in the list enclosed to the respective tenders including the Brahmaputra crossing 220 KV double circuit EHV line at Bhomo-raguri (Tezpur) and Panchratna Ghat (Goalpara) and submitted required papers. Accordingly price bids of the said two tenders were opened and the tenders (price bid) of the petitioner and Shri Ram Construction. were not opened. It was asserted that extension of B. G. lines is of prime national importance and is to be completed within the time schedule. The work of extension line is totally stopped on the aforesaid 7 numbers of crossing points as the earth formation thereunder had to be removed under pressing legal mandate as stated above, and after completion of the EHV line across the said 7 Nos. crossing points, the Railway shall have to complete the earth work and on due formation of solid earth the B. G. Railway line will be possible. According to the Board the work in question is of highly technical in nature and is required to be completed within the time bound programme involving huge costs. crossing points, the Railway shall have to complete the earth work and on due formation of solid earth the B. G. Railway line will be possible. According to the Board the work in question is of highly technical in nature and is required to be completed within the time bound programme involving huge costs. The Board further stated that the petitioner carried out the following work : (a) Switchyard and lighting works of Barnagar 33 KV and 11/33 KV Sub-Station. (b) Extension works of 132 KV S/C Sisugram Sipajhar line. (c) Changing of Disc insulators of 13(. KV D/ c Tinsukia Mergherita line. According to the Board, the above works did not relate to erection work. The Respondents averred that the certificates enclosed with the tender papers is not in conformity with tender specifications and since Sri Ananta Chowdhury does not belong to member of Contractors Organisational set up and no agreement regarding tie up with Sri Chowdhury was also submitted along with tender papers. The Board also submitted the record for perusal of the Court. 5. Mr. B. C. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in the matter of distribution of Public property as per Governmental contract the authority is to conform the equality clause and, as such, such authority cannot act arbitrarily and capriciously. According to Mr. Das it is the Chief Engineer alone who is to exercise its discretion independently without being influenced or prejudiced by any other authority. The discretion is to be exercised justly, fairly and without being influenced by any other agency. Mr. Das particularly emphasised on the note of the Deputy Manager, Accounts. 6. Mr. Das further submits that the Board while rejecting the tender of the petitioner, it acted in a most illegal fashion by not taking into consideration of the experience of Sri Ananta Chowdhury with whom the petitioner tied up and in this regard Mr. Das referred amongst others the following decisions : 1. (1979) 3 SCC 489 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) - International Airport Authority (Pr. 10, 11, 12, 20, 21). . 2. (1980) 4 SCC I : (AIR l980 SC 1992) - Kusturilal (Pr. 10, 15). 3. (1993) 1 SCC 445 : ( AIR 1996 SC 51 ) - Sterling Computers (Pr. (1979) 3 SCC 489 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) - International Airport Authority (Pr. 10, 11, 12, 20, 21). . 2. (1980) 4 SCC I : (AIR l980 SC 1992) - Kusturilal (Pr. 10, 15). 3. (1993) 1 SCC 445 : ( AIR 1996 SC 51 ) - Sterling Computers (Pr. 12, 1 3, 14, 1 8, 19, 25, 28 (of SCC) : (12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 26 and 29 of AIR). 4. (1994) 6 SCC 651 : ( AIR 1996 SC 11 ) - Tata Cellular (Pr. 70, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 81, 94 (of SCC) : (85, 89, 90, 93 to 95, 96, 97, 99 and 13 of AIR). 5. (1995 ) 1 SCC 478 : ( 1995 AIR SCW 275 ) - New Horizon - (Pr. 15, 16, 17,18, 19, 23, 40 (of SCC ): (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 42 of AIR SCW). 6. (1995) 2 Gauhati LR 66 - Dolloo Tea Co. (Pr. 15-18). 7. Mr. N. N. Saikia, learned Sr. Counsel for the Assam State Electricity Board on the other hand submits that the Board at all relevant time acted justly, fairly and as such there is no question of any procedural irregularity requiring interference from this Court. Mr. Saikia, also submits that the Board at all relevant time acted bona fide for completion to find out the most suitable amount the tenderers who shall be eligible to complete the work on national importance at the earliest instance. The concern of the Board is the completion of the task at the shortest possible time through an able hand and therefore, directed its mind to single out the best from the choices available. 8. The discretion to prefer the suitable person rests on the Respondents. While exercising its discretion the authority is duty bound to honestly address itself to the matter before it; legitimately exercise its discretion without allowing itself to act under the dictation of another body. It must act justly, fairly and reasonably without being influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations. In exercising its discretion it must not do what is prohibited to do. The exercise of discretion may be vitiated because of illegitimate consideration or because of the surrendering its discretion which will amount to improper exercise of power. Prof. It must act justly, fairly and reasonably without being influenced by extraneous or irrelevant considerations. In exercising its discretion it must not do what is prohibited to do. The exercise of discretion may be vitiated because of illegitimate consideration or because of the surrendering its discretion which will amount to improper exercise of power. Prof. H. W. R. Wade in his Administrative Law, page 368 (6th edition) restated the law in the following passages: "Closely akin to delegation, and scarcely distinguishable from it in some cases, is any arrangement by which a power conferred upon one authority is the substance exercised by another. The proper authority may share its power with some one else or may allow someone else to dictate to it by declining to act without their consent or by submitting to their wishes or instructions. The effect then is that the discretion conferred by Parliament is exercised, at least in part, by the wrong authority and the resulting decision is ultra vires and void." The professor above mentioned cited Canadian judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Roncarelli v. Duplessis, (1959) 16 DLR (2d) 689 at 705 in the same book at page 405. The observation of R and J as mentioned therein are extracted below : "In public regulation of this sort there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled discretion, that is that action can be taken on any ground or for any reason that can be suggested to the mind of the administrator; no legislative Act can, without express language be taken to contemplate an unlimited arbitrary power, exercisable for any purpose, however, capricious or irrelevant, regardless on the nature or purpose of the statute. Fraud and corruption in the commission may not be mentioned in sum statistics but they are always implied as exceptions. Discretion naturally implies good faith in discharging public duty; there is always a perspective within which a statute is intended to operate; and any clear departure from its lines or objects is just as objectionable as fraud or corruption. Could an applicant be refused permit because he had been born in another province or because of the colour of his hair? Could an applicant be refused permit because he had been born in another province or because of the colour of his hair? The ordinary language of the legislature cannot be so distorted." The liquor licence of the restaurant owner was cancelled by the Quebec Liquor Commission at the instance of the Prime Minister of the Quebec for the reason that the owner habitually stood as bailor for the members of the Sect of Johavahs witnesses. 9. The Rules and principles as mentioned above, however, should not prohibit the department or departments from consulting and deliberating and adhere to the policy laid down. There must be a qualitative distinction between deliberation and seeking views and thereafter honestly arriving at its own judgment and acting mechanically put the stamp of approval without due application of mind. 10. The principle of law has been laid down in Halsburys Laws of England (paragraph 31 page 33 - 4th edition) in the following way. "Acting under dictation. A body entrusted with a statutory discretion must address itself independently to the matter for consideration. It cannot lawfully accept instructions from or mechanically adopt the view of, another body as to the manner of exercising its discretion in a particular case, unless the other body has been expressly empowered to issue such directions......." 11. The Supreme Court of India in Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 (18) observed that the Commissioner of Police was entitled to take into consideration the advice tendered to him by a public body setup for this express purpose, and he was entitled to in the bona fide exercise of his discretion to accept that advice and act upon it even though, he would have, acted differently if this important factor had not been present in his mind when he reached a decision." 12. I have perused the records and the Notes tendered by the respective officers, including the comments of the Finance Department. The respective officer, expressed their respective view points from different angles. The concerned authority no doubt took into consideration the evaluations made by the officers at various stages including the view points expressed by the finance. These bodies are the limb of the authority and not a stranger body. The respective officer, expressed their respective view points from different angles. The concerned authority no doubt took into consideration the evaluations made by the officers at various stages including the view points expressed by the finance. These bodies are the limb of the authority and not a stranger body. The authority exercised its discretion genuinely and honestly and I do not find any infirmity in the decision making process in taking into consideration the view points of the Finance Department. 13. As alluded earlier that the discretion to select the best tenderer is vested upon the Board. In the instant case the Board examined the respective tenders. On examination of the tenders, so far as the petitioner is concerned, it is found that tender of the petitioner lacked some essential information. The experience cited, including the experience of Mr. A. Chowdhury, was duly considered by the Board and found that the said experience does not adequately meet their requirements. In short, the Board was not satisfied about the credentials of the petitioner and his collaborator for entrusting the work in question. Such evaluation of credentials are essential from any commercial point of view and, therefore, the consideration that are taken by the Board for assessment of the respective parties cannot be said to be irrational or arbitrary. The Board, considering all those aspects of the matter, found that the petitioner lacked the required experience and also found the financial position of the petitioner was not sound and adequate for undertaking the erection of the kind requiring considerable knowledge, skill, practical experience as well as the financial capacity. The considerations, those were taken by the Board, under no circumstances can be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The Board assessed the fact in an objective standard and tried to adjudge the best among the tenderers by considering the case of all the tenderers. 14. Article 14 has not interdicted the Authorities from ascertaining the best person from amongst the tenderers. The right to find out the best quotation from the available quotations cannot be branded as arbitrary. If the authority by keeping in mind the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution accepts or rejects a tender there cannot be any scope of judicial review. The right to find out the best quotation from the available quotations cannot be branded as arbitrary. If the authority by keeping in mind the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution accepts or rejects a tender there cannot be any scope of judicial review. This Court in Civil Rule No. 1316 of 1996 in M/s. 35 Pakaria Min Samabai Samity Ltd. v. The State of Assam disposed on 18-7-1996 restated the extent of judicial review in the following paragraph. "Article 226 of the Constitution has provided a mechanism to the High Courts in India by conferring the power of judicial review to over see that the authority acts lawfully in accordance with legislative will. The Writ Court is concerned with the legality of exercise of power to see that the actions of the authority are taken lawfully, within the legal limits of the power, statutory provisions are lawfully construed; the discretion conferred on the authority is exercised properly and the decision making authority have acted justly, fairly and reasonably. Writ Court is concerned with the legitimacy with the process of the decision making to ensure that the authority acted within the parameter of its power. But the judicial review is not to ensure "that the authority after according fair treatment reaches on a matter which is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eye of law" -. Recalled Lord Chancellor Hailsham in the Chief Constable of Noah Walse Police v. Evans (1982 (2) All ER 141). Judicial Review is distinct from appeal and like an appeal Court, the Writ Court cannot re-appraise the facts. The administrative authority as alluded earlier is authorised to exercise its full discretion within its legal limit, and accept one of the course available to it. In Secretary of Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Burough Council (1972) AC 1014 (1064) Lord Diplock observed - "the very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold different opinion as to which is to be preferred....." 15. I have given my anxious consideration in the entire matter and upon considering all the facts, situations, I have not found any illegality in the decision making process or any infirmity requiring interference from this Court. 16. I have given my anxious consideration in the entire matter and upon considering all the facts, situations, I have not found any illegality in the decision making process or any infirmity requiring interference from this Court. 16. In the result the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 9-4-1996 passed by this Court is vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed.