Judgement KHANNA, C. J. :- As prayed by the learned counsel for both the parties, this appeal has been taken up for final hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in Civil Rule No. 518/96 (Agartala) dated 28-11-96. 3. We have heard Mr. A. K. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, assisted by Mr. A. Lodh, and Mrs. A. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-1 to 4, assisted by Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Learned counsel appearing for the Food Corporation of India (respondent No. 1) has produced the entire original records pertaining to this case which have been perused by us. 4. The controversy in the present appeal centres round the question as to whether the contract which had been awarded in favour of the petitioner/appellant by the Food Corporation of India, in respect of that very contract, at a later point of time, part of the contract could be given to another contractor for carrying out the work which was to be done under the contract. 5. The question which has been raised in the present appeal depends on the interpretation of Clause-XIV of the terms and conditions which had been supplied at the time of inviting tenders by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the FCI). Clause-XIV of the aforesaid terms and conditions runs as follows : "XIV. VOLUME OF WORK (a) Subject as hereinafter mentioned, the Corporation do not guarantee any definite Volume of Work or any particular pattern of service at any time or throughout the period of contract. The mere mention of any item of work in this contract, does not by itself confer a right on the contractor to demand that the work relating to all or any item thereof, should necessarily or exclusively be entrusted to them. The Corporation will also have the right to appoint one or more contractors at any time viz. at the time of award of the contract and/or during the tenure of contract for any or all the services mentioned hereunder and to divide the work as between such contractors in any manner that the Corporation may decide and no claim shall lie against the Corporation by reason of such division of work. at the time of award of the contract and/or during the tenure of contract for any or all the services mentioned hereunder and to divide the work as between such contractors in any manner that the Corporation may decide and no claim shall lie against the Corporation by reason of such division of work. (b) Provided always that the Corporation undertake during the period of the contract the contractors shall in any event be entrusted with the work which would entitle them to a remuneration of an amount which would not be less than Rs................. (only).". 6. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Clause-XIV would show that the Corporation will also have the right to appoint one or more contractors at any time viz. at the time of award of the contract and/or during the tenure of contract for any or all the services mentioned thereunder and to divide the work as between such contractors in any manner that the Corporation may decide and no claim shall lie against the Corporation by reason of such division of work. Sub-clause (b) of Clause-XIV of the terms and conditions mentions that the Corporation undertake during the period of the contract the contractors shall in any event be entrusted with the work which would entitle them to a remuneration of an amount which would not be less than Rs. ...................(Rupees............ only). 7. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner/appellant was not the lowest tenderer but her position stood second. The offer of the lowest tenderer was, however, not accepted by the FCI as his performance was not reported to be good. Thereafter, the FCI decided, considering the rates offered by the tenderers, to go for negotiation and the contract was given to the second lowest tenderer, i.e., the petitioner/appellant at the negotiated rate. It may, however, be mentioned that, as contemplated by Clause XIV (b) of the terms and conditions which has in fact been executed between the FCI and the petitioner/appellant, no figure was mentioned. 8. It may, however, be mentioned that, as contemplated by Clause XIV (b) of the terms and conditions which has in fact been executed between the FCI and the petitioner/appellant, no figure was mentioned. 8. From the original records which have been perused by us, it is clear that from the very beginning the competent authorities of the FCI had put up a note as far as the petitioner/appellant is concerned, that she was not an income-tax payee and was only connected with another concern, i.e. M/s. S. K. Paul who were having contract work with the FCI and one of the partners happened to be the husband of the petitioner/appellant. In fact, it was noted that the petitioner/appellant was not even an Income-tax payee and her financial viability to carry on the contract, the figure of which was running over two crores, was therefore doubtful and right from the very beginning it was found that the competent authorities of the FCI had decided that parallel contractor be also appointed in view of Clause-XIV (a) of the terms and conditions and in fact at the time of approval of the contract which was to be awarded in favour of the petitioner/appellant, a note was put up that the process for appointing parallel contractor be undertaken. 9. From the original records which have been produced before us, we are satisfied that from the very beginning the competent authorities of the FCI had taken a decision to appoint two contractors in respect of the work which was sought to be awarded. The contract which has actually been executed does not specify that the entire work is being awarded in favour of the petitioner/appellant inasmuch as no amount has been mentioned which was required to be mentioned in pursuance of Clause-XIV(b) of the terms and conditions. 10. Clause-XIV(a) clearly stipulated that the award of the contractdoes not by itself confer a right on the contractor to demand that the work relating to all or any item thereof, should necessarily or exclusively be entrusted to them. If that be so, we are of the opinion that the FCI was well within its power to appoint parallel contractor in view of Clause-XIV (a) of the terms and conditions. 11. If that be so, we are of the opinion that the FCI was well within its power to appoint parallel contractor in view of Clause-XIV (a) of the terms and conditions. 11. We have perused the relevant file to satisfy ourselves as to whether the contract which has now been awarded in favour of parallel contractor, is arbitrary or mala fide and we are of the opinion that at the first instance the contract was awarded, as mentioned above, in favour of the petitioner/appellant who was the second lowest tenderer, and for appointing parallel contractor the FCI thereafter proceeded to negotiate with the third lowest tenderer i.e., respondent No. 5. In our opinion, therefore, the FCI has proceeded in the right way and the action of the FCI cannot be called to be arbitrary requiring interference by this Court. 12. Before parting, however, it may be observed that a bare reading of Clause-XIV of the terms and conditions would clearly indicate that in case the FCI awards the contract to two contractors, Clause-XIV clearly contemplates the FCI to devide the work as between such contractors. This division of work is also essential so as to avoid confusion and also to ensure that the awarding of work to the two contractors does not become arbitrary at the hands of the FCI and the work is given equitably to both the contractors. We are thus of the opinion that the action of the FCI in appointing parallel contractor is justified. However, the FCI should clearly specify the division of work between the two contractors and also the amount for which the work would be given so that the action of the FCI in awarding the contract to two contractors does not become arbitrary and it may amount to showing of preference to either of the contractors. It is also expected that the FCI which comes within the definition of State as given in Art. 12 of the Constitution would act fairly, equitably and reasonably. 13. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the judgment passed by the learned single Judge is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal is finally disposed of. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Orders accordingly.