S. K. KULSHRESHTHA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner said to be a society formed for altruistic object, has challenged the condition of the experence of coversion of 2000 dry latrines into pour flush latrines contained in Annexure- P/ 7, a pre-qualification tender notice, issued by the respondent No. 2 for purposes of allotment of work of conversion of 5000 units per group out of the total of one lac units estimated to cost Rs. 20 crores. ( 2 ) THE Director of Urban Aministration issued a pre-qualification tender notice inviting tenders from voluntary/social society and registered contractors of class A-2 and above category for conversion of one lac units of dry latrines into pour flush latrines; at estimated cost of Rs. 20 crores. It was stated in the notice that the contractors selected would be called upon to quote their rates group wise; each group consisting of conversion of some 5000 units, subject to variation on either side. The basic conditions for pre-qualification tender required from the registered contractors of Class A-2 and above an earnest money of 2 lacs while from the voluntary and social organisations, Rs. one lac in the form of cash, f. D. R. or national saving certificate. In relation to the voluntary arid social organisation, it was laid down that they should have the experience of conversion of atleast 2000 such units in the past. It is this condition which the petitioner/society has challenged as arbitrary and capricious. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the respondents had earlier entrusted such conversions given work order in this behalf, without insisting upon the past experience which is manifest from the order dt. 7. 6. 1997 (Annexure- P/6) sent to the respondent No. 2 by one International Institute of Sulabh System, which had been entrusted similar work in the past by the respondents without there being any condition of experience. Learned counsel submits that the condition of the experience of 2000 units introduced for the first time in departure from the earlier practice was arbitrary and capricious and was intended to exclude the voluntary organisations such as the petitioner which otherwise possessed sufficient skill and experience to undertake this work. Learned counsel submits that the condition of the experience of 2000 units introduced for the first time in departure from the earlier practice was arbitrary and capricious and was intended to exclude the voluntary organisations such as the petitioner which otherwise possessed sufficient skill and experience to undertake this work. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that not only that the condition imposed should have some nexus with the object but the nexus at the same time must also be reasonable and since the condition of this experience was introduced for the first time in departure from the earlier practice, the respondents were under a duty to place satisfactory material to. demonstrate the reasonableness of the condition apart from its nexus with the object. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the condition also on the ground that it introduces an element of hostile discrimination between the contractors and the social organisations as experience has been laid down only for the societies and not for the contractors, but this ground has not been pursued by the learned counsel in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents that none from this category has submitted any tender. ( 5 ) THE respondents have filed their return, in which the respondents have clarified that earlier similar works contracts had been allotted without any procedure having been prescribed or followed. However, after the 73rd and 74th Amendment to the Constitution of India, it was decided to formulate a policy to gradually pass over this work, hitherto undertaken by the Government, to the local bodies which necessitated formulating a policy for short listing eligible organisation and contractors capable of carrying out the work, on. the basis of their past experience. Reference has also been made to the disappointment suffered on account of some voluntary organisations and contractors having not completed the work in the past resulting in grave public inconvenience. the basis of their past experience. Reference has also been made to the disappointment suffered on account of some voluntary organisations and contractors having not completed the work in the past resulting in grave public inconvenience. ( 6 ) THE respondents have averred that within the area of 18 Municipal Corporation and about 400 Municipalities in the State, the work is to be undertaken at a very large scale and keeping in view the enormity of the task, a policy decision was imperative to provide for the minimum criteria to cross the base line of pre-qualification and thereafter the eligible contractors were to be subjected to the rigours of further criteria such as technical capability, financial capability, organisational capability, experience and over all estimates as reflected by the conditions of the tender forms supplied to the applicants. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that it is undeniably true that some experience in the field is necessary to undertake the work of such a magnitude and therefore the respondents are the best judge of laying down the criteria on the basis of their requirement. Learned counsel has also argued that it is for safeguarding the interest of the Government that the criteria has been laid down and once it is conceded that some criteria is necessary, then whatever criteria is envolved, it is bound to have some approximation. ( 7 ) THE key question that falls for consideratiohis whether the condition of experience of conversion of 2000 such units in the past as a pre-qualification for competing in the tender process is illegal for being arbitrary or capricious. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents cannot lay down a condition to exclude fair competition from those who are otherwise capable and equipped to carry out the work for which tenders have been invited Reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in ramanna v. LA. Authority of India and attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 thereof that the Government should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipient for its largess. The Supreme Court has laid down that a democratic government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal. Authority of India and attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 thereof that the Government should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipient for its largess. The Supreme Court has laid down that a democratic government cannot lay down arbitrary and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal. It cannot, therefore, pick arid choose the person with whom it will deal, and cannot, without adequate reason exclude any person from dealing. Reference has also been made to a decision of this Court in Adarsh matsyodyog v. MPRMVN, in which a condition of experience of 800 mt. fishing in a year from one reservoir as essential for being awarded the contract was struck down by this court as arbitrary. Learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in m/s. G. J. Fernadez v. State of Karnataka and Tata Cellular v. U. O. I. , in support of his argument that the condition was necessary for safeguarding the interest of the respondents and, therefore, no fault could be found. ( 9 ) WHILE there can be no two opinions on the point that the matters relating to the contract and dealing with the Government have a public element and there should, therefore, be fairness and equality, it cannot at the same time be disputed that the Government can lay down a reasonable criteria for safeguarding its interest evenin matters relating to the award of contract but the criteria should be reasonable and have nexus with the object in mind. If the criteria is evolved motivated to exclude healthy competition or to grant largess to a particular group of individual, it cannot be sustained. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the pre-qualification tender notice contemplates conversion of some one lac units in the group of about 5000 each at the estimated cost of Rs. 20 crores. The experience for undertaking the work of such a magnitude is, therefore, essential as the government is not expected to allow people to enter the field only to gain experience at the cost of the Government. What is therefore to be seen in the present condition is, whether the same has any nexus with the object and at the same time, a rational basis. What is therefore to be seen in the present condition is, whether the same has any nexus with the object and at the same time, a rational basis. ( 10 ) IN Adarsh Matsyodyog's case, the controversy was that the condition was tailor made with a view o grant largest the concerned respondent in whose favour earlier the rights'had been settled but further extension had been turned down by the Council of ministers. In the said case, the condition was, challenged as motivated to grant the benefit to the person in a round about way who could not otherwise secure the extension of the lease. The condition was being justified by the respondent/corporation in the said case on the ground that the condition had been laid down to ensure that the successful bidder did not abandon the work in view of the past experience of the work having been abandoned by other contractors. It was in this context that it was observed that the condition did not abandon the contract in mid-way. The other contention of the Corporation with regard to this condition having nexus with the capability to execute the work was struck down on the ground that if it was to see that adequate infrastructure and finance was available at the disposal of the bidder, the same, could have been laid down as a condition, directly. The facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable as in the present case, the condition of experience has been laid down uniformly to ensure that such organisations have some experience in the field before they are entrusted with the work of such of large scale conversion. The fact that nine such organisations who fulfill the said condition have submitted their tenders also excludes any hypothesis of the condition having been intended for the benefit of any individual or a particular organisation. The condition is a part of a complete policy for safeguarding the interest of the Government and cannot be branded as capricious. ( 11 ) IN M/s. G. J. Fernandez v. State of karnataka. the Supreme Court has approved laying down of a criteria in the NIT as a precondition for the supply of tender forms. In the said case also the NIT laid down the minimum qualifying requirements viz. ( 11 ) IN M/s. G. J. Fernandez v. State of karnataka. the Supreme Court has approved laying down of a criteria in the NIT as a precondition for the supply of tender forms. In the said case also the NIT laid down the minimum qualifying requirements viz. , that the intending tenderer should have executed civil and architectural works including insultation in a power plant, should have executed atleast 1000 cubic metres per month of concrete pouring and atleast 300 cubic metres per month of brick work at one site and that he should have had an annual turnover of at least one crore for each of the preceding three years. If the condition of the volume of a work can be prescribed, there is no reason why the present condition of experience of conversion of 2000 units should be faulted with, when the total work in contemplation is conversion of one lac units. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner with his dexterity and persuasive eloquence tried to create an impression that the condition was unreasonable as the matter did not relate to any complicated work where experience of such large scale conversion could be said to be necessary but when the matteris examined from the perspective of the respondents who are more alive to their requirement than any one else, it is not difficult to grasp the point of view of the respondents. The courts have recognised the vagaries in fixaion of cut of dates and there is bound to be some approximation in laying down the criterian of experience but what has to be seen is that the exercise is not motivated to confer any undue and un-deserved benefit on selected individuals or to exclude otherwise competent persons from the arena of competition. The principle of judicial review would apply to any exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies only to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. Since the respondents are the best arbiters of their requirement and their judgment does no suffer from any patent or latent arbitrariness, the court cannot interfere with the criteria evolved merely because in place of the experience of 2000 conversion, a margin ally lower experience would have been sufficient. Since the respondents are the best arbiters of their requirement and their judgment does no suffer from any patent or latent arbitrariness, the court cannot interfere with the criteria evolved merely because in place of the experience of 2000 conversion, a margin ally lower experience would have been sufficient. It has not been demonstrated that there is an attempt to favourany party and if the condition has been laid down to uniformly apply to the category to which the petitioner belongs, it cannot be struck down either as arbitrary or as capricious ( 13 ) IN the result, this petition is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their respective costs. Petition dismissed. .