In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.3.97 of the Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division, refusing to issue tender papers to the petitioner and for a direction on the said Executive Engineer to issue tender papers to the petitioner pursuant to the notice inviting tenders dated 7.1.97. 2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner is an undertaking of the Govt of India engaged in construction works. Sometimes in the year 1995, the Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division, Guwahati issued a notice inviting tenders for the work of construction of Administration Office Building at Panbazar, Guwahati. The petitioner was furnished with tender documents and was allowed to participate in the tender process. But the said notice inviting tenders was subsequently cancelled. Thereafter, a fresh notice inviting tenders dated 7.1.97 (for short NIT) was issued by the Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division, Guwahati, for the same work of construction of Administrative Office Building at Panbazar from the eligible contractors from the approved list of P&T, CPWD, MES, Railway, Local State PWD (B&R) and other allied Departments of Local State PWD eligible for tendering in respect of State PWD (B&R) for building works. In the NIT, the Central and State Govt undertaking were also stated to be eligible to tender on usual terms and conditions applicable to them from .time to time. Clauses 2 and 3 of the NTT which are relevant for the purpose of this writ petition are quoted hereunder: "2. All the intending tenderers (including enlisted with P&T & CPWD) should have completed satisfactorily atleast three building works each costing Rs.2 crores or two building works of aggregate cost not less than 6 (six) crores under Central Govt/State Govt/Public Sector Undertaking Departments during the last seven years. 3. The contractor (s) shall submit Income Tax clearance certificate and list of works completed and in progress of the requisite magnitude alongwith attested copies of certificates/testimonials of their satisfactory completion from the Department concerned obtained from an Officer not below the rank of an Executive Engineer In-charge of the work while applying for issue of tender forms" Pursuant to the NIT, the petitioner applied for purchase of tender documents in his application dated 3.3.97 which was received by the Executive Engineer on 4.3.97, but the petitioner was not issued with tender documents. Instead, the Executive Engineer wrote to the petitioner in his letter dated 10.3.97 asking the petitioner to furnish informations indicated in the said letter. The petitioner then in his letter dated 20.3.97 furnished some informations along with some documents. But by the impugned order dated 21.3.97, the Executive Engineer informed the petitioner that the certificate/documents submitted by the petitioner along with its application did not fulfil the conditions laid down in the NIT and that the tender papers could not be issued to the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner has moved this Court for appropriate relief. 3. At the time of entertaining this writ petition on 27.3.97, the Court was not inclined to pass any interim order restraining the respondents from opening the tender papers pursuant to the NIT on the ground that such order would cause inconvenience to all the intending tenderers who would come to the venue for opening of the tenders, but restrained the respondents from finalising the tender in favour of any party until further orders and made it cleat that the respondents may process the tender papers in the meanwhile. After notice, the respondents have entered appearance and filed their affidavit-in-opposition. 4. At the hearing, Mr. MK Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner being a Central Govt Undertaking was entitled to price preference under the Office Memo, dated 15.3.95 of the Govt of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises, and because of this price preference which would be to the extent of 10% above the lowest price quoted in response in the NIT that the respondents have sought to prevent the petitioner from participating in the tender process by not issuing tender papers to the petitioner. He further submitted that the application dated 3.3.97 of the petitioner for issue of tender papers along with the documents thatj were submitted along with the application as well as with the letter dated 20.3.97 of die petitioner would go to show that the petitioner had completed three building works each costing more than Rs.2 crores as well as two buildings of the aggregate cost of more than Rs.6 crores and therefore satisfied the conditions of eligibility stipulated in para 2 of the NIT quoted above. According to Mr. According to Mr. Choudhury, therefore, the respondents have acted arbitrarily and in an unreasonable manner in refusing to issue tender papers to the petitioner under the impugned order dated 21.3.97. In this context, Mr. Choudhury further pointed out that pursuant to the earlier NIT dated 5.10.95 in respect of very same building work, the petitioner was furnished with tender papers and allowed to participate in the tender process and hence the a respondents cannot treat the petitioner as not eligible to participate in the tender process for the very same building work pursuant to the subsequent NIT. 5. Mr. KP Sarma, learned Addl Central Govt Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, relying on the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the Executive Engineer made a mistake in allowing the petitioner to participate in the tender process pursuant to the earlier NIT dated 5.10.95 even though it was not eligible and the petitioner cannot take advantages of the said mistake of the Executive Engineer. He further submitted that the price preference for Public Sector Undertaking of the Central Govt is not relevant for determining the eligibility of the petitioner to purchase tender papers and that in any case the price preference granted to the Central Govt Undertaking under the Office Memo dated 15.3.95 of the Govt of India, Ministry of Industry, Department of Public Enterprises was upto 31.3.97 which has long since expired. He further submitted on the basis of the averments hi the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents that of the three items work which are mentioned by the petitioner in its application dated 3.3.97 for purchase of tender papers, the item relating to construction of central workshop d might be a civil work but was not a building work and para 2 of the NIT quoted above would clearly show that to be eligible to participate in the tender process an intending tenderer should have completed satisfactorily atleast three'building works each costing Rs.2 crores or two building works of aggregate cost not less than Rs.6 crores under the Central State Govt/Public Sector Undertaking Departments during the last seven years. So far as the remaining two items of e work were concerned, namely, building works of Central Agricultural Research Institute and Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council, he submitted on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit-in- opposition that they were not completed building works but building works in progress and hence the petitioner was not entitled to issue of tender papers. He further argued that the performance certificate dated 17.1.94 issued by the Director of Central Agricultural Research Institute did not show that the job of construction of Administrative Building, Central Library, domestic accommodation and other connected works amounting to Rs.6 crores of the Central Agricultural Research Institute was completed within the period of seven years. Similarly, the performance certificate dated 16th November, 1993 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council does not disclose the date of completion of work of main Administrative Building, Council B ha wan, Council Secretariat, Members Hostel Building and the like. Mr. Sarma, learned Addl Central Govt Standing Counsel, cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sterling Computers Ltd vs. M/s M&N Publications Ltd, AIR 1996 SC 51 , for the proposition that the power of judicial review of the High Court is not extended to fa examining in detail the decision of the administrative authority with regard to award of contract in favour of any party, but is only confined to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision making process. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s GJ Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 958 , in support of his submission that it is for the party inviting tenders to take a decisions as to how far the informations and documents furnished by an intending tenderer disclose that the intending tenderer is eligible for purchasing tender papers and for participating in the tender process and it is not for the Court to interfere with the decision of the said party inviting tenders by reading and construing the conditions in the NIT in a different manner. Mr. Mr. Sarma also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works, AIR 1991 SC 1579 , for his argument that it is for the authority inviting tenders to enforce rigidly the conditions of the NIT and not for the Court to interfere with such a decision of the authority. 6. It is true as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of M/s GJ Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka and Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works (supra) that it is for the party inviting tenders to enforce rigidly the conditions of the NIT and to take a decision as to how far the informations furnished by the intending tenderer disclose that the intending tenderer is eligible for purchasing the tender papers and participating in the tender process and the Court will not interfere with the decision of the said party inviting tenders d by reading and construing the conditions in the NIT in a different manner. But in the later case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , in which the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s GJ Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka (supra) was also considered, the Apex Court has held that one of the grounds on which the Court can interfere with the decision of the administrative authority in a matter relating to contract is that the decision does not satisfy the e Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, that is, the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and act ing reasonably couldhave reached it. The question which therefore has to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether the decision of the Executive Engineer to the effect that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of the NIT was such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it. 7. The question which therefore has to be decided in this writ petition is as to whether the decision of the Executive Engineer to the effect that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of the NIT was such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it. 7. A reading of clauses 2 and 3 of the NIT quoted above would show that to be eligible to purchase tender papers and participate in the tender process, the intending tenderer should have completed satisfactorily atleast 3 building works each costing Rs.2 crores or 2 building works of aggregate cost of not less than 6 crores under the Central Govt/State Govt/Public Sector Undertaking Departmentsduring the last 7 years, and while applying for issue of te nder papers the intending tenderer should submit a list of works completed and in pr ogress of the requisite magnitude along with attested copies of certificates/testimonials of their satisfactory completion from the Department concerned obtained from an officer 4 not below the rank of an Executive Engineer In-charge of the work. In the application for purchase offender papers dated 3.3.97 which was received by the Executive Engineer on 4.7.97, the petitioner mentioned three building works, namely, Office-cum-residential quarters of the Central Agricultural Research Institute at Andaman & Nicobar Islands completed in 1994, construction of Headquarters for Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council completed in the year 1993 and construction of Central Workshop for Northern Coal Field Ltd completed in the year 1992. The records produced before the Court by Mr.KP Sarma, learned Addl Central Govt Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, indicate that along with the said application dated 3.3.97 for purchase of tender papers, the petitioner submitted various documents/certificates issued by the Director, Central Agricultural Research Institute, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Superintending Engineer, Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council and the Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil), Northern Coal Field Ltd, Central Workshop, Jayant. The certificate issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil), Northern Coal Field Ltd, shows that the petitioner has completed the civil works of the value of Rs.447.86 lakhs on 30.9.92. The certificate issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil), Northern Coal Field Ltd, shows that the petitioner has completed the civil works of the value of Rs.447.86 lakhs on 30.9.92. The respondents however have taken a stand in their affidavit-in-opposition that the said work of Central Workshop of the Northern Coal Field Ltd completed by the petitioner cannot be considered for the purpose of finding out as to whether the petitioner is eligible for tender papers as the said work was not a building work but a civil work. From the items of work that have been indicated in the said certificate of the Deputy Chief Engineer (Civil), Northern Coal Field Ltd, it appears that the said civil work comprised of structural works, water supply, sewerage drainage and pumping works, land scaping and site levelling works for entire workshop complex, service trenches with cover, boundary wall, fencing and gates for entire workshop complex, ventilation works, machine foundation works, electrical consultancy works for entire workshop complex and piling works. From the nature of the aforesaid items of work, it is difficult to hold that the view taken by the respondents that civil work relating to construction of Central Workshop of the Northern Coal Field Ltd completed by the petitioner were not building works within the meaning e of clause 2 of the NIT quoted above is so unreasonable that no person properly instructed in law and acting reasonably would take such a view. 8. But along with the application dated 3.3.97 the petitioner had also furnished performance certificate dated 17.1.94 issued by the Director of Central Agricultural Research Institute and the performance certificate dated 16.11.93 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council which were to the following effect: "Central Agricultural Research Institute Performance Certificate M/s RPNN Ltd ( A Govt concern undef Ministry of Water Resources) have been entrusted and completed the job of construction of a complex for CARI consisting of an Administration Building, Central Laboratory, Domestic accommodations and other connected works amounting to Rs. six crores. This is to certify that M/s RPNN Ltd have done an excellent job at Port Blair for us. six crores. This is to certify that M/s RPNN Ltd have done an excellent job at Port Blair for us. Sd/ AK Bapdoyopadhyay, Director." "Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council Office of the Superintending Engineer (ADC): Khumulwng Performance Certificate Dated 16th Nov 93 I feel pleasure bringing it on records that National Projects Construction Corporation Ltd (now known as Rashtriya Pariyojna Nirman Nigam Ltd) has successfully executed the works worth Rs. 1000.00 lakhs in 36 months) of building Constructions for Headquarters Complex of Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council, Khumulwng, District East Tripura. The buildings comprised of the multi-storied prestigious structures like Main Administrative Building, Council Bhawan, Council Secretariat, .Members Hostel Building and the like including Overhead Water Reservoirs of 50,000 gallons capacity having height of 30.00 Metre and requiring high degree of supervision and expertise activities. The entire work has been completed despite the obstacles posed due to difficult approach and sporadic trouble faced commonly in such remote locality. The works having executed with quality and have been appreciated by Authority at the time of inauguration of the buildings. Sd/- (KK Sinha), Superintending Engineer." The performance certificate dated 17.1.94 issued by the Director of Central Agricultural Research Institute quoted above would show that the petitioner had completed the construction of Administrative Building, Central Library, domestic accommodations and other connected works amounting to Rs.6 crores by 17.1.94. Similarly, the performance certificate dated 16.11.93 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council shows that the , petitioner has successfully executed the building works worth Rs.10 crores comprised of main Administrative Building, Council Bhawan, Council Secretariat, Members Hostel Building and the like for the Headquarters Complex of the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council by 16.11.93. The said two documents filed along with the application of the petitioner for purchase of tender papers clearly indicated that the petitioner has satisfactorily completed two building works e of aggregate cost of not less than 6 crores under Central Govt/State Govt/ Public Sector Undertaking Departments during the last 7 years and was therefore eligible to purchase tender papers and to participate in the tender process. Yet, the Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division, Guwahati by the impugned order dated 21.3.97 intimated the petitioner that the certificates/papers submitted by the petitioner along with its application for purchase of tender papers did not fulfil the conditions / laid down in the NTT and, as such tender papers could not be issued to the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid deciskmof the Executive Engineer, Telcom Civil Division, Guwahati as indicated in the impugned order dated 21.3.97 was such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonable could have reached it. 9. In the impugned Order dated 21.3.97 or in the records produced before the Court no reason whatsoever has been indicated by the Executive Engineer for coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not eligible for the tender papers as per the conditions of the NIT. In the main affidavit-in-Opposition of the respondents however it has been indicated that of the three items of work one item of work was a civil work and not a building work and the other two items though building works were not completed works but works in progress. I have already held that the stand taken by the respondents that work of construction of Central Workshop of Northern Coalfields Ltd is not a building work is not unreasonable. But there is no material in the original records for the view of the respondents that the other two items of building works were not completed work. In a certificates dated 18.10.95 issued by the Superintending Engineer of Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 6 series, however, it is indicated that the work of construction of Headquarters Complex of the said District Council is in progress. In the said certificate the works done during the period 1988-89 to 1995-96 have been indicated as follows : 6. Work done during: 1988-89 Rs. 0.13 lakhs 1989-90 Rs. 44.68 lakhs 1990-91 Rs. 180.48 lakhs 1991-92 Rs. 304.14 lakhs 1992-93 Rs. 263.11 lakhs 1993-94 Rs. 44.80 lakhs 1994-95 Rs. 152.21 lakhs 1995-96 Rs. In the said certificate the works done during the period 1988-89 to 1995-96 have been indicated as follows : 6. Work done during: 1988-89 Rs. 0.13 lakhs 1989-90 Rs. 44.68 lakhs 1990-91 Rs. 180.48 lakhs 1991-92 Rs. 304.14 lakhs 1992-93 Rs. 263.11 lakhs 1993-94 Rs. 44.80 lakhs 1994-95 Rs. 152.21 lakhs 1995-96 Rs. 162.00 lakhs (works in hand for the year)..." It is evident from the aforesaid chart that only work of the value of Rs.162 lakhs was in hand during the year 1995-96 and that works worth more than Rs.6 crores had already been completed by the petitioner during the period 1988-89 to 1994-95. The aforesaid work of construction of Headquarters of the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council comprised of different building works, namely, Main Administrative Building, Council Bhawan, Council Secretariat, Members Hostel d Building and the like. Since, as per the certificate dated 16.11.93 read with the subsequent certificate dated 18.10.95, several of buildings of the said Headquarters Complex of Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council of the value of more than Rs.6 crores had been completed and only work of value of Rs.1.62 crores was in hand during the year 1995-96, the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition that the building works undertaken by the petitioner e for the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council were not completed works is one which no person instructed in law and acting reasonably would take. 10. Coming now to the contention of Mr. KP Sarma, learned Addl Central Govt Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents, that the performance certificate dated 17A.94 issued by the Director, Central Agricultural Research Institute and the performance certificate dated 16.11.93 issued by the ,'J Superintending Engineer, Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council extracted above do not disclose the dates on which the works were started and the dates on which the works were completed, I find that no such stand has been taken by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition that in the absence of dates of starting of works and completion of works, the authority was unable to know as to whether the aforesaid two works were completed by the petitioner within the period of seven years as stipulated in the NIT. The NIT nowhere states that the certificates/testimonials furnished by the intending tenderers while applying for issue of tender papers should clearly indicate the date of commencement of the work and the date of completion of the work and all that paragraph 3 of the NIT quoted above stipulates is that a list of works completed fr and in progress of the requisite magnitude alongwith attested copies of certificates/ testimonials of their satisfactory completion from the Department concerned shouldbe furnished while applying for issue of tender papers. In the application for purchase of tender paper, the petitioner had indicated the list of works including those relating to the buildings of Central Agricultural Research Institute at Andaman & Nicobar Islands and of the Headquarters Complex of Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council of the value of Rs.6 crores and 10 crores completed in 1994 and 1993 respectively and had also furnished the attested copies of the certificates of their satisfactory completion from the concerned authorities. The petitioner therefore satisfied the conditions of the NTT for issue of tender papers and the impugned order dated 21.3.97 of the Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division, Guwahati, refusing to issue tender papers to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy the conditions of the NIT was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and is liable to be quashed. 11. Notwithstanding my aforesaid conclusion that he impugned order dated 21.3.97 of the Executive Engineer was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and was liable to be quashed, I would have still preferred not to direct the respondents to start the tender process for construction of Administrative Office Building at Panbazar, Guwahati afresh and to finalise the tenders and award the work on the basis of the tenders already submitted by the intending tenderers for the work considering the delay that has taken place on account of pendency of this writ petition in this Court. But I find from the records that pursuant to the NIT, 10 intending tenderers applied for purchase of tender papers and only 3 tenderers were allowed to purchase tender papers by the Executive Engineer. The result is, only 3 tenderers submitted their tenders for the aforesaid building work and there is virtually no competition amongst the tenderers in respect of their tenders for the work. The result is, only 3 tenderers submitted their tenders for the aforesaid building work and there is virtually no competition amongst the tenderers in respect of their tenders for the work. Public interest therefore requires that the tender process in the instant case be started afresh so that more number of eligible and qualified tenderers can participate and submit competitive bids for the work. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.3.97 of the Executive Engineer, Telecom Civil Division, Guwahati is quashed and the respondents are directed not to finalise the tenders for the work of f construction of Administrative Office Building at Panbazar, Guwahati pursuant to the tenders submitted in response to the NIT and to start the tender process for the said work afresh. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.