P. G. Agarwal, J. — This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated.28.4.98 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Civil Rule No.. 1916 of 1998 (1998 (2) GLJ 221), whereby the civil rule was dismissed. 2. The facts, material for this case, in brief are that the Assam Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd, hereinafter referred to as 'the AFDC invited quotations from the intending purchasers to dispose of 20.787 MT of rice and 20.988 MT of pulses (approximately) which were unfit for human consumption. Quotations were duly received and, as many as, eight intending purchasers submitted their bid. The bid of one Sunil Choudhury was the highest hut his bid was rejected on the ground that he intended to use the article in question for distribution amongst SC and ST weaker section of the people. As the articles in question were unfit for human consumption the Committee rightly rejected his bid. The second highest bidder was the writ petitioner JP Sarda of Kharupetia who offered a price of Rs. 1,49,705.85. The writ petitioner's offer was rejected on the ground that he did not furnish the earnest money by way of call deposit as required as per the quotation notice. Admittedly the writ petitioner submitted a bankers cheque of the required amount of Rs.5,000/-. Thereafter the respondents accepted the bid of the third highest bidder, namely, Khokan Saha, who offered a price of Rs. 1.47,552,18. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition. As no relief was granted by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has preferred the present appeal. 4. We have heard Mr. AK Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. AR Barthakur for the respondents. 5. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that the bankers cheque stands on the same footing as that of a call deposit or call order, as both are negotiable and liquid and the authorities were there on a wrong footing, rejected the highest bid of the appellant. The learned Single Judge accepted the above contention and the relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows : "I have given my anxious consideration to the matter and in fact it appears that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the tender of the petitioner on that ground. The respondent/Corporation only followed the letter of the tender notice instead of the spirit. The respondent/Corporation only followed the letter of the tender notice instead of the spirit. But despite that infirmity, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India since the difference between the rates of the tenders of the two persons is negligible. The authority has already taken a decision, bonafide, keeping in mind all the relevant aspects of the matter and more so the public interest. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere in that decision making process since no injustice as such is caused." 6. Mr. Bhattacharyya referred the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Kasturial Laxmi Reddy vs. State of J & K, AIR 1980 SC 1992 has submitted that the action of the authority must satisfy the two test of (1) reasonableness, and (2) public interest. 7. Mr. AR Barthakur, learned senior counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the Govt. has the power to choose and it cannot be termed as arbitrary and in support of the plea he referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 . In Tala Cellular (supra), the Apex Court laid down the following guidelines for the Courts for dealing with the matters relating to public contract: " "(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expretise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." 8. There is no dispute that the authorities have got certain discretion in their administrative action and on mere offering of highest bid does not confer a right on a party to claim the contract. There may be other relevant considerations, such as, capacity to execute the contract technical qualification, quality of materials and so on and so forth. However, in the present case no such thing is involved. There may be other relevant considerations, such as, capacity to execute the contract technical qualification, quality of materials and so on and so forth. However, in the present case no such thing is involved. It is a simple case of sale of rotten articles of food, unfit for human consumption, which the respondents wanted to dispose of. The intending tenders had no job to perform except depositing the amount, and by accepting a lower bid no public interest would be served. The Corporation is bound to lose the amount of difference the two bids. 9. As the Hon'ble Single Judge was of the opinion that the bid of the appellant was wrongly rejected, the reliefs should maturally follow. We find no reason for depriving the AFDC of the enhanced amount offered by the appellant. The quantum of difference is immaterial. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order, whereby relief was denied to the appellant, is set aside. The respondents are directed to accept the bid of the appellant and take necessary follow up action. The decision of the respondent authorities in accepting the quotation of respondent No.4 is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.