Judgment :- K. Narayana Kurup, J. Heard counsel on both sides. 2. The State cannot act arbitrarily even in contractual matters is a principle by now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court and various High Courts. Even though the scope of interference by this Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is limited, in the realm of contract, once it is found that the action of the Government or its instrumentality is vitiated by arbitrariness which is writ large, this Court will certainly interfere in the interest of justice. On the facts disclosed, the present one is one such case where interference by this Court is called for. 3. The petitioner's offer for constructing Elanji Distributory Ch. 0 to 3415 meters including C.D. works having been accepted and recommended after due deliberation by the High Level Tender Committee consisting of the Secretary, Irrigation Department as the Chairman, the Secretary, Finance Department and Secretary, Law Department as members along with three Chief Engineers of Irrigation Department, the first respondent cannot brush aside and reject the tender on flimsy grounds as stated in Ext. P4. The reasons stated in Ext. P4 order of rejection of the petitioner's tender are two: The first reason is that "a separate item has been given for earth work excavation for medium rock including stray blasting and separate rate quoted for this work. This is not in accordance with the standing instructions" and the second reason is that "the estimate for the work was proposed on the 1992 schedule of rates and that since the rates have been revised with effect from 1.7.1997, a revision of the estimate is required to be done" and it is therefore, necessary to revise the estimate in accordance with the revised schedule." On a perusal of Ext. P4,1 am satisfied that the reasons cited for rejection of the petitioner's offer is absolutely without any basis. As regards the first objection, the frivolous nature of the objection is clear from the fact that the above mentioned work is shown as a separate work in all the schedules of all other works under the Irrigation Department. This is also true with regard to the other 12 works made mention of in Ext. P1 order of this Court. As regards the first objection, the frivolous nature of the objection is clear from the fact that the above mentioned work is shown as a separate work in all the schedules of all other works under the Irrigation Department. This is also true with regard to the other 12 works made mention of in Ext. P1 order of this Court. The tenders submitted by others with regard to those works have been accepted by the first respondent even though all those tenders also had the "objected work" as a separate head of work. As regards the second objection made in Ext. P4 it has to be noted that as is clear from Ext. P2, the High Level Committee had accepted the petitioner's tender along with the tenders of others for the other works as early as 9.4.1996. The first respondent had in fact accepted the decision of the Committee in relation to all other works except that of the petitioner and all the other works commenced as early as in May, 1996. Therefore, it becomes clear that the failure to award the work in favour of the petitioner is manifestly deliberate and meant to frustrate the legitimate claim of the petitioner. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the rejection of tender as per Ext. P4 is illegal and malafide and the same cannot, be sustained. That apart, as is clear from Ext. P4, the petitioner was not heard nor given any notice before it was passed. It is high time to remind the State that it is not and should not be as free as an individual in selecting the recipients for its largess. Whatever its activity, the Government is still the Government and will be subject to restraints, inherent in its position in a democratic society. A democratic Government cannot lay down arbitration and capricious standards for the choice of persons with whom alone it will deal. The aforesaid principle laid down by Mathew, J. in V. Punnan Thomas v. State of Kerala (AIR 1969 Ker 81 (FB) was approved by the Apex Court in Ramana v. LA. Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and has been applied repeatedly by the Supreme Court in a large number of decisions. To cite only a few: 1. Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K (1980) 4 SCC 1.2. Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628) and has been applied repeatedly by the Supreme Court in a large number of decisions. To cite only a few: 1. Kasturilal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K (1980) 4 SCC 1.2. Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. Lotus Hotels (P) Ltd. (1983) 3 SCC 379, 3. B.M. Minhas v. Indian Statistical Institute. (1983) 4 SCC 582.4. Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board 1984 (Supp.) SCC 161.5. Ram & Shy am Co. v. State of Haryana - AIR 1985 SC 1147,6. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180. 4. It may be noted that the High Level Tender Committee is an expert body and as such can be presumed to know the validity of the offer made by the petitioner better than any one else. In a case where a decision as been taken by an expert body after adverting to all relevant aspects, the State in spite of its dominant hierarchical position in the administrative ladder, shall not interfere with the same unless a manifest error in the decision making process is pointed out. The decision of the High Level Tender Committee is not vitiated by any such error latent or patent. If the decision of the expert body is based on proper materials and is not tainted by any extraneous consideration and the decision show proper application of mind, such a decision must be given the imprimature of a reasonable order and must be kept beyond the pale of interference by the Government on other considerations. There is yet another aspect to be borne in mind in considering the legality of Ext. P4. Ext. P4 decision has been taken without any reference to the expert body, viz. The High Level Tender Committee and once the expert body after examining the whole matter thread-bare and going the whole hog arrives at a decision, Government cannot unilaterally reverse the said decision without the consulting the Body. There is no material on record to show that the High Level Tender Committee was ever consulted before rejecting the petitioner's offer. 5. During the course of the hearing of this case, the respondents taking note of the legal position thus canvassed, has expressed their willingness to accept the offer made by the petitioner as recommended by the High Level Tender Committee. 5. During the course of the hearing of this case, the respondents taking note of the legal position thus canvassed, has expressed their willingness to accept the offer made by the petitioner as recommended by the High Level Tender Committee. For all the above reasons, I am satisfied that Ext. P4 is vitiated. Ext. P4 is accordingly quashed and there will be a direction to the first respondent to pass fresh orders in conformity with the observations contained in this judgment and settle the tender in favour of the petitioner as recommended by the High Level Tender Committee wide Ext. P2. This shall be done forthwith. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the revised schedule of rates is a matter which requires consideration at the hands of the first respondent if an application to that effect is made by the petitioner. Original Petition is allowed as above.