G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THE controversy involved in both the writ petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being decided by a common order. ( 2 ) THE Regional Food Controller. Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur issued a notice inviting tenders for handling and transport work of food grains/sugar for the centres in districts Gorakhpur. Bastl, sant Kabir Nagar, etc. A large number of persons including the petitioners submitted tenders. The Regional Food Controller accepted the tender of Satya Prakash Agraharl for the district of bastl and that of Satya Prakash Slngh Baghel for the district of Sant Kablr Nagar. The writ petitions have been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent No, 1 by which the tenders of the aforesaid persons have been accepted. ( 3 ) IN Writ Petition No. 23554 of 1999 filed by Radhey Shyam Gupta, the rates submitted by the petitioner and that of the persons whose tender has been accepted are given below : group Name of Tenderer Rate offered Transportation Unloading/ loading Kha Radhey Shyam 15% A. S. R. 2400% A. S. R. 1. Gupta (Petitioner)Satya Prakash 15% A. S. R. 2775% A. S. R. 2. Agraharl (Respondent No, 3) ( 4 ) THE rates given in Writ Hifdai Ram Chaudhary were as Petition No. 22861 of 1999 filed by under: name of tenderer /bidder Rate offered Hirdairam 1. Chaudhary (Petitioner ). Radhey Shyam Gupta 2. Satya Prakash Baghel 3. (Respondent No. 3 ). Transportation Unloading/loading 11% A. S. R. 2500% A. S. R. 18% A. S. R. 2400% A. S. R. 20% A. S. R. 2675% A. S. R. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel has contended that with regard to the district of Bastl the rates given by the petitioner Radhey Shyam Gupta for loading and unloading were 2400% A. S. R. while that of respondent No. 3 were 2775% A. S. R. Similarly, with regard to the district of Sant Kabir Nagar the rates given by the petitioner Hirdai Ram Chaudhary were 11% A. S. R. for transportation work and for loading and unloading 2500% A. S. R. , while that of Satya Prakash Singh Baghel respondent no. 3 the rates were 20% A. S. R. and 2675% A. S. R. respectively. 3 the rates were 20% A. S. R. and 2675% A. S. R. respectively. However respondent No. 1 finalised the tender in favour of respondent No. 3 at the same rate which was initially offered by the petitioner after entering into post tender negotiations with them. It is asserted that the action of respondent No. 1 in not accepting tenders offered by the petitioners, which were lowest, but entering into negotiations with other parties who had offered higher tender was wholly Illegal and the contracts awarded to them deserve to be quashed on this ground alone. ( 6 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 it has been pleaded that in the tender notice it was mentioned that the respondent No. 1 reserves his right to accept or reject any tender without assigning any reason. It is further pleaded that the condition No. 16 of the tender was that preference will be given to the party who had their own trucks. The tender documents revealed that the petitioners did not possess their own trucks and as such their tenders were rejected. ( 7 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel. The record shows that in Writ Petition No. 23554 of 1999 offer made by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 with regard to transportation work was equal as both had submitted a tender of 15% A. S. R. So far as the rates regarding loading and unloading are concerned, the petitioner-Radhey Shyam gupta offered 2400% A. S. R, while respondent No. 3 had offered 2775% A. S. R. As such his tender was higher. in Writ Petition No. 22861 of 1999 with regard to transportation work, the pelittoner-Hirdal Ram Chaudhary had offered 11% A. S. R. while respondent No. 3 had offered 20% A. S. R. With regard to loading and unloading, the petitioner offered 2500% A. S. R. while respondent No. 3 had offered 2675% A. S. R. Thus, the tender of respondent No. 3 was definitely higher than that of the petitioner. However ultimately after negotiations, respondent No. 3 of both the writ petitions offered to do the work on the same rates as offered by the lowest tenderer. Thus. It cannot be said that the department has suffered any financial loss on account of acceptance of tenders submitted by respondent No. 3. However ultimately after negotiations, respondent No. 3 of both the writ petitions offered to do the work on the same rates as offered by the lowest tenderer. Thus. It cannot be said that the department has suffered any financial loss on account of acceptance of tenders submitted by respondent No. 3. ( 8 ) IT is stated in the counter-affidavlt that the condition No. 16 of the tender document provided that a preference will be given to the party who had their own trucks and in the event of non-aval lability of the such a party, the tender offered by the person who did not possess his own truck would be considered. The reason given for not accepting the tender offered by the petitioners is that they did not possess their own trucks and consequently their tenders were rejected. It is stated in para 6 of the counter-affidavit that the persons submitting tenders were required to file copy of the certificate issued by Regional Transport Officer to show that they possess trucks. As the said certificate had not been attached, the petitioners were required to furnish certificates from the office of Regional Transport Officer. However instead of doing so, the petitioners filed affidavit stating that they have their own trucks. The respondent No. 1 rejected the tender submitted by the petitioners as the certificates were not filed, in view of the specific condition laid down in the tender document, action of respondent No. 1 in rejecting the tender submitted by the petitioners on the ground that they did not furnish the certificate from the office of regional Transport Officer to the effect that they possessed trucks, cannot be held to be bad in law. ( 9 ) A copy of the notice issued by the Regional Food Controller inviting tenders has been filed as annexure-2 to the Writ Petition No. 22861 of 1999. It clearly mentions that the Regional Food controller will have an absolute right to accept or reject any tender without assigning any reason. Similar clause in the notice inviting tenders came up for consideration in P. R Quenim v. M. K. Tandel. It clearly mentions that the Regional Food controller will have an absolute right to accept or reject any tender without assigning any reason. Similar clause in the notice inviting tenders came up for consideration in P. R Quenim v. M. K. Tandel. AIR 1974 SC 651 , and in paragraph 12 of the report, It was held as under : "a Clause in tender for lease of distillery by which the Government reserves the right to select any tender or reject all tenders without assigning any reason therefor is not violatlve of Article 14. Thus, the Government is not bound to accept the tender of the person who offers the highest amount. " Similar view was taken in State of U. P. v. Vijay Bahadur Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1234 ; Union of india v. Hindustan Development Corporation, AIR 1994 SC 998 and Tata Cellular v. Union of india, AIR 1996 SC 11 (Paragraphs 85 and 112 ). The same principle was reiterated in a recent decision rendered in Raunaq international Ltd. v. 1. V. R. Construction Ltd. , 1999 (1) SCC 493, where in paragraph 16 it was observed as under :"it is also necessary to remember that price may not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. Often when an evaluation committee of experts is appointed to evaluate offers, the expert committees special knowledge plays a decisive role in deciding which is the best offer price offered is only one of the criteria. The past record of the tenderers, the quality of the goods or services which are offered, assessing such quality on the basis of the past performance of the tenderer, its market reputation and so on all play an important role in deciding to whom the contract should be awarded. At times, a higher price for a much better quality of work can be legitimately paid in order to secure proper performance of the contract and good quality of work-which is as much in public interest as a low price. The Court should not substitute its own decision for the decision of an expert evaluation committee. " Therefore, the award of the contract to respondent No. 3 cannot be struck down merely on the ground that the petitioners had made a bid for a lesser amount. The Court should not substitute its own decision for the decision of an expert evaluation committee. " Therefore, the award of the contract to respondent No. 3 cannot be struck down merely on the ground that the petitioners had made a bid for a lesser amount. ( 10 ) THE petitioners have assailed the award of contract to respondent No. 3 by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The award of the contract is purely administrative matter. The principles and the scope of enquiry in judicial review of an administrative action have been considered in Tata Cellular case (supra), and it has been observed that the modern trend points to Judicial restraint while reviewing administrative decisions relating to contractual power of Government. Having given our careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that there has been any error in the decision making process relating to grant of contract by respondent No. 1 in favour of respondent No. 3. ( 11 ) IN the result, the writ petitions lack merit and are hereby dismissed. No costs.