ORDER :- The first petitioner and the third respondent vied with each other to get at the contract to provide ground handling services in the first respondent Airport which is nearing completion. The third respondent was awarded the contract by the first respondent. The challenge in this Original Petition is against the above award of contract to the third respondent. According to the petitioners, the first petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company') has been operating at the Mumbai and Delhi Airports for more than three decades in the field of ground handling services to various Airlines including the third respondent. The first respondent as per Exhibit P-1 informed the Company that it was setting up an International Airport at Cochin and requested to submit a detailed proposal with regard to the entrusting of ground handling services at the Airport if the Company was interfered in the same. The Company as per Exhibit P 2 informed the first respondent that it was interested in the above proposal. Thereafter the representatives of the Company had detailed discussion with respondents 1 and 2. The Company submitted its detailed proposal in Exhibit P 3. The Company as per Exhibit P 2 informed the first respondent that it was interested in the above proposal. Thereafter the representatives of the Company had detailed discussion with respondents 1 and 2. The Company submitted its detailed proposal in Exhibit P 3. The salient features of the proposals of the Company were as follows : "(I) The Company would, at its own cost, procure and provide all the necessary brand new equipment at a cost of about R. 25 crores; (II) The Company would pay to the Ist respondent a licence fee of 11% of the Company's gross receipts from providing ground handling services at the airport; (III) The Company would further pay a sum of US $1,000,000/- to the Ist respondent by way of equity capital contribution; (IV) In addition to the foregoing monetary compensation and contribution, the Company would also pay to the Ist respondent rental for the area provided by the Ist respondent to the Company for parking and maintenance of the equipment; and (V) The Ist respondent would have the option, at the end of the contract period, to buy over the equipment and machinery, of the Company or to continue the arrangement." Later by Exhibit P4 the Company submitted three alternative proposals which were as follows : (I) pay licence fee to the Ist respondent starting at 11% of its gross receipts and escalating to 16% of its gross receipts from ground handling services at the airport; or (II) enter into a profit sharing arrangement whereby the Ist respondent would receive 30% of the Company 's pre-tax net profits escalating to 50% of such profits over the contract period; or (III) establish with Ist respondent a joint venture company for providing ground handling services at the airport." On receipt of Exhibit P4 the first respondent by letter dated 27-2-1998 sought certain clarifications with reference to the above proposals furnished by the Company. In Exhibit P5 dated 13-7-1998 the first respondent informed the Company as follows: (I) The Ist and 2nd respondent's decision to award the contract for ground handling services was on the basis of the highest offer; (II) Some agencies had recently submitted offers; (III) The Ist respondent had "decided to provide a fair opportunity to all the eligible agencies, one final chance to give their best offer before (the Ist and 2nd respondents) taking a final decision"; and (IV) The selection criteria would be :- (a) quantum of equity participation/interest free deposit offered; (b) quantum of annual licence fees (as a percentage of gross turnover from ground handling services at the airport); (c) the tenderer must provide all brand new equipment; (d) the tenderer must take on full management and responsibility for ground handling services, including manpower, thereby making it clear that no sub-contracting would be permitted; and (e) on the basis of the above criteria, the Company should submit its best offer on or before July 28, 1998 so that the respondents could take a decision and award the contract soon thereafter." 2. Pursuant to Exhibit P5 the Company by Exhibit P6 submitted a revised offer the salient features of which included the following points : "(I) equity contribution of Rs. 16,00,00,000/-; (II) licence fees commencing at 15% escalating to 20% over the contract period; and (III) an additional licence fee of 2% of gross annual turnover if the flight frequencies exceeded projected targets." Thereafter the Company was requested by the first respondent by letter dated 5-8-1998 to furnish a bank guarantee for 10% of its offered equity participation. By Exhibit P-8 the Company confirmed its willingness to furnish bank guarantee. Exhibit P11 is the true copy of the bank guarantee produced by the Company. Thereafter the Company learned from various press reports that the first respondent was going to award the contract in favour of the third respondent. Seeing the above press reports the Company sent Exhibits P16 to P19 letters to the first respondent . The first respondent did not respond to the above letters. Later, the Company learned that the contract had been awarded to the third respondent through Exhibit P20 press reports. These are the circumstances which promoted the Company to file this Original Petition praying to quash and set aside the decision of the first respondent to award the contract to the third respondent. Later, the Company learned that the contract had been awarded to the third respondent through Exhibit P20 press reports. These are the circumstances which promoted the Company to file this Original Petition praying to quash and set aside the decision of the first respondent to award the contract to the third respondent. 3. In the first counter affidavit filed by the first respondent it has been stated as follows : The first respondent invited offers from various organisations with regard to providing of ground handling services at the newly constructed Cochin International Airport. Letters similar to Exhibit P-2 were sent to eight companies and organisations who are in the field of the ground handling services. The object of inviting their offers was only to get the terms and conditions of the respective companies for consideration by the Board of Directors of the first respondent and to select the best suited organisation to provide the ground handling services. Individual offers were assessed considering the back ground and infrastructure of the companies , their financial capacity, experience and future benefits that may accrue to the first respondent in the matter of development of the project. The third respondent, Air India also submitted their proposals pursuant to letter sent by the first respondent. The third respondent is a public sector unit and the national carrier under the Government of India which had already offered support in a big way for the new Airport informing that they would be taking up the matter regarding equity participation in their Board meeting. As per Exhibit R1(c) the third respondent informed the first respondent that a decision was arrived at by Air India to invest Rs. 20 crores in equity participation and they are taking steps to get approval from the Ministry for that purpose. Offers made by the Company as well as by the third respondent were scrutinised by the first respondent and it was finally decided to award the contract to the third respondent. On a comparative analysis of both the offers the offer made by the third respondent was found to be more attractive than of the Company. With regard to the claims of the third respondent the counter affidavit proceeds to state as follows : "Air India is an Indian company and a public sector undertaking fully owned by the Government of India under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. With regard to the claims of the third respondent the counter affidavit proceeds to state as follows : "Air India is an Indian company and a public sector undertaking fully owned by the Government of India under the Ministry of Civil Aviation. They are the national carrier of our country. They are carrying out Ground Handling Services in most of the major Airports in India. Being the Airline operator in the country they will be able to provide substantial support to this Airport by way of operating their major services from Kochi also. They are operating around 15 International flights from the country every day. Since they are in the field of Ground Handling Services, and being a major Airliner in the country they have got substantive expertise in both the above activities. It is also possible that Air India can operate B-747 Jumbo Jets from this Airport to destinations abroad. It is also worth noting that Air India is offering their services in Ground Handling to around 38 International Airlines operating through the Indian gateways of Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta, Chennai and Trivandrum including major International Airlines such as British Airways, Air France, Emirates, Al Italia, Singapore Airlines, Delta Airways, Korean Airlines and Thai Airlines. Apart from their own aircrafts calling at various airports in the country Air India therefore provides ground Handling Services of the nature required at the proposed Cochi International Airport to over 30,000 flights per annum." With regard to the merits of the claim put forward by the Company the counter affidavit states as follows : "7. Cambata Aviation Ltd. is a public limited company headed by an NRI. They are claiming an experience of 31 years in the field of Ground Handling Services. However in these years, they are operating only to two airports in the country namely, Mumbai and Delhi and cater to only a few airlines. The annual turnover for the year 1996-97 is only Rs. 33.4 crores which is lower than the expected projected turnover of the Cochin International Airport in the field of Ground Handling in the first year of operation. 8. Further the paid up capital of the petitioner is only Rs. 2.29 crores and the general reserves and surplus is only Rs. 1.62 crores. With such a small financial base their offer to invest Rs. 8. Further the paid up capital of the petitioner is only Rs. 2.29 crores and the general reserves and surplus is only Rs. 1.62 crores. With such a small financial base their offer to invest Rs. 16 crores (almost seven times their paid up share capital) in the equity of CIAL does not seem a viable proposal especially for such a long term project of such an important nature. Moreover as per the final offer dated 28-7-1998 submitted by the Calcutta Aviation Ltd. it has been mentioned that the feasibility and the economics of their offer has been worked out based on an estimated operation of 15 flights a day. This may well imply that any drop in the number of flights will fell upon the feasibility of their financial bid. This also may result in the possibility of M/s. Cambata Aviation Ltd. claiming compensation from the respondent company for any drop in the level of operation of below 15 flights a day. It is also necessary to invest further amount of Rs. 25 crores on machinery and equipment meant for the Ground Handling Services if they are appointed as the agency for the above services in this Airport. Since the company insists for brand new machines to be deployed, this respondent has sincere apprehension as to how a company having an equity base of Rs. 2.29 crores and free reserve of Rs. 1.62 crores as per their annual report of 1996-97, even if the said equity limits is increased to Rs. 11 crores , will be able to manage the above investment apart from investing Rs. 16 crores into the share capital of CIAL to take up this contract involving a total cash investment of Rs. 41 crores. 9. It is also worth noting that Cambata Aviation Ltd. is not an airline operator which is an additional advantage so far Air India is concerned. And therefore Cambata's expertise and interest will be limited to Ground Handling alone. Therefore on a comparison of both offers either on experience, expertise infrastructure, financial capability the offer of Air India is superior to M/s. Cambata Aviation Ltd. in addition to the status of the Air India as a public sector understanding of the Government of India." 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent the following averments have been made. In the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent the following averments have been made. The allegation of the Company that it was providing ground handling service for Air India or Indian Airlines is denied. The third respondent has got fullfledged and well equipped ground handling set ups at the major international airports in Mumbai, Delhi, Calcutta, Madras and Trivandrum. 5. A reply affidavit has been filed by the Company. In the reply affidavit a judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court has been relied on to show the precarious financial position of the third respondent. According to the averments in the reply affidavit, the third respondent is likely to turn into a sick company, because the third respondent is experiencing considerable financial difficulties and is not in a position to fund expansion/moderation replacement of its fleet from its own resources and hence would have to look for external source of funds. The owner of Air India, Government of India, owing to budgetary constraints, is not in a position to provide funds for expansion. The reply affirmative further averts that the Company is prepared to invest Rs. 18 crores which may be bifurcated into equity participation and deposit in such ratio as the first respondent requires. 6. The third respondent has filed an additional counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the third respondent is provided ground handling services for 38 Airlines. A list of such Airlines has been produced as Exhibit R3(g). 7. Sri. P.K. Kurian, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Company has cited and relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court in order to drive home the point that the action of the first respondent in awarding the contract to the third respondent is liable to be struck down by this Court : Harminder Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1986 SC 1527, Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd. (1997) 1 SCC 53, Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651) : (AIR 1996 SC 11), Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M and N Publications Ltd., (1993) 1 SCC 445 : (AIR 1996 SC 51) and Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147. 8. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1985 SC 1147. 8. I need not discuss all these ruling one by one in view of the fact the whole gamut of this question has been discussed and decided finally in the ruling reported in Tata Cellular v . Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 : (AIR 1996 SC 11). In paragraph 70 (of SCC) : (Para 85 of AIR) of the above case the Supreme Court dealt with the parameter of judicial review of the Courts in the field of contractual powers by Government bodies, which read as follows : "70. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism, However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Art. 24 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Art. 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down." The duty of the Court in this matter to consider the question of legality of awarding contract must be in the following lines : (1) Whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers; (2) Committed an error of law; (3) Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice; (4) Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached; and (5) Abused its powers. Thus, the illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety alone be the grounds on which a Court can interfere. The irrationality or unreasonableness of a decision has been always asserted in the famous Wednesbury's case. Thus, the illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety alone be the grounds on which a Court can interfere. The irrationality or unreasonableness of a decision has been always asserted in the famous Wednesbury's case. The Wednesbury principle has been clearly put as follows: A decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the Court concludes that the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn. (1947) 2 All ER 680. Finally in Tata Cellular case (AIR 1996 SC 11) the Supreme Court formulated the following principles to be born in mind while dealing with this kind of cases: "(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 the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise 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) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." It is also pertinent to note that in Tata Cellular case (AIR 1996 SC 11) the Supreme Court interfered on the ground of arbitrariness and violation of principles of natural justice by the application of permissible parameters to set right the decision making process. 9. 9. The learned Advocate General appearing for the first respondent brought to my notice the following rulings apart from relying on the Tata Cellular case (AIR 1996 SC 11), Raunaq International Limited v. I.V. R. Construction Ltd. (1998) 8 JT (SC) 411 : (AIR 1999 SC 393), A.F. and Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd. (1997) 1 JT (SC) 309, Manual Thomas v. State of Kerala, 1987 Ker LJ 70 : (AIR 1987 Kerala 262) and Plantation Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. P.L. Agro Technologies Ltd. (1995) 2 Ker LJ 696. In Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. case (1997) 1 JT (SC) 309 the Supreme Court dealt with the question of interference of the Court in a contractual matter in the following words : ".......... We are of the considered opinion that it was not within the permissible limits of interference for a Court of law, particularly when there has been no allegation of malice or ulterior motive and particularly when the Court has not found any mala fides or favouritism in the grant of contract in favour of the appellant. xxx xxxx xxxx xxxx Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case .......... Therefore, though the principle of judicial review cannot be denied so far as exercise of contractual powers of Government bodies are concerned, but it is intended to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and it is exercised in the larger public interest or if it is brought to the notice of the Court that in the matter of award of a contract power has been exercised for any collateral purpose ............ As in our view in the matter of a tender, a lowest bidder may not claim an enforceable right to get the contract though ordinarily the concerned authorities should accept the lowest bid." In the case of Raunaq International Ltd. case (1998) 8 JT (SC) 411 : (AIR 1999 SC 393) the Supreme Court again dealt with the matter as follows : "14. Where there is an allegation of mala fides or an allegation that the contract has been entered into for collateral purposes, and the Court is satisfied on the material before it, that the allegation needs further examination, the Court would be entitled to entertain the petition. But even here, the Court must weigh the consequences in balance before granting interim orders. 15. Where the decision making process has been structured and the tender conditions set out the requirements, the Court is entitled to examine whether these requirements have been considered. However, if any relaxation is granted for bona fide reasons, the tender conditions permits such relaxation and the decision is arrived at for legitimate reasons after a fair consideration of all offers, the Court should hesitate to intervene. 16. 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 committee's 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." 10. Very recently this Court had occasion to consider the extent of jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in the matter of awarding of contracts by Government and other agencies in O.P. No. 14299/1998 (Vasudeva v. State of Kerala (1998) 2 Ker LT (SN) 52 and Kaikkara Construction Co. v. Govt. of Kerala, (1999) 1 Ker LT 254 : (AIR 1999 Ker 122). 11. What emerges from the discussions in all these cases is that a judicial review is always possible in the sphere of awarding of contract by the State or its instrumentalities. v. Govt. of Kerala, (1999) 1 Ker LT 254 : (AIR 1999 Ker 122). 11. What emerges from the discussions in all these cases is that a judicial review is always possible in the sphere of awarding of contract by the State or its instrumentalities. But the scope of judicial review is limited to see whether the selection of a particular tenderer is arbitrary or whether the selection has been made with mala fide intention. The Court is also entitled to dissect the process of decision making to satisfy itself whether any arbitrariness or discrimination has crept in the above process. Beyond that a Court cannot travel and analyse the matters in order to find out that a particular award of contract is liable to be interfered on the ground that the tender submitted by a particular person is more superior or beneficial than the tender accepted by the authorities. 12. Let us now analyse the arguments put forward by the Company in this case in order to see whether this Court can intercept the award of contract in favour of the third respondent. According to the Company, on the first and second respondents' own showing it has all the criteria set down by them in relation to the ground handling services. The first respondent cannot now introduce a hidden criterian in order to award the contract to the third respondent. The other grievance of the company is that the third respondent who is among those carrying out ground handling at other Airports, has not been meeting its obligations requisite for continuing to do so in as such as it is in arrears of licence fees payable as a condition of being allowed to carry out ground handling activities. Thus, according to the Company, the third respondent can hardly be considered more reliable in its ability and credibility to carry out its promises. The consideration that the third respondent is a public sector undertaking is not a valid consideration at all, because the present policy of the Government of India is to throw open the field of development and running Airports to private parties, and even to foreigners. 13. The consideration that the third respondent is a public sector undertaking is not a valid consideration at all, because the present policy of the Government of India is to throw open the field of development and running Airports to private parties, and even to foreigners. 13. Sri P.K. Kurian the learned Senior Counsel placed much reliance on Exhibit R1 (i) minutes of the meeting of the committee constituted for the evaluation of offers received for awarding the work of operating the ground handling services (produced along with the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent). In the above minutes of the committee considered the offers of five organisations including the Company and the third respondent. Thereafter the committee recommended the Company for awarding the contract. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the above recommendation should have been accepted by the first respondent without any demur. 14. The stand of the first respondent in its counter affidavit is that the Board of Directors of the first respondent had never empowered the High Level Committee to finalise the contract. The Committee was formed to study the offers in detail and to make suitable recommendations in order to facilitate the Board to take a decision. According to the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, the following are the grounds on which it preferred the third respondent. The third respondent, being a public sector undertaking fully owned by the Government of India is carrying out ground handling services in most of the major Airports in India. They will be able to provide substantial support to this Airport by way of operating their major services from Cochin also. It is also possible that they will be able to operate B-747 Jumbo Jets from this Airport to destinations abroad. They are also offering their services in ground handling to about 40 International Airlines in various International Airports in India. Therefore, the objection of awarding the contract to the third respondent is to ensure that ground handling services to be provided at the new International Airport at Cochin would be absolutely efficient, effective and compatible with international standards. 15. As far as the Company is concerned, they are operating only in two Airports in India. The annual turnover for the year 1996-97 is only Rs. 15. As far as the Company is concerned, they are operating only in two Airports in India. The annual turnover for the year 1996-97 is only Rs. 33.4 crores which is lower than the expected projected turnover of the first respondent Airport in the field of ground handling in the first year of operation. The paid up capital of the Company is only Rs. 2.29 crores and the general reserves and surplus is only Rs. 1.62 crores. With such a small financial base their offer to invest Rs. 16 crores in the equity of first respondent Airport did not seem to be a viable proposal especially for such a long term project of such a magnitude. The Company is also not an airline operator like the third respondent. The Company's interest and expertise are limited to ground handling alone. Therefore, on a comparison of both the offers in the matter of experience, expertise infrastructure, financial capability, the offer of the third respondent was found to be superior than that of the Company. 16. Thus, there cannot be any illegality, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision making process of awarding the contract to the third respondent. As always emphasised by the Supreme Court, the Court is not having any expertise to decide either the financial feasibility of the Company or of the third respondent or their infrastructure to handle the ground handling work. 17. Much has been said about a circular issued by the Vigilance Commissioner with regard to post tender negotiations which is likely to result in malpractice and corruption. But I do not think the above circular has any bearing on the present award of contract. In this case the contract was awarded to the third respondent, a public sector undertaking and not to any private individual or Company. There is no allegation that there was any corruption behind the awarding of contract by the first respondent to the third respondent. The allegation of mala fide is also very feeble. The allegation of mala fide is contained in ground G of the Original Petition which is as follows : "(G) The impugned decision is patently based upon/motivated by the thoroughly unwarranted pressure applied by the third respondent. The allegation of mala fide is also very feeble. The allegation of mala fide is contained in ground G of the Original Petition which is as follows : "(G) The impugned decision is patently based upon/motivated by the thoroughly unwarranted pressure applied by the third respondent. The impugned decision, consequently, is based upon influence and/or economic coercion/duress and extra-legal considerations and is, consequently, ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India." It is as vague as anything and cannot be countenanced. Moreover, the allegation of mala fide has been denied both by the first respondent as well as by the third respondent. Under these circumstances, I am unable to interfere with the award of contract in favour of the third respondent in this Original Petition. The Original Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Petition dismissed.