JUDGMENT Ms. Kamlesh Sharma, J.—In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for, inter alia, the following reliefs:— (a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus quashing the acceptance of the bid of respondent No. 3 for the tender issued in January 1998 calling for bids for supply of Whole Body CT Scanner for Zonal Hospital, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh and alternatively issue a Writ Order or Direction restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from proceeding to accept the bid of respondent No. 3. (b) To issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing the letter No. Health-B (G) 2-12/93 Vol. II, dated 29.11.1999 of the respondent No. 1 issued in response to the representation of the petitioner dated 10.11.1999, which is Annexure P-8 to this Writ Petition. (c) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to accept the bid of the petitioner for the supply of CT Scanner for the Zonal Hospital Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, called for by the respondents 1 and 2. (d) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 not to take supply of Whole Body CT Scanner for the Zonal Hospital Mandi from respondent No. 3 and further commanding respondents 1 and 2 not to make any payment to respondent No. 3 from the public exchequer for any such supply. (e) To call for the records of respondents No. 1 and 2 pertaining to the tender floated supply of CT Scanner for Zonal Hospital Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. 2. In January, 1998 a short term notice (Annexure P-l) was issued by the Director, Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 2 for supply of Whole Body CT Scanner for Zonal Hospital Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh. It was stated in the tender notice that the list of detailed specification of the CT Scanner could be obtained alongwith terms and conditions of supply from the office of respondent No. 2. Complete tenders were to be submitted to respondent No. 2 by 17.1.1998. As per the note given in the end of Specifications for Whole Body Spiral CT. It was stated in the tender notice that the list of detailed specification of the CT Scanner could be obtained alongwith terms and conditions of supply from the office of respondent No. 2. Complete tenders were to be submitted to respondent No. 2 by 17.1.1998. As per the note given in the end of Specifications for Whole Body Spiral CT. Scanner (Annexure P-2) the equipment with better specifications will be preferred and only complete and correct quotation as per tender specification alongwith original product date sheets was to be accepted. 3. The petitioner has referred to the following salient prescribed technical specifications prescribed in the tender notice:— (i) The machine offered should have Low Voltage Slip Ring Technology. (ii) The machine should have Rare Earth Detectors. (iii) The machine should be capable of performing all types of Angiography, this means that the machine should be able to conduct colour Angiography also. (iv) The machine offered should have image quality defined at standard clinical algorithms. (v) The machine should have a computer which is at least 32 bit. (vi) The machine should have an X-ray machine with 3.5 MHU, or more anode heat capacity. and alleged that technical specifications i io iv do not exist in the machine offered by respondent No. 3 and technical specifications v and vi are better in the machine offered by it besides complying with all other technical specifications. It is further alleged that the tender specifications require the machine offered to have low voltage slip ring technology, whereas, the machine offered by respondent No. 3 is one of High Voltage slip ring technology which is an outdated technology and is not preferred in the market. High Voltage Slip Ring technology generates excessive heat while transferring High Voltage through brushes to CT tube. To cool this excessive heat generated, High Voltage Slip Ring Design requires water chiller/ heat exchanger. It is not only cumbersome to run, but also has to be accompanied by equipment to reduce the heat generated while operating the machine. This requires water and therefore additional space. The brushes in the machine have to be frequently replaced due to accumulation of carbon. These systems are prone to produce high image noise. On the contrary, Low Voltage Slip Ring Technology does not require all the abovementioned additional cumbersome accessories and also produces less image noise. This requires water and therefore additional space. The brushes in the machine have to be frequently replaced due to accumulation of carbon. These systems are prone to produce high image noise. On the contrary, Low Voltage Slip Ring Technology does not require all the abovementioned additional cumbersome accessories and also produces less image noise. The machine offered by the petitioner is of Low Voltage Slip Ring Technology which is the requirement under the tender. Interestingly the respondent No. 3 has introduced Low Voltage Slip Ring Technology based machines due to the merit of the said technology. 4. Another prescribed technical specification required in the machine is Rare Earth Detectors, which do not exist in the machine offered by respondent No, 3. Rare Earth Detectors are the most stable and efficient detectors, which are used to absorb the attenuated X-rays from the body of the patient to convert the same for making images. Another prescribed technical specification is that the machine should perform all types of Angiography which means that it should be able to conduct colour Angiography also, whereas, the machine offered by respondent No. 3 cannot perform Colour Angiography and the machine offered by the petitioner is capable of performing all types of Angiography including colour Angiography. One more prescribed specification requires the machine to give image quality parameters at Clinical Algorithms, which means regular image quality in day to day operations, which does not exist in the machine offered by respondent No. 3. 5. According to the petitioner, the machine offered by it not only meets all the tender requirements but also has better specifications than the machine offered by respondent No. 3 in respect to the following aspects:— (a) The computer of the CT Scanner offered by respondent No. 3 is only a 32-bit computer, whereas, the one offered by the petitioner has the latest 64-bit computer. (b) The MHU of the X-ray offered by respondent No. 3 is 5.3 MHU whereas, the MHU of the X-ray in the CT Scanner offered by the petitioner is 6.3 MHU. (c) The petitioners machine has the desired fast reconstruction time which is 1.75 seconds, whereas, that of the respondent No. 3 is of 4 seconds. (d) The petitioners machine has true simultaneity and is the only product available where two operators can operate the machine at the same time. This increases the productivity of the CT department. 6. (c) The petitioners machine has the desired fast reconstruction time which is 1.75 seconds, whereas, that of the respondent No. 3 is of 4 seconds. (d) The petitioners machine has true simultaneity and is the only product available where two operators can operate the machine at the same time. This increases the productivity of the CT department. 6. The petitioner has placed on record Brochures of its machine and the machine of respondent No. 3 and the comparative table of their technical specifications as per tender notice as Annexures P-3 to P-5. 7. Respondent No. 1 by its letter dated 7.8.1999 (Annexure P-6) called the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for a meeting on 16.8.1999 to be held under the Chairmanship of the Honble Health Minister to give them an opportunity to make a representation on the technical features of their product, more specifically on the following:— "Quote final price of product/machine and turnkey for installation to be valid upto 30th September, 1999 inclusive of annual maintenance and replacement of X-ray tube and other spare parts for the next ten years. The State Government has reconsidered the matter with regard to training of 4 specialists abroad for 15 days. We would now like you to train two specialists in the operation of C.T. Scan within the country. In this extent the tender specifications may be considered to have been amended.” The petitioner and respondent No. 3 attended the meeting and made presentation of their respective machines. Final price bids were submitted thereafter. 8, Having come to know that only respondent No. 3 was called by respondent No. 1 for opening of price bid on 11.11.1999, the petitioner made representation dated 10.11.1999 (Annexure P-7) to the Honble Chief Minister raising objection that due to technical deviations in the machine offered by respondent No. 3 it could not be called for negotiations on price. The Honble Chief Minister after hearing the Officers of the petitioner on 11.11.1999 directed respondent No. 1 to investigate the matter. Immediately thereafter the officers of the petitioner met respondent No. 1 but with no results, as its representation was dismissed by letter dated 29.11.1999 (Annexure P-8) without giving any reason. Any how, the petitioner made a further representation dated 8.12.1999 (Annexure P-9). Immediately thereafter the officers of the petitioner met respondent No. 1 but with no results, as its representation was dismissed by letter dated 29.11.1999 (Annexure P-8) without giving any reason. Any how, the petitioner made a further representation dated 8.12.1999 (Annexure P-9). Having failed to receive any reply to its representation and also coming to know from reliable sources that respondents 1 and 2 were actively considering the bid of respondent No. 3 and were likely to place an order for its machine, the present writ petition was filed on 22.12.1999, which came up for admission alongwith Miscellaneous application for interim order on 23.12.1999, when notice to show cause was issued to the respondents, and in the miscellaneous application ad interim order was passed that any action taken in pursuance to the orders stated to have been placed on 16.12.1999 will be subject to the decision of this writ petition. 9. Thereafter respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed reply on the affidavit of Doctor Sukh Ram Chauhan, the then Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh. Respondent No. 3 has also filed its reply on the affidavit of Shri S.K. Chugh, the then General Manager Commercial of respondent No. 3. Separate rejoinders-affidavits have also been filed by the petitioner. On the application (CMP No. 657 of 2000) filed by the petitioner the members of the technical committee, which had recommended the purchase of the CT Scan machine from respondent No. 3 were ordered to be impleaded as party respondents vide order dated 1.6.2000 but when they failed to appear despite due service on them, they were proceeded ex parte by order dated 31.7.2000 but lateron on the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner their names were deleted by order dated 22.8.2000 when the writ petition was finally heard. 10. In their reply-affidavit respondents 1 and 2 have stated that in response to tender notice five companies including the petitioner and respondent No. 3 submitted their offers as under:— Name of Co. Model of Machine Amount Blue Star 1. Hitachi Radix Prima 2. Hitachi Avanthi 3,24,33,333 3,57,66,666 Trbis Engg. Toshiba 2,94,05,433 Siemns Sumatom-4 2,76,11,600 Wipro Ge 1. Wipro Ge CTI 2. Wipro Ge Prospeed Adv. 2,89,35,832 2,59,83,411 Hcl. Picker 1. Picker PQS-A ZAP-70 2. Model of Machine Amount Blue Star 1. Hitachi Radix Prima 2. Hitachi Avanthi 3,24,33,333 3,57,66,666 Trbis Engg. Toshiba 2,94,05,433 Siemns Sumatom-4 2,76,11,600 Wipro Ge 1. Wipro Ge CTI 2. Wipro Ge Prospeed Adv. 2,89,35,832 2,59,83,411 Hcl. Picker 1. Picker PQS-A ZAP-70 2. PQ-5000A ZAP-70 2,39,23,032 2,90,77,532 The Expert Committee called the experts of the companies to explain the features of their respective machines on 9.3.1998 and thereafter scrutinized the tenders and found than none of the machines offered by the bidders completely met with the specifications. However, since the machines offered by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were nearest to the specifications, the committee considered their respective offers. It is further stated that the machine offered by the petitioner does not meet the specifications of spectral resolution and the machine offered by respondent No. 3 has high voltage technology. The Expert Committee recommended the purchase of the machine of respondent No. 3 vide its report dated 9.3.1998 (Annexure R-2), which was accepted by the Government and directions to place orders were issued to the Director, Health Services after complying with the codal formalities required under the existing Rules and Instructions vide letter dated 28.3.1998 (Annexure R-3). As per its decision that before placing of the order, the machines already installed by respondent No. 3 at other places be inspected, the Committee had visited Nizam Institute, Hydrabad and on their way back at the special request of the petitioner it had also visited Army Referral Hospital at New Delhi to examine the working of its machine installed there and submitted its report Annexure R-4. 11. It is also stated that in the meeting held on 16.8.1999 the representatives of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 explained the technical features of their product before the committee and submitted their quotations in sealed covers, which were not opened and instead it was decided to place the order to respondent No. 3 as its rates were lowest at the time of opening the tender. Accordingly, the representatives of respondent No. 3 were called for negotiations to finalise the purchase agreement on 11.11.1999 but before this meeting could start, the petitioner made another representation to the Honble Chief Minister, who recorded that the Secretary (Health) might examine the matter. Accordingly, the representatives of respondent No. 3 were called for negotiations to finalise the purchase agreement on 11.11.1999 but before this meeting could start, the petitioner made another representation to the Honble Chief Minister, who recorded that the Secretary (Health) might examine the matter. After due deliberation it was felt that the Secretary (Health) should visit AIIMS at Delhi to verify the functioning of the machines installed by respondent No. 3, who after her visit observed that the machine offered by respondent No. 3 was standard product and had been installed not only at AIIMS but also at Maulana Azad Medical College and RML Hospital where these were functioning successfully. Thereafter the representation of the petitioner was rejected having been found without any merit. It was thereafter that the terms and conditions for the supply of the machine were finalised and the sanction to purchase it from respondent No. 3 was conveyed to the Director, Health Services on 15.12.1999 and consequently order was placed on 16.12.1999. Respondents 1 and 2 have submitted that from the narration of these facts it is evident that the action of the Government has been bona fxde, transparent and in the public interest and cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious or mala fide, as alleged by the petitioner, as such, it is not a fit case to interfere in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In reply on merits it is stated that the machine of respondent No. 3 "does possess better specifications as to the relations with superior features with low cost compared to the petitioner and that is why the technical committee recommended for the purchase of same from the said firm". Its superior features are highlighted as under:— 1. Better image quality parameters in axial and spiral scanning. 2. Low radiation dose to the patients. 3. Better spiral capabilities. 4. The capability of the unit to function in case of AC failure due to its high voltage slip ring technology and additional integrated cooling system. It is denied that the machine of respondent No. 3 does not comply with the conditions mentioned at items No. i to iv, in para 10. It is explained that one of the specifications is "low voltage slip ring system with capabilities of spiral/helical scanning" and not "low voltage slip ring technology" as alleged by the petitioner. It is denied that the machine of respondent No. 3 does not comply with the conditions mentioned at items No. i to iv, in para 10. It is explained that one of the specifications is "low voltage slip ring system with capabilities of spiral/helical scanning" and not "low voltage slip ring technology" as alleged by the petitioner. The power which is coming upto the unit is to the range of 220 volts whereas the requirement of X-rays tube to generate X-rays is upto 140 KV. This amplification is done outside the tube gantry in high voltage slip ring system and within the tube gantry in low voltage slip ring system. As without amplification of voltage to high voltage i.e. upto 140 KV X-rays will not be produced. It is immaterial whether it is done out side the gantry or within the gantry. The technical committee has preferred the high voltage system because of following advantage:— 1. System can function in case there is AC failure because integrated cooling system is provided with it. 2. Power Losses are loss in transmission of current at high voltage. 3. Less wear and tear and maintenance due to less power losses. 13. As per the stand of respondents 1 and 2, respondent No. 3 is having both low as well as high slipring technology. It is using low voltage slipring technology in its medium and low end system and high voltage technology in its high and premium systems. The suggestion of the petitioner is denied that high voltage technology is not preferred in the market as there are more than 2000 installations world wide with this technology and in India prestigious institutions like All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi, Bombay Hospital, Bombay, J.J. Hospital, Bombay and Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad and many others are using same system and technology. 14. Another specification is Solid State detectors preferably of rare earth with atleast 750 element for fan been technology and 3200 for ring technology. There must be five years clear guarantee on detectors and should be free from frequent calibrations, and not the machine should have rare detectors, as alleged by the petitioner. It is specifically alleged that the Machine offered by respondent No. 3 does possess solid state detectors with rare earth component. There must be five years clear guarantee on detectors and should be free from frequent calibrations, and not the machine should have rare detectors, as alleged by the petitioner. It is specifically alleged that the Machine offered by respondent No. 3 does possess solid state detectors with rare earth component. The function of the detector is directly concerned with the image quality, which is better in the machine supplied by respondent No. 3. The image quality is reflected by the spatial resolution which is much better (18.6 Lp/cm) in the machine supplied by respondent No. 3 as against 8 Lp/cm in the machine supplied by the petitioner. The radiation dose is also lower i.e. 20 m Gy in the machine of respondent No. 3 as compared to 29 m Gy in the machine of the petitioner. As high dose is hazardous to the patients, the petitioner is not right in alleging that its machine had better specifications as compared to the machine of respondent No. 3. 15. With regard to specification that the machine should perform "all kinds of CT Angiography" the stand of respondents 1 and 2 is that CT Scanner all over the world produce images in black and white and it is only the post processing of the image which allows colourization of the images. It is also stated that there is no such requirement in the specifications that colouring of the images is to be done in the main console itself. So far the machine of respondent No. 3 is concerned, it is found to be capable of performing all kinds of CT Angiography and for post processing and colouring an additional work station has been provided by respondent No. 3. 16. With regard to the specification that the machine should give image quality parameters at Clinical Algorithms, respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated that the image quality offered by respondent No. 3 fully meets the specifications even exceed the same and on the contrary, that of the petitioner does not meet the tender specification of spatial resolution in standard clinical algorithm which is 8 Lp/cm against the required tender specification of 13 Lp/cm. 17. 17. Denying the allegations of the petitioner that machine offered by it not only meets all the tender requirements but has also better specification than the machine of respondent No. 3, it is stated that the petitioner has enclosed different model i.e. high speed CT/1 pro with product data sheet No. B-7710 JA (Annexure P-3) just to mis-lead this Court and its specifications are different than the machine offered at the time of submitting the tender which was high speed CT/1 premium with product data sheet No. B-7510 JA which indicate the anode heat capacity of the tube to be 3.5 MHU and reconstruction cycle time as 3 seconds against 6.3 MHU and 1.75 second, respectively. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have also placed on record comparative statement of the rates quoted by the various firms (Annexure R-2) to show that the petitioner had quoted nigher rates as compared to respondent No. 3, who has provided additional features to the machine at low cost. On the recommendation of respondent No. 2 after seeking approval of the Government all codal formalities for the purchase of the machine from respondent No. 3 were completed, when the representation of the petitioner was received but rejected after due consideration. The fresh bids offered by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 could not be opened as it would have vitiated the whole process of tendering as no such bid was called for from the other bidders. 18. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed to the reply-affidavit of respondents 1 and 2 the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition and denied contrary stated in the reply-affidavit. It is submitted that it was not open to the State Government to rescind from the technical specifications prescribed under the tender in order to purchase machine from respondent No. 3. It is submitted that machine of the petitioner is cheaper by Rs. 10 lacs as compared to respondent No. 3, except turnkey of which aspect of the petitioners price bid is negotiable. The petitioner has also tried to point out the alleged fallacy in the report of the Technical Committee (Annexure R-2) in which difference between the machine of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 is pointed out. 10 lacs as compared to respondent No. 3, except turnkey of which aspect of the petitioners price bid is negotiable. The petitioner has also tried to point out the alleged fallacy in the report of the Technical Committee (Annexure R-2) in which difference between the machine of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 is pointed out. According to the petitioner, the Technical Committee has viewed assessment of the machines in a totally biased manner with the pre-determined object of accepting the machine of respondent No. 3 and rejecting the machine of the petitioner by stating that existence of cumbersome peripherals, which go with High Voltage Technology as "additional features". 19. It is further explained that High Voltage Slip Ring Technology is not better than Low Voltage Slip Ring Technology. On the contrary it is cumbersome and unsafe. All the new recent products launched by M/s. Siemens including their Somatom Emotion (40 KW Generator) recently displayed in the Worlds highest level of Radiology Conference "RSNA" at Chicago, USA is with Low Voltage Technology. More than 95% of Spiral/Helical machines manufactured world over by Multinational players use only Low Voltage Technology for better and safe performance, low voltage noise, avoiding the cumbersome peripherals like chiller plant, running water, extra power requirement etc. Even the respondent No. 3 is now launching 40 KW Low Voltage Slip Ring Technology Machines. This is clearly indicative of the fact that High Voltage Technology being old and unsafe is being phased out gradually. The petitioner who is the market leader world over in CT Scanners, manufactures only Low Voltage Slip Ring Technology CT Scanners. A certificate issued by the principals of the petitioner is also annexed as Annexure RA-1. 20. The petitioner has further tried to controvert the recommendations of Technical Committee by pointing out that several features of the machine of respondent No. 3 considered by it are not present in the machine. On the contrary the short-comings in the machine of respondent No. 3, as pointed out in the writ petition, are critical in nature and would be fatal to its selection when compared to the tender specification. It is reiterated that tender specification could not be altered or given go bye by the State muchless the Technical Committee without notifying fresh specification and inviting fresh ; tender. It is reiterated that tender specification could not be altered or given go bye by the State muchless the Technical Committee without notifying fresh specification and inviting fresh ; tender. It is explained that during the course of tender superior \ machine namely, Wipro GE CT/I pro was introduced by the petitioner | and therefore the same was offered at no extra cost to the State with approval of all concerned. W GE CT/I itself fully meets and exceeds the tender specifications and the petitioner does not mind the order being placed for CT/i itself as it in any case complies with all the prescribed specifications. 21. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2 additional affidavit has been filed by Dr. Sukh Ram Chauhan, the then Director of Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, stating that two CT Scans installed in the Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala and Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla by the petitioner company are having low voltage slipring technology and within a short duration the high voltage tanks of both these units have failed and had to be replaced by new ones. The cause of high voltage transformers failure was tank leakage in both the units and the petitioner made claim for replacing them for Rs. 3,50,000 and Rs; 6,25,000 respectively. The correspondence of the petitioner in this regard is placed on record as Annexures R-9 to R-11. It is further stated that the model offered by the petitioner at the time of tender was B 7510 JA. whereas, the model annexed with the petition is B 7710 JA, the relevant papers whereof are placed on record as Annexures R-12 to R-15. 22. Respondent No. 3 in its reply filed on the affidavit of Shri S.K. Chugh, its General Manager (Commercial), has raised the preliminary objections that:— (i) The writ petition has become infructuous since the tender/ bid of respondent No. 3 has been duly accepted and purchase order dated 16.12.1999 has been placed. (ii) The writ petition is not maintainable as it involves several disputed questions of facts. (iii) There is no legal and valid cause of action to maintain the writ petition. (iv) The writ petition is wholly mala fide, motivated and mischievous and tends to grossly abuse the process of law for settling the scores of professional rivalry between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. (iii) There is no legal and valid cause of action to maintain the writ petition. (iv) The writ petition is wholly mala fide, motivated and mischievous and tends to grossly abuse the process of law for settling the scores of professional rivalry between the petitioner and respondent No. 3. On merits it is stated that the machine offered by respondent No. 3 i.e. SOMATOM Plus 4 not only meets the tender specifications but exceeds the vital performance specifications than the model Hi Speed CT/i offered by the petitioner. The bid of respondent No. 3 was accepted after the Technical Committee as well as users/experts recommended for its purchase, who had satisfied themselves by inspection and assessment of practical working of the machines already installed in various prestigious hospitals,- such as, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi, Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, New Delhi and Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Hydrabad. According to respondent No. 3, its foreign principals being the pioneer in manufacturing of CT Scanner System in the world, were the first to introduce Slip Ring Technology in the year 1988 and now they are manufacturing CT Scanners using both the "High Voltage Slip Ring System" and the "Low Voltage Slip System". The high performance range of CT Scanners manufactured by the respondent No. 3 are using "High Voltage Slip Ring System" whereas the medium range and economy model CT Scanners are using "Low Voltage Slip Ring System". The high voltage based Slip Ring System has better transmission efficiency. The allegations of the petitioner that the High Voltage Slip Ring System is old and not preferred in the market or that the High Voltage Slip Ring Technology generates excessive heat while transferring high voltage through brushes to CT Tubes are entirely wrong and misleading, besides being wholly illogical. It is very well known fact that to reduce transmission losses the power is transmitted in a high voltage transmission system only. Further the Low Voltage Slip Ring System which has 1,000 Times higher current flowing, has excessive heating thereby resulting in wear and tear. Moreover, the brushes in Low Voltage Slip Ring System need frequent replacements on this account. It is very well known fact that to reduce transmission losses the power is transmitted in a high voltage transmission system only. Further the Low Voltage Slip Ring System which has 1,000 Times higher current flowing, has excessive heating thereby resulting in wear and tear. Moreover, the brushes in Low Voltage Slip Ring System need frequent replacements on this account. Accordingly in the complete range of low and CT Scanner made by respondent No. 3 the "Low Voltage Slip Ring System" is used while all high and premium range of scanners manufactured by the answering respondent use the "High Voltage Slip Ring System." 23. It is specifically denied that the machine offered by respondent No. 3 does not have Rare Earth Detectors. It is submitted that the word "Rare Earth" is a generic term. The detector made by the respondent No. 3 also has a doping by Gadolinium which is a Rare earth element. In fact the quality of the detector is best judged by the resolution it produces. The image resolution in the system offered by the respondent No. 3 is 18.5 lines per cm. whereas that of the system offered by the petitioner is 15 lines per cm. The detectors X-ray dose efficiency is another parameter to judge its quality and the detector system offered by respondent No. 3 needs the X-ray radiation of 20 m Gy. and that of the system offered by the petitioner is 25 in Gy. The higher X-ray dose is hazardous to the patient. It is submitted that the CT Scanner offered by the respondent No. 3 is able to perform all types of angiography i.e. Intracranial Angiography, Abdominal Angiography, Carotid Angiography, Peripheral Angiography etc. The facility of colour angiography in the system offered by the respondent No. 3 is also available. The fact that the offered unit has no limitation is clear from the fact that the system is in use and operation in various prestigious institutes without any problem. On the contrary the image quality parameter of the unit offered by the petitioner has severe limitations as stated in para 14 of the reply-affidavit. 24. It is further stated that the CT Scanner offered by the respondent No. 3 consists of computer system and an image processor. The image processor is the heart of the unit and performs the vital function of image processing. 24. It is further stated that the CT Scanner offered by the respondent No. 3 consists of computer system and an image processor. The image processor is the heart of the unit and performs the vital function of image processing. While the unit offered by the petitioner has only a 32 bit image processor, the model offered by the respondent No. 3 has a 64 bit image processor. The unit as offered by respondent No. 3 can perform 80 sec. single gapless spiral whereas the system offered by the petitioner can perform only 60 sec. spiral. The 30% improved spiral performance is due to the superior and efficient system used by the respondent No. 3 in the detector and X-ray system of the Scanners. The image reconstruction time of the system offered by the respondent No. 3 is 4 sec. and is valid for all types of scans whereas the image reconstruction time of the system offered by the petitioner varies upto 4.8 sec. dependent on the scanning mode. 25. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 3 reiterating the averments made in the petition and denying the contrary stated in the reply. To avoid duplication of the record it has relied upon the averments made in the rejoinder-affidavit to the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2. It is stated that placing the order before filing the writ petition will not render the writ petition infructuous if the complained of action of the respondents is patently illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. It is denied that there are disputed questions of facts involved in the writ petition. Total lack of transparency and fairness in the tender process is evident from the fact that the report of the Technical Committee and report of the visit to the hospitals are made available to the petitioner for the first time in the Court. No reasons have been given for the rejection of the representation of the petitioner. The State has in most arbitrary manner entered into price negotiations with respondent No. 3 and it has given go by to vital amendments dated 7.9.1999, which would be most beneficial to the State only in order to favour respondent No. 3. No reasons have been given for the rejection of the representation of the petitioner. The State has in most arbitrary manner entered into price negotiations with respondent No. 3 and it has given go by to vital amendments dated 7.9.1999, which would be most beneficial to the State only in order to favour respondent No. 3. Neither the State nor respondent No. 3 have in their reply affidavits compared the specifications of respondent No. 3s machine with the specifications prescribed under the tender notice and the technical committee has proceeded on completely erroneous premises. 26. After scanning the pleadings there remains no doubt that the main grievance of the petitioner is that the Whole Body CT Scanner of respondent No. 3 does not comply with the tender specifications, the most important of which was Low Voltage Slipring Technology. Admittedly, the machine of respondent No. 3 has High Voltage Slipring Technology and the machine offered by the petitioner has Low Voltage Slipring Technology but respondents 1 and 2 have tried to justify that despite the machine of respondent No. 3 having High Voltage Slipring Technology, it is of better quality in all respects and their decision to place order for it is in the public interest. Therefore, the question arises whether this deviation is permissible and the action of respondents No. 1 and 2 to accept the bid of respondent No. 3 and place order to it for supply of Whole Body CT Scanner is legal and valid or it has resulted into substantial prejudice or injustice to the petitioner or to public interest in general, hence it is not permissible and action of respondents No. 1 and 2 deserves to be quashed. 27. But before this point is decided we would like to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11, which has laid down the scope of judicial review, more specifically in the realm of exercise of contractual powers by the Government and Government bodies. It is held in this judgment that the Government in order to protect the financial interest of the State has a right to choose and in that process refuse the lowest or any other tender, but the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view. It is held in this judgment that the Government in order to protect the financial interest of the State has a right to choose and in that process refuse the lowest or any other tender, but the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision but the decision making process itself. Where the selection or rejection is arbitrary, certainly the Court would interfere but would not substitute its judgment for that of the administrator as the court of appeal would do. After considering number of judgments of foreign courts and their own, the learned Judges have deduced the following principles of judicial review in para 94:— (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in admin istrative 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. 28. The same view has been reiterated in Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 73S, the Court observing that judicial review of contractual transactions by Government bodies is permissible to prevent arbitrariness, favouritism or use of power for collateral purposes. 28. The same view has been reiterated in Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd., (1997) 1 SCC 73S, the Court observing that judicial review of contractual transactions by Government bodies is permissible to prevent arbitrariness, favouritism or use of power for collateral purposes. The Court added a further dimension to the undesirability of intervention by pointing out that where the project is a high-cost project for which loans from the World Bank or other international bodies have been obtained after following the specifications and procedure of such a body, it would be detrimental to public interest to interfere. The same principles have also been reaffirmed in New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478, with the Court again emphasising the need to allow for certain flexibility in administrative decision-making, observing that the decision can be challenged only on the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness, i.e., unless the decision is so unreasonable that no sensible person would have arrived at such a decision, it should not be upset. In Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 405, the Supreme Court once again observed that if a reasonable procedure has been followed, the decision should not be challenged except on the Wednesburys principle of unreasonableness. 29. Now we would refer to the judgments of the Supreme Court as to what extent the deviation from the conditions in tender notice may be permitted. In G.J. Fernadez v. State of Karnataka and others, (1990) 2 SCC 488, it is held that any deviation, if made, should not result in any arbitrariness, or discrimination. Where the non-conformity with or relaxation in the prescribed standard allowed in case of any intending tender has not resulted into substantial prejudice or injustice to any of the parties or to public interest in general, it is permissible. In this case before the Supreme Court some changes were made in the time frame originally prescribed affecting the intending applicants alike, hence these were not held objectionable. The learned Judges have held that the rule in Ramana Dayaram Shetty case, (1979) 3 SCC 489, will be readily applied by courts to a case where a person complains that a departure from the qualifications has kept him out of the race. However injustice is less apparent where the attempt of the applicant before the court is only to gain immunity from competition. However injustice is less apparent where the attempt of the applicant before the court is only to gain immunity from competition. If there has been a slight deviation from the terms of the NIT but it has not deprived the appellant of its right to be considered for the contract; on the other hand, its tender has received due and full consideration, no injustice can be said to have been done to such a tenderer. In the end it is observed that the assessment of comparative merits of the tenderer is a matter for the authority inviting the tenders counselled by the technical committee. 30. In Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and others, (1991) 3 SCC 273, it is held in para 6:— "......As a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories—those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases........" (Emphasis supplied) 31. In Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and another, (1996) 9 SCC 709, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have made a few observations about their general approach while exercising the powers of judicial review in the cases of exercise of contractual power, by the Government, as under:— “......This is a case of the type where legal issues are interwined with those involving determination of policy and a plethora of technical issues. In such a situation, courts of law have to be very wary and must exercise their jurisdiction with circumspection for they must not transgess into the realm of policy-making unless the policy is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. In such a situation, courts of law have to be very wary and must exercise their jurisdiction with circumspection for they must not transgess into the realm of policy-making unless the policy is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. In the present matter, in its impugned judgment, the High Court had directed the Central Government to set up a Committee to analyse the entire gamut of issues thrown up by the present controversy. The Central Government had consequently constituted a Committee comprising high-level functionaries drawn from various governmental/institutional agencies who were equipped to deal with the entire range of technical and long-term considerations involved. This Committee, in reaching its decision, consulted a number of policy documents and approached the issues from a holistic perspective. We have sought to give our opinion on the legal issues that arise for our consideration. From the scheme of the Act it is clear that the Central Government is vested with discretion to determine the policy regarding the grant or renewal of leases. On matters affecting policy and those that require technical expertise, we have shown deference to, and followed the recommendations of the committee which is more qualified to address these issues." (Emphasis supplied) 32. In Raunaq International Ltd. v. I. V.R. Construction Ltd. and others, (1991) 1 SCC 492, in para 19 of the judgment the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have observed :— "A somewhat different approach may be required in the cases of award of a contract by the Government for the purchase of items for its use. Judicial review would be permissible only on the established grounds for such review including mala fides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness of the Wednesbury variety. Balance of convenience would play a major role in moulding interim relief" (Emphasis supplied) And in para 26:— "In the present case, it was submitted that the terms and conditions of the tender specified the requisite qualifying criteria before a person could offer a tender. The criteria which were so laid down could not have been relaxed because such a relaxation results in a denial of opportunity to others. In support, the respondents relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489. The criteria which were so laid down could not have been relaxed because such a relaxation results in a denial of opportunity to others. In support, the respondents relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489. In that case, the Court had held judicial review as a check on the exercise of arbitrary powers by the State and as a check on its power to grant largess. The Court also observed that when the exercise of discretion is structured in terms of the tenders which have been invited, the discretion must be exercised in accordance with the norms so laid down. The same view has been taken by this Court in Premium Granites v. State of T.N., (1994) 2 SCC 691, where this Court observed that where rational non-discriminatory norms have been laid down for granting of tenders, a departure from such norms can only be made on valid principles. These principles enunciated by this Court are unexceptional". 33. Last of all in a recent judgment in Air India1 Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and others, (2000) 2 SCC 617, it is held in para 7:— "The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489; Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 568; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75; Tata Cellular v. Unionof India, (1994) 6 SCC 651; Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 1 SCC 134 and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene." (Emphasis supplied) 34. By examining the case in hand in the light of the ratio of the judgments referred to hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that despite the fact that respondents No. 1 and 2 have accepted the bid of respondent No. 3 for supply of Whole Body CT Scanner with CT Scanner having High Voltage Slipring Technology, deviating from one of the specifications prescribed in the tender notice, it is not a fit case to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even if respondents 1 and 2 had invited tenders to purchase the Whole Body CT Scanner with Low Voltage Slipring Technology, they could change their decision and go for Whole Body CT Scanner having High Voltage Slipring Technology on technical advice and in the public interest in general. Even if respondents 1 and 2 had invited tenders to purchase the Whole Body CT Scanner with Low Voltage Slipring Technology, they could change their decision and go for Whole Body CT Scanner having High Voltage Slipring Technology on technical advice and in the public interest in general. We have no reasons to disbelieve the statement made in the reply-affidavit of Director of Health Services that on receipt of the tenders including that of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, the expert Committee called the experts of the tenderer Companies to explain the features of their respective machines on 9.3.1998 and thereafter scrutinized the tenders and found that none of the machines offered by the bidders completely met with the specifications. However, since the machines offered by the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were nearest to the specifications, the committee considered their respective offers and recommended the purchase of the machine of respondent No. 3 vide its report dated 7.3.1998. A copy of the report is also placed on record as Annexure R-2, the perusal of which shows that the Committee has compared the machines of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and come to the conclusion that the machine of the petitioner is meeting all the tender specifications but is lagging behind in both high and low contrast resolution in comparison to the machine offered by respondent No. 3, whereas, the machine of respondent No. 3 is not only meeting all the tender specifications but also exceeding the tender specifications in certain features, which are enumerated therein. The superior and additional features of the machine of respondent No. 3 are also enumerated by the Committee in its report. 35. We also find that after making recommendations for the purchase of the machine of respondent No. 3, the Committee had also inspected the machines offered by respondent No. 3 and the petitioner already installed at Nizam Institute, Hydrabad and Army Referral Hospital at New Delhi respectively and gave their report Annexure R-4 again recommending the purchase of the machine of respondent No. 3 after observing codal formalities strictly according to the technical report and as per the offer made by the Company in its original tender dated 17.1.1998 and subsequent letters dated 20.2.1998, 3.3.1998, 5.3.1998, 6.3.1998 and 26.5.1999. With the report Annexure R-4 a certificate from the Director/Vice Chancellor, Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad for the satisfactory performance of the similar machine of respondent No. 3 already installed in the said institute was also annexed by the Expert Committee. The Committee had recommended the purchase of the machine of respondent No. 3 after being satisfied that its functioning and performance is much better than the machine of the petitioner. The Committee had also given reasons for coming to its conclusion. 36. Admittedly, we do not have the expertise in the matter, as such, we cannot sit in judgment over the report of the technocrats to come to our own conclusion. Except the bald allegation that respondents No. 1 and 2 intend to favour respondent No. 3, there is nothing on the record to hold that the decision of respondents No. 1 and 2 to purchase the machine of respondent No. 3 is mala fide or arbitrary or unreasonable. From the record it is also clear that the price of the machine offered by respondent No. 3 is less than that of the petitioner, as such, the exchequer is also not the loser in this case. We also do not find any thing wrong in the decision making process, as at all stages the petitioner has been associated and its case has been duly considered. In the normal course, finding that the machine with High Voltage Slipring Technology is better than that of Low Voltage Slipring Technology, it would have been better had respondents No. 1 and 2 invited fresh tenders for the machine with High Voltage Slipring Technology. Since the deviation has not affected the consideration of the case of the petitioner and is not proved to be against the public interest in general, we are not inclined to interfere with the decision of respondents No. 1 and 2 to accept the bid of respondent No. 3 and place orders for the purchase of its machine, which is found to be of better quality in all respects as compared to the machine of the petitioner by the expert Committee. For coming to this conclusion it has also weighed with us that installation of Whole Body CT Scanner in Zonal Hospital at Mandi has been pending for the last three years and further delay will not be in the public interest in general. 37. For coming to this conclusion it has also weighed with us that installation of Whole Body CT Scanner in Zonal Hospital at Mandi has been pending for the last three years and further delay will not be in the public interest in general. 37. The result of above discussion is that we do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.