Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) THE three petitioners in this petition, are manufacturers of domestic watermeters. They were the bidders in response to a notice inviting lenders, dated13. 9. 1999. issued by the respondent No. 1, Delhi Jal Board, for supply of l,20000 15mm size domestic water meters. The notice inviting lenders (NIT) required submission of technical and price bids. Petitioners are aggrieved by non-acceptance of theirtechnical bids, resulting in the price bids not being considered. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS, therefore, seek appropriate writ or direction that decision makingprocess of respondent No. 1 to exclude the petitioner from grant of orders and placingthe orders with respondent No. 3, the successful bidder, whose technical bid wasfound acceptable, was illegal and contrary to law and public interest. Petitioners urgethat respondent No. 1 was contemplating to award the contract to respondent No. 3 ata price which was three times higher than the prices quoted by the petitioners. An interim order was passed in CM. 579/2000, directing respondent No. 1, not to place orders with respondent No. 3 in case its price was higher than the price quoted by thepetitioners, pursuant to the lender notice bearing No. 24 dated 13. 121999. ( 3 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is M/s. Anand Water Meters MFG Company Pvt. Ltd. ;petitioners No. 2 is M/s. Aman Engineering Works; petitioner No. 3 is M/s. Capstanmeters (India) Ltd. ; while petitioner No. 4. Shri Ram Krishna is a shareholder ofpetitioner No. 3. Petitioners claim to be leading manfacturers of water meters, havingsuccessfully supplied water meters to respondents 1 and. 2 in the past also. ( 4 ) AS noted above. ressponder No. 1 had issued notice inviting lenders for thesupply of 1. 20,000 water meters from manufacturers. The salient terms of the Noticeinviting lenders are reproduced : "sealed lenders in two parts (Technical Bid and Price Bid) duly superscribedare hereby invited tor the supply of Domestic Water Meters frommanufacturers and will be received in the office of the undersigned upto6. 00 pm on 21. 10. 1999 (Twenty First October Nineteen Hundred Ninetynine) and Technical Bid will he opened on the same day at. 3. 15 pm. in thepresence of tenderers or their authorised representatives who may like toattend. The Price Bid will he opened with due notice. 00 pm on 21. 10. 1999 (Twenty First October Nineteen Hundred Ninetynine) and Technical Bid will he opened on the same day at. 3. 15 pm. in thepresence of tenderers or their authorised representatives who may like toattend. The Price Bid will he opened with due notice. magnetically coupled h. iving dry straightreading dial Class b ISI marked andconforming to IS : 779 (1994) with uptodate amendments or conforming loisc):4 ()04 Class b marked with upto dateamendments. Parlwise material must beas detailed in tender specilications. 2. The lenderer shall have to deposit 10 Nos. sample water meter for testing fromf. C. and R. I. , Palghat (A Government Test House) alongwith technical bid ). 3. . . . . . . . . . . 4. The Price hid (submitted in sealed cover alongwith lechnical bid) only ofthose tenderers will be opened with due notice whose waler meter are passed by F. C. and R. I. , Palghal after testing as per IA 0779/1994 or ISO-4064 with upto date amendments and material specification mentioned in tender and the deptt. is satisfied thatthe NIT specification are met with in all respects. The decision of the deptt. shall befinal and binding on all tenderers. " ( 5 ) THE three petitioners and respondent No. 3 were the four bidder who participatedin the lender. Petitioners are aggrieved because their price bids have notbeen opened on the ground that their waler meters tested by the Fluid Control Research Institute, Palghal, have not been found to be acceptable. ( 6 ) LEARNED senior counsel for the petitioners has assailed the exclusion of thepetitioners on a number of grounds : (i) Firstly, it is urged that the conditions of Notice inviting tenders, were bya conscious effort so designed by respondents as to exclude competition. Itis submitted that in the earlier, "notices inviting tenders", authorised dealerswere also permitted to participate but in the present NIT, participation wasconfined only to "manufacturers". It was urged that respondent No. 3, M- s. Schlumberger Industries (1) Ltd. , was not a manufacturer of domestic watermcters and was therefore. ineligible and bound to be disqualification. Admitledly, it did nol have any manufacturing facilities in India,. It only sourcedwater meters from abroad and this would not turn it into a "manufacturer". (ii) Secondly, it is urged that the. jal Board, being a public authority,. ineligible and bound to be disqualification. Admitledly, it did nol have any manufacturing facilities in India,. It only sourcedwater meters from abroad and this would not turn it into a "manufacturer". (ii) Secondly, it is urged that the. jal Board, being a public authority,. shouldhave followed a procedure in accepting of rejecting the technical hid of thelender that was open. transparent and fan. The respondents had nol deliberately disclosed to the petitioners, the contents of the lest reports by the Fluid C ontrol Research Institute. Palghat, onthe samples of the petitioners. This was necessary since the very foundationof the decision making process was the test reports of the samples. Petitioners claim that even the test report of respondent No. 3 should havebeen revealed to them. In this connection learned counsel placed relianceon a certificastion dated 283. 1999 issued by the Executive Engineer of respondent No. 1, certifying that the previous 50000) water meters, supplied bypetitioner No. 1, of 15 mm. magnetic Class b , conformed to ISO 4064 andwere functioning satisfactorily. Reliance was also placed on Performance Testreport by the Fluid Control Research Institute, Palghal. in respect of melers ofpetitioners Nos" 1 and 3. appearing at pages 32 and 33 of the paper book, insupport of the submission that products of the petitioners had. earlier beenfound acceptable and there was no reason for their rejection for the presenttender. It was urged that simply quoting an- extract of the report in an affidavit,was hardly sufficient. The respondent No. 1 was obliged to act in a fair manner, by completely disclosing the contents of the reports and inviting the commentsof the petitioners. Petitioners should have been given an opportunity to provethat the samples furnished by them met the specifications. (iii) Thirdly, it was urged by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that respondent No. 3, having quoted a price which was far in excess of the pricequoted by the petitioners, the respondent Delhi Jal Board, as a publicauthority, was required to keep in mind considerations of public interestand public revenue. The Delhi Board, having tried and tested the meterssupplied by the petitioners over the last so many years and having found their performance satisfactory, should nol have acted in haste in an arbitrary manner, contraryto public interesl by exclusion of all the petitionersfrom consideration and being left with only respondent No. 3, who hadquoted a highly exorbitant price. The Delhi Board, having tried and tested the meterssupplied by the petitioners over the last so many years and having found their performance satisfactory, should nol have acted in haste in an arbitrary manner, contraryto public interesl by exclusion of all the petitionersfrom consideration and being left with only respondent No. 3, who hadquoted a highly exorbitant price. Counsel submitted that this was a fit caseto recall the tenders. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 1 Ms. Geeta Mittal, on the otherhand, strongly refuted the submission that there was may arbitrariness or irregularity orunfairness in the decision-making process. Learned counsel made available the entirerecord relating to the lest reports for the perusal of the Court as well as the other record. ( 8 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parlies and having perused the record, Ifind that petitioners are nol entitled to succeed in the writ petition. The submission of the petitioners regarding ineligibility of respondent No. 3 is misconceived. The hid ofrespondent No. 3 is not oil the basis that is has a manufacturing unit in India. Thetender is submitted hy respondent No. 3 on behalf of its principals. The bid itself statesthat M/s. Schlumberger Industries (1) Ltd. is a group company M/. S. Sehlumbergerindustries, France, having 23 water meter manufacturing unit spread all over theworld. Respondent No. 3 has also produced on record the autherisation fromschlumbgerger Industries Ltd. , Brazil. authorising Ms Schlumberger Industries (1) Ltd. to quote on their hehalf. In this view of the matter, petitioners submission is misconceivedas it is not the case of respondent No. 3 that the product is manfactured in India. ( 9 ) COMING to the second main submission of the petitioner that the terms of thenotice inviting lenders, especially with regard to the requirement tor testing by Fluidcontrol Research Institute. Palghat, and deletion of "authorised representatives" beingpermitted to quote was designed to exclude competition and favour respondent No. 3. to the prejudice of the petitioners, i. s again not lenable. It is nol in dispute thatpetitioners had accepted the above terms and conditions of the "notice invitinglenders". Palghat, and deletion of "authorised representatives" beingpermitted to quote was designed to exclude competition and favour respondent No. 3. to the prejudice of the petitioners, i. s again not lenable. It is nol in dispute thatpetitioners had accepted the above terms and conditions of the "notice invitinglenders". Having accepted the same and deposited the testing fee as well as thesamples, it is not open for them to raise any objection to the terms and conditions ofthe tender or to the requirement of lest by Fluid Control Research Instilute, Palghal,simply because the test results have gone against them, ( 10 ) FROM a perusal of the record, I find that a Technical Committee comprisingthe Engineer-in-C hief, four Chief Engineers, Superintending Engineer, Director ofrevenue and the Member Administration of respondent No. 1 had carefullydeliberated with regard to the introduction of a pre-testing condition in the "notice inviting lenders". The Committee had recommended that the meters should be gottested from Fluid Control Research Institute, Palghal, observing that a life test/endurance test was very important and should form the basic parameter for selection. Further, that the component of the meters should be strictly as per the "notice invitingtenders" specifications and there should not be any deviation in view of the Indian con-ditions. As a mailer of fact, an earlier Nolice inviting tenders, bearing No. 27, whichwas due, was discharged and fresh tender, was directed to be called, incorporating there quirement for pre-testing by Fluid Control Research Institute, Palghat. It would,thus, be seen that it was conscious decision taken by the experts for ensuring highquality of meters. The Fluid Control Research Institute is a government sponsoredpremier research Institute, with impeccable credentials. The samples submilted by thebidders had been carried by a person of the rank of Superintending Engineer personally to the lnstitute and given for testing. The orignal reports of the Fluid Controlroserch Institute, which is a project set up with the U ndp assistance under the Ministry of Industry have been perused. Unfortunately, the samples submitted by thepetitioners failed to qualify the extensive testing procedure. The meter,s submitted bythe parlies passed through various testing procedures, including before temperaturesuitability test; after temperature suitability test and after accelerated endurance test. Unfortunately, the samples submitted by thepetitioners failed to qualify the extensive testing procedure. The meter,s submitted bythe parlies passed through various testing procedures, including before temperaturesuitability test; after temperature suitability test and after accelerated endurance test. Except the meters submitted by respondent No. 3, all others samples showed poorperformance compared to the standards prescribed in IS 779/so 4064, In fact, not asingle meter of any of the pelitioners could pass the lest: The total number of testsperformed, including the initial pressure test; life test; accuracy test; before and aftertemperature and accuracy lest after life test,, were 144 in number. On a perusal of therecord, find that there is no basis to decry the report given by the Fluid Control Re-search Institute. lt is nut open to the petitioners to question the credibility of the testreports because their sample for a different contract for water meters had been foundacceptable by the Flood Control Research Institute. Palghat. As a matter of fact, aperusal of the earlier reports shows that when petitioners samples had been found acceptable. only a limited number of tests had been done. There is nobasis for the petitioners allegation that the lest reports were manipulated to favours respondent No. 3. there is nothing produced or available either on record or from the attendanti circumstances to support this assertion. No mala fides or lack of bona can be atlributed to the respondents. In any case, it is not for the Court in writ jurisdiction to sitover the judgment of a body of experts and substitute it by its own views. Referencemay usefully be made to the following observations of the Aper Court in Raunaq International Ltd. v. I. V. R. Construction Ltd. and Other (1999)I Scc 492"16. It is also necessary to remember that price may not always he the solecriterion for awarding a contract. Often when an evaluation committee ofexperts is appointed to evaluate offers, the expert committee s specialknowledge plays a decisive role in deciding which is the best offer. Price offered is only one of the criteria. The past record ofthe tenderers, the qualityof the goods or services which are offered, assessing such quality onthebasis of the past performance of the tenderer, its market reputation and soon. all play an important role in deciding to whom the contract should beawarded. Price offered is only one of the criteria. The past record ofthe tenderers, the qualityof the goods or services which are offered, assessing such quality onthebasis of the past performance of the tenderer, its market reputation and soon. all play an important role in deciding to whom the contract should beawarded. At times, a higher price for a much better quality of work can belegitimately paid in order to secure proper performance of the contract andgood 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. " ( 11 ) AS regards petitioners contention that because of the price difference,tenders ought to be recalled, it has to be noted that petitioners, who have failed in thetechnical bid, have no locus to agitate the same. Moreover, the necessity of havingdomestic water meters of excellent quality, meeting international standards, cannot beunderscored. The instances of defective non-functional water meters, resulting inhigher maintenance costs, as well as loss of public revenue by non-billing of the watersupplied, are factors which the respondenls have also to considered while taking adecision regarding the award of contract. ( 12 ) THE petitioners and respondenls are both hound by the terms and conditionsof the Notice inviting Tenders. Respondent No. 1 cannot be faulted with for acting inaccordance with the terms and conditions of the tender. There is no procedural irregularityor arbitrariness or unfairness in the procedure followed. The respondenino. 1 slates that the decision shall be taken in accordance with the conditionsspecified in the Notice inviting lenders, keeping public interest and recovery of revenue, statutory and public law obligations in mind. ( 13 ) IN view ofthe foregoing discussion, the challenge in the writ petition must fail. There is no ground made out for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Con. stitution of India.