GODA RAGHURAM, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to interdict the tender notification in respect of the work relating to repairs to the irrigation canal peddacheruvu situated at Komtoor Village, medak Mandal and District. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is the President of thewater Users Association, Komtoor Village. In Komtoor Village there is a tank by name peddacheruvu. It is a rain fed tank, which spread over a considerable extent. The water Users Association of which the petitioner is the President has in its area of operation the aforesaid tank. ( 3 ) THE petitioner avers that work havinga value of more than Rs. 24 lakhs in Komtoor village has been entrusted to the Water users Association and that the Association has executed the said work competently and to the satisfaction of the Government. While so, in respect of repairs to Komtoor irrigation channel and feeder channel tenders have been called for on 14-6-2000. The value of the work is estimated to be in the order of Rs. 21,81,325/ -. It is the petitioner s case that the above notification to tender and the conduct of the respondents in not awarding the work exclusively to the water Users Association, is arbitrary and irrational. ( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. Mirza Munawarali Baig, learned Counsel for the petitioner that Para 7 of G. O. Ms. No. 35, Irrigation CAD (PW:aperp) Department, dt. 29-2-2000 sets out the guidelines for awarding works in relation to APERP programme under which repairs to Komtoor irrigation channel and feeder channel are sought to be taken up. According to Para 7 (1) of the guidelines, works of a value above Rs. 12 lakhs are to be taken up through national competitive bidding procedure with standard bidding documents approved by the World Bank and works whose estimated cost is below rs. 12 lakhs, are to be carried out by the water Users Association subject to execution of agreement in Form A-6 with the irrigation and CAD Department. The petitioner contends that this classification of works viz. , above Rs. 12 lakhs and below Rs. 12 lakhs has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is also contended that as the Water Users Association has previously executed (prior to G. O. Ms. No. 35) works of an estimated value higher than Rs. The petitioner contends that this classification of works viz. , above Rs. 12 lakhs and below Rs. 12 lakhs has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It is also contended that as the Water Users Association has previously executed (prior to G. O. Ms. No. 35) works of an estimated value higher than Rs. 12 lakhs competently and satisfactorily, the Water Users Association should have been awarded the said work. It is also contended that even if the value the work exceeds by a fraction the amount of rs. 12 lakhs in terms of Para 7 (1) of the G. O. , the work will have to be awarded pursuant to a national competitive bidding procedure and that this classifkation is thus irrational. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that excluding prioritized consideration to a locally elected body operating for the benefit of the water users is per se irrational. ( 5 ) IN the considered view of this Courtthe contentions of the petitioner are misconceived. The State in the plenitude of its discretion has evolved a policy that works above the value of Rs. 12 lakhs should be executed by inviting tenders following national competitive bidding procedure any not by awarding exclusively to the Water users Association. It is settled principle of law that the Court will have prima facie to presume all reasonable factors have animated a State policy, vide Ram krishna Dalmia and others vs. Shri Justice s. R. Tendolker and others. Demonstrably the classification brought about in Para 7 of g. O. Ms. No. 35 effectuates the policy choice of the State that works above the value of rs. 12 lakhs require to be executed pursuant to a more competitive process which can only be ensured by calling for a national competitive bidding. The object of award of tenders is not to benefit the water users but for achieving work of quality and enduring character. If the State in its wisdom and after consulting whatever expertise that is available to it, makes such policy choice, it is not to be interdicted by this Court for the mere asking. Except stating that the result of the procedure qua Para 7 of the G. O. would deny exclusive consideration of the claims of the Water Users Association, no principle of law that commends itself to this Court has been urged for acceptance. Except stating that the result of the procedure qua Para 7 of the G. O. would deny exclusive consideration of the claims of the Water Users Association, no principle of law that commends itself to this Court has been urged for acceptance. The State is free, under the principle of classification, to identify the classes of cases to meet different situations and as long as the classification is neutral and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, the classification which is essentially a policy choice of the State cannot fall for curial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the aforesaid circumstances, in the considered view of this Court, the challenge of Para 7 of the guidelines set out in g. O. Ms. No. 35, dated 29-2-2000 must fail. ( 6 ) NEEDLESS to state that pursuant to thetender notification dated 14-6-2000 the water Users Association shall also be entitled to bid or apply for tenders and submit the same if qualified within the terms of the notification. ( 7 ) THERE are no merits in the writ petition,which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.