P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has established a manufacturing unit of Tractor Trailers and other agricultural implements. The orissa Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe development Finance Co-operative Corporation, ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "corporation")invited tenders for supply of Tractor trailers etc. by publishing notice on 6/6/2000. The petitioner submitted his tender along with the earnest money deposit of rs. 20,000/ -. Since the earnest money was deposited in two instalments, the petitioner apprehending that his tender may not be considered, filed O. J. C. No. 5613/2000 seeking for a direction to consider the tender and for award of the contract to the petitioner. The said writ application was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 8/9/2000 with a direction that the concerned opposite parties shall consider the offer of the petitioner along with the other eligible tenderers. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the order of the High court, the petitioner's tender has not been considered and the opposite parties have placed orders for supply of 76 numbers of Trailers with opposite parties 3 to 9 on the basis of negotiation, even though their offers were higher than the offer of the petitioner. By interim order dated 29/9/2000, the learned single Judge of this Court directed opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 not to disburse the loan for the purpose of purchase of Trailers untill further orders. ( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 1 has filed counter wherein it is indicated that the offer of the petitioner was considered and found unacceptable by the Tender Committee. Subsequently, the petitioner by way of amendment has challenged the decision of the Tender Committee. An application for intervention has been filed by M/s. Sheet Profile as order has been placed with such concern for supplying some trailers. The prayers for amendment and intervention were allowed. The counsels appearing for the petitioner, intervenor and opposite parties 1 and 2 have been heard. ( 3 ) THE scope for interference with any administrative decisions relating to acceptance of tender has been well settled by the Supreme court as well as by this Court. The prayers for amendment and intervention were allowed. The counsels appearing for the petitioner, intervenor and opposite parties 1 and 2 have been heard. ( 3 ) THE scope for interference with any administrative decisions relating to acceptance of tender has been well settled by the Supreme court as well as by this Court. It is now well settled that the award of a contract by the State or the public authority should be interfered with only if the Court comes to the conclusion that the award of the contract is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality and irrationality. However, the Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over such decisions taken by the appropriate authority. The grounds upon which an administrative action can be judicially reviewed can be summarized as follows :- (I) if there is any illegality; (ii) if there is any irrationality; and, (iii) if there is any procedural impropriety. Many of the decisions of the Supreme Court have been considered and the law has been summarized in the above manner in the decision reported in Tata Cellular v. Union of india and it is unnecessary to refer to other decisions on this aspect. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner has impugned the action of opposite parties 1 and 2 on the ground of irrationality on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2. ( 5 ) THE opposite party No. 1 has annexed the decision of the Tender Committee as annexure-D/1. While rejecting the tender of the present petitioner, it appears that the following facts were taken into consideration by the Tender Committee :-" (A) All other Tenderers/suppliers except s. S. S. Jagannath Udyog. Cuttack are unwilling to reduce the price from Rs. 65,500/- stating that further reduction will make the project economically unviable (b) The petitioner has capacity to supply maximum 20 Trailors and implements per month whereas osfdc has time bound programme to release Trailors and implements along with Tractors by 31st October, 2000, since it is already incurring penal Interest which is to be paid to NSFDC. The petitioner may take 10 months or more time to supply 200 Trailors and Implements. Beneficiaries who are going to get their Tractors by 31st October, 2000, may suffer economically if trailors and implements are not supplied to them along with Tractors timely. (c) All the 7 Tenderers/suppliers who have been selected by Tender. The petitioner may take 10 months or more time to supply 200 Trailors and Implements. Beneficiaries who are going to get their Tractors by 31st October, 2000, may suffer economically if trailors and implements are not supplied to them along with Tractors timely. (c) All the 7 Tenderers/suppliers who have been selected by Tender. Committee reduced their quoted unit price on negotiation whereas the peititoner in fact has increased his price from Rs. 56,100/- to Rs 59. 600/ -. (d) The petitioner has defaulted in supply of Trailor and Implements last year. Still he has kept Rs. 1. 30 lakhs of OSFDC fund without supplying trailors and Implements since he expressed his helplessness in providing Trailors to suit particular brand of Tractors. "a perusal of the reasons given by the tender Committee clearly indicates that except the reasons classified under Sub-para (d ). the other reasons, particularly, the reasons under sub-para (a) and (c) appear to be wholly irrational. It is apparent from the proceedings as well as from the counter affidavit that decision has been taken to place orders with other suppliers who during negotiations reduced their price and agreed to supply at the rate of Rs. 65,500/- per Trailer. The petitioner who had quoted price of Rs. 56,100/- without including transportation charges had submitted that he would be able to supply at the rate of Rs. 59. 600/- including transportation charges. It was argued that other suppliers did not agree to reduce further from Rs. 65,500/- on the ground that further reduction will make the project economically unvible. Even after the offers were reduced by others and price was increased by the petitioner, the price ultimately offered by the petitioner was lower than the price offered by others. The fact the petitioner offered a lower price and others were not willing to reduce further, cannot be a rational ground to reject the offer of the petitioner. Therefore, the reasonings given under Sub-paras (a) and (c) of Annexure-D/1 appear to be fully irrational. It is of course true that if the committee would have come to a conclusion that it would be impossible on the part of the petitioner to supply Trailer at the rate of Rs. 59,600/- without compromising with the quality of the Trailer, that would have been a rational conclusion. However, there is no such conclusion by the Tender Committee. It is of course true that if the committee would have come to a conclusion that it would be impossible on the part of the petitioner to supply Trailer at the rate of Rs. 59,600/- without compromising with the quality of the Trailer, that would have been a rational conclusion. However, there is no such conclusion by the Tender Committee. It has only recorded the statements of other suppliers that the rate below Rs. 65,500/- would make a project economically unviable. ( 6 ) THE reasonings given under paragraph (b), prima facie appear to be valid reason as the petitioner would not be in a position to supply 200 Trailers. If the opposite parties would have decided to place orders for all 200 trailers with one concern, such a reason could have been validly adopted to reject the offer of the petitioner. However, it is not disputed that the opposite parties have decided to place ordres with various suppliers. In other words, it is not necessary for the petitioner or any other supplier to supply the entire 200 Trailers. Since opposite parties 1 and 2 have decided to place orders with all other suppliers, it is evident that no supplier would be required to supply the entire 200 Trailers. It is of course true that the time-frame for supply of Trailers is also important. Accordingly, the Tender committee could have taken appropriate decision for placing orders with various suppliers including the petitioner regarding the number of Trailers to be supplied by each supplier. ( 7 ) IN course of hearing the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that since the petitioner had given offer at a lower rate, it may not be practicable to place orders with other suppliers. Since the petitioner would not be in a position to supply the entire 200 trailers and the others would not be in a position to supply trailers at a price lower than rs. 65,500/-, a practical solution could have been found out. It may be that the customers who would get their trailers through the petitioner would have to pay less than the other customers. 65,500/-, a practical solution could have been found out. It may be that the customers who would get their trailers through the petitioner would have to pay less than the other customers. This is a matter which the Tender committee or the appropriate authority could have sorted out and the persons who were to get the benefit of supply through the petitioner could have been found out either keeping in view the proximity of their place of living from the manufacturing unit of the petitioner or the place of supply or even such beneficiaries could have been found out through the process of draw of lots. However, even though it is not possible to supply trailers to all the persons at the lower rate offered by the petitioner, it is not a ground to deprive some of the beneficiaries from obtaining trailer at a lower price. ( 8 ) THE reason given in paragraph (d) appear to be germane. It has been indicated that the petitioner had defaulted in supplying trailers and implements in previous year and some amount was still outstanding against the petitioner. The petitioner has tried to explain the circumstances under which he was unable to supply the trailers in previous year. It would not be appropriate for this Court to find out as to whether the reasons given by the petitioner are justified or not. It is a matter which can be considered by the appropriate authority including the Tender Committee and if the appropriate authority or the Tender Committee is otherwise satisfied that the petitioner would be in a position to supply trailers within the short time which is now available, necessary orders can be placed. It is a matter which can be considered by the appropriate authority including the Tender Committee and if the appropriate authority or the Tender Committee is otherwise satisfied that the petitioner would be in a position to supply trailers within the short time which is now available, necessary orders can be placed. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the writ application is disposed of with the following directions :- (I) The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to explain as to whether he had defaulted in supplying trailers and implements in the previous year and if the appropriate authority is satisfied with the reasons and is convinced that the petitioner would be in a position to supply lesser number of trailers at the price earlier quoted by him during negotiation, then the opposite parties and the Tender Committee would fix number of trailers to be supplied by the petitioner and select the beneficiaries on any reasonable basis or by draw of lots, if necessary; (II) The decision to place orders with other suppliers shall be implemented. However, if it is decided to place orders regarding supply of some trailers with the petitioner, the number of trailers to be supplied by the other suppliers is to be proportionately reduced. Petition allowed accordingly.