Y. V. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) W. P. NO. 11327 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioner K. Narasimha, a registered contractor, for issue of a Writ of Mandamus questioning the letter No. CE/tlandss/ vja/tech/f/93/d. No. 152/2000 dated 12-6-2000 of the 3rd respondent cancelling his tender in respect of maintenance work of Extra High Tension Lines and Sub-Stations in Krishna District for the year 2000-2001 and allotting the same to the 5th respondent as illegal and arbitrary. ( 2 ) W. P. NO. 12804 of 2000 has been filed by the petitioner M/s. Sai Power constructions, a partnership firm engaged in the electrical contract works, challenging the letter No. CE/tl and SS/vja/tech. / f. 93/d. NO. 704/2k, dated 30-6-2000 of the 3rd respondent. accepting the tender of m/s. Surya Associations, respondent No. 5 herein and entrusting the contract work relating to maintenance of EHT Lines and sub-Stations in Krishna District for the year 2000-2001 to it as illegal and arbitrary. ( 3 ) SINCE both the Writ Petitions arose out of the same cause of action, both the writ petitions are heard together and a common order is being passed as hereunder. ( 4 ) THE factual matrix leading to the filing of W. P. NO. 12804 of 2000, in brief, is set out as hereunder: The Writ Petitioner is a partnership firm having experience in electrical contract work in the field of maintenance. The 3rd respondent by his tender Notice No. CE/tl and SS/vja/ tech/f. 93. D. No. 524/2000 dated 12-6-2000 called for tenders in respect of works of contract relating to maintenance of Extra high Tension Lines and Sub-Stations in krishna District for the year 2000-2001. In pursuance of the said tender, the petitioner submitted its tender on 27-06-2000 within the stipulated time. According to the writ petitioner, the 5th respondent does not possess the requisite licence issued by the 1st respondent-Licensing Board and hence is not competent to participate in the tender. It is also further submitted by the petitioner that if the work is entrusted to the 5th respondent there is immense danger to the public safety because the work is being carried on through unskilled persons. The petitioner further submitted that he has filed W. P. NO. 12156 of 2000 challenging the proposed action of the 3rd respondent in awarding the contract in favour of the 5th respondent. The petitioner further submitted that he has filed W. P. NO. 12156 of 2000 challenging the proposed action of the 3rd respondent in awarding the contract in favour of the 5th respondent. Subsequently the petitioner secured a copy of the letter dated 30-6-2000 issued by the 3rd respondent issuing the contract work in favour of the 5th respondent and challenging the same the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. It is his submission that W. P. No. 12156 of 2000 has become infructuous. ( 5 ) THE Writ Petitioner in W. P. No. 11327 of 2000, a registered licence contractor, has challenged the award of the contract to the 5th respondent in this writ petition. If is submitted by the writ petitioner in this writ petition that he has a vast experience in the field of maintenance of High Tension Lines and Sub-Stations and the contract ought to have been entrusted to him. It is also his contention that he has quoted Rs. 42,000-00 per month and his is the lowest offer among the tenders excluding the 5th respondent. The petitioner further submits that the 5th respondent is a close relative of the 4th respondent and he stays in the neighbouring house of the 4th respondent. It is his plea that the 4th respondent has set up the 5th respondent in order to favour him. ( 6 ) A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 denying the averments made by the writ petitioners. It is submitted that the 5th respondent was awarded the work of maintenance of Extra High Tension Lines and Sub-Stations in Krishna District for the year 2000-2001 under Chief Engineer transmission Lines and Sub-Stations, vijayawada Zone under Tender specification No. 1a/2000-2001 for carrying out the work under the supervision of an experienced a Grade Licence Holder Sri n. Murali Krishna who is in association with the 5th respondent and they possess the skilled labour and were tested and certified by the Divisional Engineer/ tlandss/vijayawada vide letter No. F7/461/ 2000 dated 7-7-2000. It is further contended that the Electrical Inspectorate issues the licence in the name of an individual but not in the name of a firm. The 5th respondent has produced the relevant certificate of electrical contractor s licence before actually commencing the work contract entrusted to them. It is further contended that the Electrical Inspectorate issues the licence in the name of an individual but not in the name of a firm. The 5th respondent has produced the relevant certificate of electrical contractor s licence before actually commencing the work contract entrusted to them. It is also the stand of respondents 1 to 3 that there is no restriction upon the contractor getting its work done through their associate agency satisfying the requirement of Rule 45 of the Indian electricity Rules, 1945. It is further stated that the tenders were opened on 28-6-2000 and the letter of intent was issued to the 5th respondent and the 5th respondent quoted the lowest rate i. e. , Rs. 38,800-00 per month i. e. , 17. 83% lower than the estimated rate and the writ petitioner quoted Rs. 42,000-00 per month i. e. , 11. 11% lower than the estimated rate. Taking into consideration the difference between the first lowest tender and the second lowest tender per month and finding that the rate quoted by the 5th respondent is more competitive the work was entrusted to the 5th respondent. The awarding of the work to the 5th respondent is entirely in consonance with the tender rates and it is in no way arbitrary or contrary to the established procedure. The 3rd respondent also denied the mala fides on his part in entrusting the contract work to the 5th respondent. ( 7 ) THE 4th respondent also filed a separate counter-affidavit denying the mala fides and further contended that the allegation of mala fides have been made without substantiating the same. ( 8 ) THE 5th respondent also filed a separate counter-affidavit justifying the action of respondents 1 to 4 in entrusting the work to him. It is submitted by the 5th respondent that the skills of the candidates were examined by the concerned authorities before carrying out the work. They also claim that they have submitted electrical contractors licence in the name of sri N. Murali Krishna, their associate and they produced the relevant certificate before commencing the work and complied with all the conditions. ( 9 ) TAKING into consideration the rival submissions, the only question that falls for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether respondents 1 to 4 have acted in a fair, honest, and transparent manner in awarding the contract to the 5th respondent. ( 9 ) TAKING into consideration the rival submissions, the only question that falls for consideration in these Writ Petitions is whether respondents 1 to 4 have acted in a fair, honest, and transparent manner in awarding the contract to the 5th respondent. ( 10 ) SRI Duba V. Nagarjuna Babu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in w. P. No. 12804 of 2000 has placed strong reliance on Regulation 39 of the A. P. Electrical Licensing Regulations, 1987 and contended that the licences in Grade a granted to the persons approved by the board is not liable to be transferred and hence is hit by Regulation 39. He also reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner and contended that respondents 1 to 4 cannot entrust the contract to the 5th respondent who is not competent to execute the work. On going through Chapter IV of the A. P. Electrical Licensing Regulations, 1987, regulation 35 permits that in case of partnership firm one of the partners thereof shall hold certificate of competency and acceptance permit granted by the Board or shall have in his employment holding a certificate of competency and appropriate permit. On interpretation of Regulation 39 it does not prevent the writ petitioner from having an associate for the purpose of execution of the work. In other words, there is no restriction by a contractor getting his work done through associate agency satisfying the requirement of Rule 45 of indian Electricity Rules, 1945. The learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Monarch infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, uljiasnagar Municipal, Corporation and contended that where the action of the authority is arbitrary, the Court can direct the authority to process the tender afresh. In other words, it is his contention that where the tenderer was not eligible to tender, the court should exercise its power of judicial review and issue appropriate direction. ( 11 ) IN the matter of distribution of largesse and in exercising the power of judicial review under the Constitution of india this Court will examine whether the conduct of the State is arbitrary, capricious and lacks transparency. ( 11 ) IN the matter of distribution of largesse and in exercising the power of judicial review under the Constitution of india this Court will examine whether the conduct of the State is arbitrary, capricious and lacks transparency. In the present case respondents 1 to 4 have awarded the work of maintenance of EHT Lines and Sub-Stations in Krishna District for the year 2000-2001 to the 5th respondent taking into consideration that the 5th respondent is getting his work done through associate agency satisfying the requirements. In the matter of distribution of largesse this Court does not function as an appellate authority and even when some defect is found in the decision making process, this Court must exercise its discretionary power under article 226 of the Constitution of India with great care and caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out a legal point. The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with an identical situation in Krishna Mohan shukla vs. U. O. L and others and held as follows:"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 of 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. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bon afide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the 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. 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. " ( 12 ) 1 have also gone through the record that has been placed before me and I do not find any act of arbitrariness nor mala fide on the part of respondents 1 to 4 in awarding the contract to the 5th respondent. Taking into consideration the legal and factual aspects of this case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. Both the Writ Petitions are devoid of merits and are therefore liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) BOTH the Writ Petitions are, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.