ORDER Dipak Misra, J. Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashment of the conditions No. 3 and 4 in the Notice Inviting Tender (in short 'NIT') contained in Annexure-P-1 and further to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue tender form to the petitioner to enable him to compete for obtaining the works in question and pass such order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts as have been uncurtained are that the petitioner is a registered Class-I contractor in Central Public Works Department (for brevity 'CPWD') and is qualified to tender for works upto any amount. The petitioner has been working in the field of building and road works for last 15 years and has completed works upto Rs. 25 crores. Presently the petitioner is engaged in the work of construction of boundary wall of the respondents at Air Port Jabalpur costing Rs. 1.75 crores. The respondent No. 3, Senior Manager, Engineering (Civil-I) on behalf of Airports Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') published an advertisement in daily newspaper 'Nav Bharat' dated 6-1-2001 for construction of terminal building and its internal electrification as well as other related services. In the said notice they fixed the norms for contractors for submitting application for issuance of tender forms. According to the condition No. 3, only those contractors can apply for the tender form who have satisfactorily completed two works each costing Rs. 211 lacs or one work costing Rs. 317 lacs and as per condition No. 4 the yearly turnover of the contractor must be Rs. 338 lacs. The petitioner approached the respondent No. 3 at his office in New Delhi and submitted the application with full details indicating that according to paragraph 19.14 of the CPWD Manual which deals with sale of the tender documents, tenders will be issued to eligible contractors provided that they have executed works of magnitude specified against each in the last five years. He has referred to Clause 2 of the said paragraph to highlight that there was no condition for turnover in the last preceding years. He has referred to Clause 2 of the said paragraph to highlight that there was no condition for turnover in the last preceding years. The petitioner also pointed out that Airports Authority of India does not have its separate specifications for the purpose of fixing eligibility criteria and is governed by specifications mentioned in the CPWD Manual. He has also pointed out that an agreement has been executed with him wherein reference has been made to specifications mentioned in the CPWD Manual. The petitioner complied with the all other formalities and applied for issuance of tender form but the respondent No. 3 refused to issue the tender form on the ground that the petitioner had not fulfilled the conditions No. 3 and 4 as per NIT. It is averred in the petition that the incorporation of conditions No. 3 and 4 is contrary to paragraph 19 of the CPWD Manual. It is also putforth that NIT is silent about the last date of depositing the forms and the date of opening of the tender, and hence, whole procedure adopted by the respondents is untenable. It has been pleaded that the respondents have deliberately imposed the aforesaid conditions so that several contractors would be deprived of competing from small places like Jabalpur, Raipur and Bhopal and only big contractors from Delhi and Bombay would be entitled to apply and the respondents can choose the contractors of their own choice. With these averments reliefs have been sought as has been indicated above. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the Airports Authority of India is a body constituted under the Act of Parliament and has its own approved standard norms for fixing eligibility criteria for shortlisting of contractors for issue of tender documents. A copy of Technical Instructions No. 91 approved by the competent authority has been brought on record as Annexure-R-1. It is put forth that the Authority is no way connected with the CPWD and is also under no obligation to follow the CPWD criteria for shortlisting of contractors. CPWD has its own norms which do not match with the norms of the Authority. It is also set forth that CPWD has its own empanelment of contractors whereas the Authority does not have empanelment system. The Authority fixes the eligibility criteria for each work based on the standard approved norms. CPWD has its own norms which do not match with the norms of the Authority. It is also set forth that CPWD has its own empanelment of contractors whereas the Authority does not have empanelment system. The Authority fixes the eligibility criteria for each work based on the standard approved norms. It has also been put forth that NIT was published in various leading newspapers in India and as there were mistakes in the advertisement published in 'Nav Bharat', a corrigendum was published in 'Nav Bharat' dated 17-2-2001. A reference has been made to the said corrigendum to indicate the amended classifications. It has also been stated that the tender documents are to be issued to the shortlisted firms and the date of opening and submission of tender would be intimated to them in due course. It has been put forth that the petitioner vide his application dated 14-2-2001 stated that he is eligible as per CPWD norms for shortlisting, and the respondents vide their letter dated 15-2-2001 clarified that the Authority has its own eligibility criteria for shortlisting and does not follow the CPWD criteria for the same. It has been stated that the conditions are justified keeping in view the quality of work to be done. It has been highlighted that the advertisement has been published in Times of India, Hindu, Statesman, Assam Tribune, Pioneer, Lokmat and Nav Bharat. It has been asserted that the respondents have not taken any steps to deprive the petitioner by putting unreasonable conditions. On the contrary, it has laid down the requirements so that the standard of work is maintained. I have heard Mr. S.L. Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. R.S. Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents. It is submitted by Mr. Kochar that the respondents are governed by the guidelines enshrined in CPWD Manual but they have deliberately not followed the same and by such violation the act of the respondents deserves to be axed by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. It is further urged by him that a deliberate attempt has been made by the respondents to deprive the contractors likes the petitioner and to confer benefit on their chosen ones. It is further urged by him that a deliberate attempt has been made by the respondents to deprive the contractors likes the petitioner and to confer benefit on their chosen ones. It is further submitted by him that the conditions No. 3 and 4 have no rationale or justifiability and have been incorporated to deprive the contractors from small places and such an imposition is extremely arbitrary. Learned counsel has further canvassed that there has been change in the conditions of tender as has been admitted by the respondents and such a change is not permissible in law. To reinforce his submissions the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered in the cases of Radhakrishna Agarwal and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, , M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. M/s. Ganesh Engineering Works and others, , Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, and M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Others, . That apart, the learned counsel has also referred to the decisions passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2715/1995 (Pawan Kumar Jain vs. Union of India and others and W.P. No. 6156/1998 (P.K. Tiwari vs. Union of India and another). Combating the aforesaid submissions it is proponed by Mr. Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the Union of India, that the Authority is not governed by CPWD Manual and Has its own instructions. It is further put forth by him that it has its proforma tender notice which fixes the qualifications. It is also urged by him that construction of terminal building has its own importance and technical significance. It is also contended by him that there is stipulation of time for completing the work within a period of 18 months and under these circumstance the contractor is expected to have the financial resources. The learned standing counsel has also canvassed that wide publicity was given inviting tenders as the Authority has to choose the best so that the work is done in a proper manner and no one can claim a right to compete on the ground that he belongs to a particular place. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to paragraph 19.14 of CPWD Manual. It reads as under:- "19.14. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to paragraph 19.14 of CPWD Manual. It reads as under:- "19.14. The following procedure should be adopted for issuing tenders for CPWD works to the contractors, who are not registered with the CPWD. 1(a) In the NIT, the estimated value of the work should be indicated and tenders should be invited from contractors of approved class of CPWD which should invariably be indicated. (b) Contractors registered with the MES/Railways/State PWDs of the State in which the work is to be done/the station in which the Divisional Office is located shall have to satisfy the CPWD authorities that the class, in which they are registered, permits them to file tenders for the value of the work as notified. (c) The criteria for issue of tenders in CPWD in respect of eligible CPWD as well as non-CPWD contractors will be as under:- (i) For works costing above Rs. 25 lakhs and up to Rs. 2 (two) crores, tender may also be issued to eligible non-CPWD contractors, provided they have satisfactorily completed three works, each costing an amount equal to 30% of the estimated cost of the work for which tender is to be invited. This is subject to the condition that value of each such work should not be less than Rs. 15 lakhs. (ii) For works costing over Rs. 2 (two) crores and upto Rs. 5 (five) crores, tenders may be issued to eligible CPWD and non-CPWD contractors, provided they have satisfactorily completed three works individually of the magnitude shown below during the last five years:- For works estimated to cost above Rs. 2 croresuptoRs. 3 crores. Three works each costing Rs. 75 Lakhs. For works estimated to cost above Rs. 3 croresuptoRs. 5 crores. Three works each costing Rs. 1 crore. (iii) For works costing over Rs. 5 crores, tenders may be issued to eligible CPWD and non-CPWD contractors, provided they have satisfactorily completed three works individually of the magnitude shown below during the last 7 years:- For works estimated to cost above Rs. 5 crores. Three works each costing Rs. 2 crores or two works of aggregate cost not less than Rs. 6 crores. Submission of Mr. Kochar is that as per the CPWD Manual the petitioner is entitled to obtain the tender forms. Per contra, Mr. 5 crores. Three works each costing Rs. 2 crores or two works of aggregate cost not less than Rs. 6 crores. Submission of Mr. Kochar is that as per the CPWD Manual the petitioner is entitled to obtain the tender forms. Per contra, Mr. Patel has referred to Technical Instruction No. 91 dated 18-7-2000. The said instructions deal with the standardisation of formats for tender notice for shortlisting of contractors. Annexure-I to the said instructions deals with the notice for shortlisting of contractors for works of estimated cost of Rs. 10 crores and Annexure-II deals with the notice inviting applications for shortlisting of contractors for estimated cost of more than Rs. 10 crores. On a perusal of Annexure-I to the said instructions which is relevant for the present purpose it is apparent that under Clause vs. of the note for filling up vacant spaces 50% of the amount at place 'h' is to be filled up and 75% amount shall be filled up at place 'I' Conditions No. 3 and 4 were initially published in 'Nav Bharat' on 6-2-2001 where certain amount was mentioned on the basis of the estimated cost of Rs. 422 lacs. As there was an error a corrigendum was published on 17-2-2001 indicating the estimated cost of Rs. 448 lacs, and accordingly, there was a change in the figures in conditions No. 3 and 4. The conditions published in Assam Tribune dated 6-2-2001 which has been brought on record as Annexure-R-2 read as under:- (iii) Should have satisfactorily completed two works, each of Rs. 224 lakhs or one work of Rs. 336 Lakhs (Price updated @ 10% per annum compounded) of similar nature such as Airport Terminals, Hotels and Office buildings during last three years. Client's certificate stating the value of work, date of start and satisfactory completion of the work is to be submitted alongwith the application itself for shortlisting. Should have annualised average annual financial turnover of Rs. 359 lakhs against works executed during last three years. As a proof, copy of Abridged Balance Sheet of the firms shall be submitted along with the application. On a perusal of the aforesaid conditions and the Annexure-I appended to Technical Instructions No. 91 it is noticeable that the said conditions are in consonance with the said instructions. 359 lakhs against works executed during last three years. As a proof, copy of Abridged Balance Sheet of the firms shall be submitted along with the application. On a perusal of the aforesaid conditions and the Annexure-I appended to Technical Instructions No. 91 it is noticeable that the said conditions are in consonance with the said instructions. It is worth noting here that under Condition No. 1 contractors/firms are required to be registered in appropriate class of CPWD. The petitioner does belong to the said category of contractors but as fairly admitted by Mr. Kochar that the petitioner does not satisfy conditions No. 3 and 4. His submission to the effect that CPWD Manual is applicable is not acceptable inasmuch as Annexure-R-1 has been brought into existence on 18-7- 2000. The decisions which have been brought on record as Annexure-P-5 and P-6 to the writ petition are not of any assistance to the petitioner because there this Court was concerned with the contracts relating to Telecommunication Department and was guided by the concept of imposition of conditions and restriction in the sphere of competition. Moreover, the conditions imposed therein were not in tune with the CPWD Manual. But in the case at hand the new Technical Instructions have come to occupy the field and there was no impediment on the part of the Authority to frame its own guidelines. The NIT for shortlisting of contractors is in consonance with the instructions. At this juncture I think it apposite to refer to the decisions cited by Mr. Kochar. In the cases of Rammana Dayaram Shetty (supra) and M/s Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) their Lordships were dealing, with different aspects of tender notice and not with the eligibility criteria of this nature. In the case of M/s Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra) the Apex Court held as under:- In a term of tender is deleted after the players entered into the arena it is like changing the rules of the game after it had begun and, therefore, if the Government or the Municipal Corporation was free to alter the conditions fresh process of tender was the only alternative permissible. By reason of deletion of a particular condition the wider net will be permissible and a larger participation or more attractive bids could be offered. (Quoted from placitum). It is submitted by Mr. By reason of deletion of a particular condition the wider net will be permissible and a larger participation or more attractive bids could be offered. (Quoted from placitum). It is submitted by Mr. Kochar that as the estimated cost was changed, as a logical corollary thereof, eligibility criteria was changed, the same is not allowable and that amounts to changing the rules of the game. The aforesaid submission, has no substance inasmuch as after noticing the mistake, a corrigendum was issued in the Hindi Newspaper. The said corrigendum was published well in advance. That apart, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had, the eligibility criteria on the basis of the initial NIT and lost the same because of issue of a corrigendum. That being not so, I am of the considered opinion the law laid down in the aforesaid case is of no assistance to the petitioner. Mr. Kochar has commended me to paragraphs 93, 94 and 95 of Tata Cellular (supra). I have carefully perused the aforesaid paragraphs of the said decision and am of the considered view that the Apex Court has in these paragraphs dealt with the general principles and has enumerated the grounds on which the administrative action is subject to control of judicial review. In fact, it is apposite to refer to paragraph 113 of the aforesaid decision wherein their Lordships have culled out the following principles:- 113. The principle deducible from the above are:- The modem trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. 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. 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. The Government must have freedom 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. 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 fide. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. The present factual matrix has to be tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles. As has been indicated above, the notice inviting tender is in tune with the instructions of the Authority. Quite apart from the above it is to be kept in view that the work in question is of great magnitude and time span is 18 months. Considering both the aspects the terms have been incorporated. In this context I think it profitable to refer to an observation made by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. occurring in paragraph 14:- 14 New terms and conditions have been prescribed apparently bearing in mind the nature of contract, which is only collection of octroi as an agent and depositing the same with the Corporation. In addition, earnest money and the performance of bank guarantee are insisted upon; collection of octroi have to be made on day to day basis and payment must be made on weekly basis entailing, in case of default, cancellation of the contract. We cannot say whether these conditions are better than what were prescribed earlier for in such matters the authority calling for tenders is the best Judge A public authority is entitled to get the job done in the best suitable manner as long as it does not offend the Wednesbury's principle of reasonableness and there is no procedural impropriety, arbitrariness, bias and mala fide. In absence of all these factors in the present case I am of the considered opinion the incorporation of conditions Nos. 3 and 4 are justified and does not warrant to be lanceted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. In absence of all these factors in the present case I am of the considered opinion the incorporation of conditions Nos. 3 and 4 are justified and does not warrant to be lanceted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Resultantly, the writ petition, being devoid of substance, stands dismissed without any order as to costs. Final Result : Dismissed