In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution legality and propriety of the decision taken by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in pursuance of the tender notice dated 4.6.99 and the consequential action in issuing letters of intent vide No.HD/Comm./RG-72/Vol 11/2000-01/2688 dated 14.9.2000 are in challenge. 2. I have heard Mr. BC Das, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. MZ Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and also Mrs B. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 3. Before the points raised are taken up, I would like to refer to the facts and the back ground which ultimately culminated in this writ petition. 4. Respondent No. 1 North Eastern Electric Power Corporation India Ltd (herein after referred to as NEEPCO) issued a notice inviting tender on 15th June, 1998 on two bid system i.e. Technical Bid and Price Bid for various items of which Package B dealing with 425 Volts AC Switch Gear Panel is the subject matter of the present petition. In response to the aforesaid notice, as many as eleven firms submitted tender documents of which only five were found technically viable. Amongst the five firms the petitioner firm quoted the lowest price amounting to Rs. 86,19,068.00 while the respondent No.3 quoted the second lowest price amounting to Rs. 88,31,044.00. It may be mentioned here that the quotation submitted by the tenderers on Price Bid was initially rejected and with the consent of the parties they were allowed to submit the second bid and it is in the second bid that the petitioner quoted the lowest price. 5. It would appear from para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the Executive Director (Commercial) processed the Price Bid of all the five tenderers and forwarded the same to the Financial Wing of NEEPCO for concurrence. In the cost comparative statement prepared in the office of the Executive Director (Commercial) on the basis of the price quoted by the parties, the petitioner has been shown to have quoted the lowest price while the respondent No.3 is the second lowest. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Tender and Purchase Committee for final decision. The Tender and Purchase Committee after consideration of the matter in details recommended that the contract be awarded to the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Tender and Purchase Committee for final decision. The Tender and Purchase Committee after consideration of the matter in details recommended that the contract be awarded to the respondent No.3. On this back ground, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. The proceedings recorded in the meeting of the Tender and Purchase Committee has been filed along with the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and before we refer to the reasons cited by them for rejecting the tender of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to reproduce herein below in short the grounds for rejection as indicated in the affidavit-in-opposition. The grounds for rejection as available in para 8 of the affidavit are as follows: (1) The respondent No.3 quoted the lowest basic price whereas the petitioner's basic price was higher and, therefore, it was not the petitioner but the respondent No.3 who had quoted the lowest price. (2) The tenders were invited from reputed manufacturers and the petitioner is not a manufacturer of the equipments. (3) The petitioner has quoted higher freight and insurance charges as compared to that quoted by the respondent No.3. (4) The Finance Wing of NEEPCO expressed doubt about the financial soundness of the petitioner. (5) The respondent No.3 is otherwise a reputed Govt of India undertaking. 7. The above five grounds are the reasons for the decision of the Tender and Purchase Committee to award the contract with the respondent No.3. The proceedings of the committee also indicate this. 8. Mr. BC Das, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the ground No. 1 submitted that there is no indication in the NIT that the parties will have to quote the basic price and the bid will be considered on the basic price only. According to Mr. Das, it is the total financial involvement which will be determinative of the issue. The price of an item is understood to be inclusive of freight, insurance and taxes and, therefore, even if a particular quotation in respect of an item appears to be lesser than the rate quoted by the other, it is the total financial involvement which would be the consideration for awarding a contract. According to Mr. Das, the proceedings of the Tender and Purchase Committee show that the petitioner quoted Rs.86,19,068.00 whereas the respondent No.3 quoted Rs.88,31,044.00. Therefore, according to Mr. According to Mr. Das, the proceedings of the Tender and Purchase Committee show that the petitioner quoted Rs.86,19,068.00 whereas the respondent No.3 quoted Rs.88,31,044.00. Therefore, according to Mr. Das, by arithmetical maneuvering the respondent No.3 cannot be said to have quoted the lowest price. 9. After considering the submission of Mr. Das and also the materials available on record particularly the statement made in para 6 to the effect that the petitioner quoted the lowest price, I am not inspired to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that because of differences t in the basic price the respondent No.3 was given preference. There is in fact no indication in the pleadings nor in any document as to how the respondent No. 3 could be treated as the lowest bidder. That apart, the learned counsel for the NEEPCO also made a statement at the Bar that the letter of intent has been issued at the price quoted by the petitioner. This statement indicates that it was the petitioner and not the respondent No.3 who had quoted the lowest price. 10. With regard to the second ground that the petitioner is not a reputed manufacturer of the items, it has been submitted on oath by the petitioner in their reply to the affidavit-in-opposition that they are not the manufacturers of certain components of the AC Switch Gear Panel and similarly the respondent No.3 is also not a manufacturer of all the components of the same item. According to them, both the firms assemble the entire system after purchase of certain components from other manufacturers. This submission made by the petitioner on oath has not been controverted by the respondents. Therefore, it appears that the second ground for rejection is also not tenable since both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3 stand on equal footing on this count. The ground Nos. 3 and 4 relate to financial' soundness of the petitioner firm. From the proceedings itself it appears that there was a discussion in the Tender and Purchase Committee meeting about the financial proficiency of the petitioner firm and in course of discussion the Executive Director (Commercial) confirmed that the petitioner firm is working in various other projects of the respondents and appears to be 'all right'. It was only the Director (Finance) who had expressed his concern about the firm's financial position. It was only the Director (Finance) who had expressed his concern about the firm's financial position. But this is an expression of doubt without any reference to any report or document. The expression of doubt by one of the members of the Committee cannot be a sound for a decision that the petitioner firm is financially weak. This is more so when the Executive Director (Commercial) confirmed and approved the financial capacity of the petitioner firm. It would be relevant here to refer to the averments made in para 2 of the writ petition where we find that the petitioner firm has been supplying electrical items and accessories to various important organizations including the NEEPCO. If we read the agreement in para 2 along with the statement made by the Executive Director (Commercial), it would appear that the Tender and Purchase Committee was obviously wrong to take note of the casual remark made by the Director (Finance) during the course of the proceedings. 11. In so far the decision to award the contract with respondent No.3 on the ground that it is a reputed Govt of India undertaking is concerned, the law being settled that in the absence of any indication in the NIT that a Govt company or undertaking will be given preference in the matter of selection, such decision cannot be sustained. There is no mention anywhere in the NIT that preference will be given to a Govt company or undertaking in the settlement of the contract. Therefore, reference in the proceedings that the respondent No.3 is a Govt company and the ultimate decision taken thereon to place the orders with the respondent No. 3 appears to have been vitiated because of undue preference given to this Govt company contrary to the stipulation in the NIT. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a number of decisions with emphasis on the decision rendered in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Division Bench decision of this Court in Ansal Properties & another vs. The State of Assam reported in 1999 (3) GLJ 296. The decisions were obviously referred to impress upon the Court that in the realm of contract, the Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review has to limit its scrutiny as indicated in the aforesaid decisions, particularly Tata Cellular (supra). The decisions were obviously referred to impress upon the Court that in the realm of contract, the Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review has to limit its scrutiny as indicated in the aforesaid decisions, particularly Tata Cellular (supra). There is no doubt that while exercising the powers of judicial review, the Court is authorised to examine the decision making process and not the decision. Once reasons are indicated for the decision taken, the Court will not enter into scrutiny for the adequacy of reasons. Certainly, the Court is free to interfere with a decision when the decision ex-facie appear to have been taken on irrelevant consideration. The basic principles in the domain of contract has not undergone any change even in Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd vs. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd & others reported in (1997) 1 SCC 738 referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 12. The principles of judicial review as is available from the aforesaid decisions may be invoked in the instant case to determine as to whether the decision of the Tender and Purchase Committee could be sustained or not. The decision making process when considered in the touch-stone of the principles above does not inspire this Court to agree with Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the decision of the Tender and Purchase Committee is the best decision taken in the larger public interest. No explanation is forthcoming from the respondents as to how the respondent No.3 who had quoted higher price could be relegated to the position of the lowest bidder. There is no justification at all as to why the petitioner being the lowest bidder, its technical bid being viable and being financially sound as excluded from considerations. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the letter of intent is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for taking a decision afresh in the light of the discussion made herein above. The decision in this regard be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.