JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. (Oral) - We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 2. Mr. Aggarwal, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that in view of the notification dated 22.06.2000, Annexure P-12, the petitioners could not have been excluded from participating in the tenders for executing the work in dispute. Admittedly, the tenders have been floated for construction of Carrier Channels for Delhi Water Supply Project. This work is needed to be completed on an urgent footing due to the immense shortage of water in the capital. According to the learned counsel, the contract has been tailor made to show undue favour to two of the contractors from Gujarat. He has further argued that conditions contained in the tender notice are unreasonable and have resulted virtually in nullifying the object which was sought to be achieved by the notification issued by the Haryana Cooperative Department dated 22.06.2000. According to the learned counsel, under this notification all unskilled works upto any value and skilled works upto the limit of Rs. 10,00,000/- each shall be allotted to these societies only by way of tenders within the ceiling rates fixed by the respective Superintending Engineers of each branch of the P.W.D. In order to further encourage the cooperative societies, it is also provided that the Cooperative Societies will make payment of the earnest money of Rs. 1000/- or 1% whichever is less, for all skilled works. Mr. Aggarwal has further relied on condition No. 5 of the aforesaid notification, which is as follows :- "Skilled and Unskilled portion of works shall be determined separately before calling tenders when some unskilled work is mingled in a skilled work". 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid clause makes it mandatory for the respondents to bifurcate each of the work into skilled and unskilled portion. If the works which are mentioned in the tender notice had bifurcated, the petitioners societies would be eligible to participate in the tender. That not having been done, the petitioners have been denied the benefit of the notification Annexure P-12. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid action of the respondents is arbitrary, whimsical and without any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 4. Mrs. That not having been done, the petitioners have been denied the benefit of the notification Annexure P-12. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid action of the respondents is arbitrary, whimsical and without any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 4. Mrs. Ritu Bahri, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, appearing for the respondents has stated that the conditions laid down in the notification Annexure P-12, are by way of concession. No legal right flows to the petitioners to claim the work which is the subject matter of the tender notice exclusively. It is further argued that the work is of highly technical nature. Furthermore, the water supply to Delhi has to be improved within a stipulated period of time. In fact, the respondents were anxious to complete the work within 12 months. It is further argued that even though, some part of the works may be unskilled, the same form part and parcel of the complete project. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that it would be wholly impracticable for the respondents to divide the work into small lots. It would lead to unnecessary confusion and delay if the work is allotted to more than one or two contractors. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. We are of the considered opinion that it is essentially for the authorities to decide as to the contractors who are the best suited for a particular project. Even though, there may be certain concessions reserved for the petitioner societies for being allotted the unskilled work, the same cannot be extended to include project which need to be undertaken by expert bodies possessing the requisite technical know-how. This matter essentially has to be left to be decided by the authorities. The Courts exercising powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, ought not to ordinarily substitute their own opinion for the opinion of the experts. We are of the considered opinion that no case has been made out to interfere. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.