AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Writ Appeals by M/s. Gupta enterprises, represented by its Managing partner M. M. Gupta, Eluru and by its manager K. Sreenivas respectively are directed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge in W. P. No. 8589 of 2002 and W. P. No. 18868 of 2001 respectively. As both the appeals are interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) WE have heard Sri 5. Ramachandra rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Sri E. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent - M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises as also the learned Government Pleader for endowments. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY noted, the facts leading to the controversy are as follows: ( 4 ) THE Executive Officer of Sri Varaha lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, simhachalam, one of the respondents in both the writ petitions, issued a tender notification on 25. 2. 2001 for conduct of public auction on 14. 3. 2001 for collection of human hair submitted by the devotees to the Deity of varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple for the period from 1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002. According to the tender notification, the interested bidders shall have to deposit an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards HMD by way of DD before participating in the tender proceedings. On the same day, auction was also proposed to be held for collection of graded variety of human hair received at the tonsuring place up to 31. 3. 2001 and for participation in this bid, the interested persons have to deposit an amount of rs. 1,00,000/- towards HMD. It is stated that due to some administrative reasons, the auction could not take place on 14. 3. 2001 and the same was postponed to 29. 3. 2001 and the change of date of auction was published in the daily newspapers on 14. 3. 2001. According to the authorities, all the participants were informed through letters and telephonically. Accordingly, the auction took place on 29. 3. 2001 and in the said auction M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises, eluru (Petitioner in W. P. No. 18868 of 2001) represented by its Managing Partner k. K. Gupta became the highest bidder for Rs. 64. 10 lakhs. It appears that the executive Officer of the Temple sent his report dated 1. 4. Accordingly, the auction took place on 29. 3. 2001 and in the said auction M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises, eluru (Petitioner in W. P. No. 18868 of 2001) represented by its Managing Partner k. K. Gupta became the highest bidder for Rs. 64. 10 lakhs. It appears that the executive Officer of the Temple sent his report dated 1. 4. 2001 to the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad for approval of the same on 9. 5. 2001 as required under the rules. Alleging that the auction was conducted in haste, certain conditions of auction were arbitrary and there was delay in communicating about the postponement of the auction, M/s. Gupta Enterprises, Eluru (Petitioner in W. P. No. 8589 of 2002) and some others filed W. P. No. 9822 of 2001 on 14. 5. 2001 to set aside the report submitted by the Executive Officer. On 16. 5. 2001, this Court granted interim direction to the effect that the auction may be held but the same shall not be confirmed. It was also directed that "the Commissioner of endowments may however take such action as is necessary for collection of human hair". It may be noted herein that by that time, the auction was already held. It appears that M/s. Gupta Enterprises (sic Srinivasa enterprises) pursuant to the auction also deposited Rs. 32. 05 lakhs representing 50% of the bid amount. ( 5 ) WHILE things stood thus, the commissioner of Endowments, quoting the aforesaid interim orders of this Court, by orders dated 20. 7. 2001 declined to approve the lease hold rights in favour of M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises and accordingly rejected the proposal of the Executive Officer of the Temple. No other reasons were assigned for rejection of the proposal. The executive Officer was requested to conduct re-auction with the highest bid secured, as the upsetting initial bid. Thereafter, the executive Officer by his letter dated. 8. 8. 2001 intimating about the rejection of the proposal by the Commissioner returned the amount of Rs. 32,05,000/- deposited by the auction purchaser by cheque dated 8. 8. 2001 drawn on Andhra Bank, simhachalam. ( 6 ) QUESTIONING the above orders of the Commissioner and the Executive Officer, m/s. Srinivasa Enterprises filed W. P. No. 18868 of 2001 on the ground that as per rule 5 (2) of the Sale of Movable Properties rules issued in G. O. Ms. 8. 2001 drawn on Andhra Bank, simhachalam. ( 6 ) QUESTIONING the above orders of the Commissioner and the Executive Officer, m/s. Srinivasa Enterprises filed W. P. No. 18868 of 2001 on the ground that as per rule 5 (2) of the Sale of Movable Properties rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 796, Revenue (E. II) Department dated 26. 7. 1971 if no order confirming or vetoing the sale is communicated to the purchaser, within forty five days from the date of receipt of the report by the competent authority, the sale shall be deemed to have been confirmed. Since by 12. 5. 2001, no order has been communicated to M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises, the deeming clause will come into operation and the Commissioner has erred in not confirming his leasehold rights for collection of human hair from 1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002. ( 7 ) THE learned single Judge by order- dated 19. 9. 2001 suspended the operation of the order of the Commissioner dated 20. 7. 2001 as also the letter dated 8. 8. 2001 of the Executive Officer of the Temple in w. P. M. P. No. 23715 of 2001. On 28. 2. 2002, the learned single Judge taking notice of the fact that subsequent to the filing of the w. P. No. 9822 of 2001, the Executive officer of the Temple rejected the tender of M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises and a fresh notification inviting tenders was directed to be issued and that as the same was challenged by M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises in w. P. No. 18868 of 2001, dismissed W. P. No. 9822 of 2001 filed by M/s. Gupta enterprises as infructuous. Interestingly, subsequent to the dismissal of W. P. No. 9822 of 2001, referring to the order of this Court dated 19. 9. 2001, the Commissioner of endowments by his order dated 11. 4. 2002 confirmed the bid of M/s. Srinivasa enterprises in suppression of his earlier orders dated 20. 7. 2001. The said order reads thus: in pursuance of the Hon ble High Court orders in last cited, and in supersession of the orders issued earlier in the matter and in the best interest of the temple, the commissioner of Endowments Department, a. P. , Hyderabad hereby confirms the licence right for collection of human hair for the period from 1. 42001 to 31. 3. 42001 to 31. 3. 2002 in favour of the highest bidder M/s Srinivasa Enterprises, eluru for Rs. 64,10,000/- (Rupees sixty four lakhs ten and thousand only ). The Executive Officer is permitted to allow the highest bidder to take the so collected and preserved hair under the licence period after payment of the balance bid amount by the highest bidder. Further, it is informed that the claim for interest/service charges by either party does not arise. The Executive Officer shall take action accordingly. ( 8 ) CHALLENGING the aforesaid order, m/s. Gupta Enterprises filed W. P. No. 8589 of 2002 on the ground that when the matter is subjudice, the Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the sale. It was also contended that once the Commissioner had exercised his power under Section 82 (3) of the Hindu Religions Institutions and endowments Act, 1987 (for short the Act ) and rejected the proposals of the Executive officer, he becomes functus officio and cannot resume the power. If any further action is to be taken, that should be taken only by the State Government under section 93 of the Act and hence the order is without jurisdiction. Therefore, it was prayed to set aside the proceedings dated 11. 4. 2002 and to direct the authorities to conduct re-auction. ( 9 ) THE learned single Judge heard Writ petition Nos. 18868 of 2001 and 8589 of 2002 together and on a consideration of the submissions of the parties and the material placed on record, by the order under appeal held that inasmuch the petitioner in w. P. No. 8589 of 2002 has not participated in the auction proceedings, he cannot question the same and accordingly dismissed w. P. No. 8589 of 2002 with exemplary costs of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) payable to the Court Masters and Personal secretaries Welfare Fund. As regards W. P. No. 18868 of 2001 filed by the auction purchaser is concerned, the learned Judge held that since the Commissioner has confirmed the leasehold rights in favour of m/s. Srinivasa Enterprises, no further orders are necessary in the said writ petition and disposed of the same accordingly. ( 10 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, M/s. Gupta Enterprises has preferred the present writ appeals. ( 11 ) MR. ( 10 ) AGGRIEVED by the same, M/s. Gupta Enterprises has preferred the present writ appeals. ( 11 ) MR. S. Ramachandrarao, learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that though the Commissioner issued directions to reset the lease conditions as per rules and as per conditions approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, the executive Officer of the Temple without following the said directions, conducted the auction with short gap of 2 days before the beginning of the licence period. At any rate, once the proposal was rejected, the commissioner ought not to have confirmed the same unless the conditions are reset. He would further submit that once the commissioner has passed order rejecting the proposal to approve the leasehold rights, he has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter again as he had become functus officio and it is only the Government who has power under Section 93 of the Act to entertain and pass appropriate orders. He would also submit that the learned single judge has failed to notice that there was delay on the part of the Executive Officer to intimate about the postponement of the auction and thus the auction should have been declared as invalid. ( 12 ) MR. E. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the M/s. Srinivasa enterprises, vehemently submitted that the unofficial respondents having failed to participate in the auction held on 29. 3. 2001, have no locus standi to question the auction proceedings and placed reliance on the decision of this Court in B. Sambaiah v. L. V. Devastanam, 1988 ALT 188 . He would further submit that since the commissioner has not passed any orders on the proposal sent by the Executive Officer within 45 days from the date of auction, it is deemed to have been confirmed in view of rule 5 (2) of the Sale of Movable Properties rules issued in G. O. Ms. No. 796, Revenue (E. II) Department dated 26. 7. 1971. He would also submit that under Section 8 of the Act, the Commissioner has power to pass orders in exercise of supernumerary power as is deemed necessary in the interest of the institution. No. 796, Revenue (E. II) Department dated 26. 7. 1971. He would also submit that under Section 8 of the Act, the Commissioner has power to pass orders in exercise of supernumerary power as is deemed necessary in the interest of the institution. ( 13 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Endowments supported the order of the Commissioner and submitted that no illegality has been committed by the commissioner in confirming the leasehold rights in favour of M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises and the appellant having failed to participate in the auction proceedings, cannot question the same and the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. ( 14 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties as also to the entire material placed on record. ( 15 ) THE only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the commissioner is justified in confirming the sale in favour of the petitioner in W. P. No. 18868 of 2001. ( 16 ) THE main contention of the petitioner in W. P. No. 8589 of 2002 is that some of the conditions contained in the tender notification dated 25. 2. 2001 are highly arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore the petitioner made a representation to the commissioner and in pursuance thereof the Commissioner directed the Executive officer to reset the lease conditions as per rules and as per conditions approved by the Commissioner, but the auction was held without altering the objectionable conditions and the Commissioner himself approved the sale without due regard to the same. We do not find much force in the said submission. Except the telegram said to have been issued by the Commissioner to the Executive officer, no material has been placed specifying which conditions are objectionable and unreasonable and requires to be altered or modified. The petitioner in W. P. 8589 of 2002 has not been able to show how the conditions are arbitrary. It is well settled principle of law that the terms and conditions of lease cannot be called in question as they are in realm of contracts. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that certain conditions which were directed to be deleted by the Commissioner have not been so deleted and the auction was held without due regard to the directions of the higher authorities. Therefore, the contention on this score cannot be sustained. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that certain conditions which were directed to be deleted by the Commissioner have not been so deleted and the auction was held without due regard to the directions of the higher authorities. Therefore, the contention on this score cannot be sustained. Further, the matter is pending in this Court and in view of the directions issued by this Court from time to time in the respective writ petitions and in view of the fact that the lease period has already expired, the commissioner has no alternative except to confirm the leasehold rights in favour of m/s. Srinivasa Enterprises by proceedings dated 11. 4. 2002. Be it noted that pursuant to the auction held on 29. 3. 2001, M/s. Srinivasa Enterprises had already deposited 50% of the bid amount. The Commissioner taking into account all these factors into consideration had thought it fit to confirm the sale. We do not find any illegality in the action of the Commissioner. ( 17 ) THE next contention of the petitioner in W. P. No. 8589 of 2002 is that there was delay on the part of the Executive Officer in intimating about the postponement of the date of auction from 14. 3. 2001 to 29. 3. 2001 and that the intimation was posted only on 29. 3. 2001 and the same was received by it only on 30. 3. 2001 i. e. , one day after completion of the auction, hence the auction shall be declared as invalid. We do not find any merit in the said submission. There is no dispute that the postponement of the auction was duly got published in the Indian express and in the vernacular daily newspapers - Eenadu and Andhra Prabha on 14. 3. 2001 much in advance duly intimating all the concerned about the new date of public auction as 29. 3. 2001. Further, intimation was also made on telephone to all the intending participants. In the representation alleged to have been made by M/s Gupta Enterprises to the commissioner on 27. 3. 2001 (filed as material paper in the paper book) complaining about the conditions imposed in the auction notification dated 25. 2. 2001, it was stated as follows: it is learnt that the Commissioner of endowments issued telegraphic orders on my representation to the Executive Officer to modify the conditions of the auction. 3. 2001 (filed as material paper in the paper book) complaining about the conditions imposed in the auction notification dated 25. 2. 2001, it was stated as follows: it is learnt that the Commissioner of endowments issued telegraphic orders on my representation to the Executive Officer to modify the conditions of the auction. In spite of the same, the conditions issued by the commissioner of Endowments, the Executive ojficer ignored and proceeded with the auction on 29. 3. 2001. (emphasis supplied) i submit that the earlier auction was postponed on 14. 3. 2001 and I have received the intimation from the Executive Officer about the date of auction on 30. 3. 2001 by the time the auction was completed with persons who participated on that day. It is further learnt that only three persons participated and auction was knocked down for Rs. 64,10,000/- lakhs. ( 18 ) IT is curious to note that when the representation itself is dated 27. 3. 2001 how could the petitioner know that the Executive officer proceeded with the auction on 29. 3. 2001. This clearly indicates that the petitioner had the knowledge about the auction to be held on 29. 3. 2001. Having failed to participate in the auction held on 29. 3. 2001, the petitioner in order to gain unlawfully must have ante dated the representation-dated 27. 3. 2001. This Court takes serious note of this. It is evident from this that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and, in our view; he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court. On a perusal of the entire record placed before him by the learned government Pleader for Endowments, the learned single Judge observed: accordingly, the Government Pleader for endowments produced the records which clearly depict that the petitioner in W. P. No. 8589 of 2002 made a representation to the Commissioner of Endowments on 24. 3. 2001 complaining that the conditions imposed by the Executive Officer in the auction notification dated 25. 2. 2001 are abnormal, against the interest of the participants and legal principles and for deletion of certain objectionable conditions and also followed by telegram dated 27. 3. 2002 to stop the auction at once which is scheduled to be held on 29. 3. 2001 complaining that the conditions imposed by the Executive Officer in the auction notification dated 25. 2. 2001 are abnormal, against the interest of the participants and legal principles and for deletion of certain objectionable conditions and also followed by telegram dated 27. 3. 2002 to stop the auction at once which is scheduled to be held on 29. 3. 2001 and also other petitioners in W. P. No. 9822 of 2001 which itself clearly disclose that the petitioner in W. P. No. 8589 of 2002 is aware of the fact that the auction which is scheduled to be held on 14. 3. 2001 is postponed and will be held on 29. 3. 2001. In the representation dated 24. 3. 2001 submitted by the petitioner nowhere it is stated that the petitioner approached with dd and EMD on 14. 3. 2002 and the Executive officer informed that the auction was postponed for administrative reasons and the next date of auction would be intimated to all the participants. Whereas the records will depict that the Executive Officer took a decision to postpone the auction on 13. 3. 2001 and the same was got published in the local dailies of Eenadu, Andhra Prabha and indian Express and pursuant to the said tender notice only three tenderers participated in the auction including the petitioner in w. P. No. 18868 of 2001 who stood as highest bidder and offered Rs. 64,10,000/- for collecting human hair from 1. 4. 2001 to 31. 3. 2002 and the same was communicated to the commissioner by the Executive Officer through his proceedings dated 1. 4. 2001 stating that for the last five years i. e. , from 1996-97 to 2000-2001 the average income on sale of human hair is Rs. 44,65,676/- and for the year 2001-2002 the highest bid of rs. 64,10,000/- is more than 30% of the average income of previous years and the highest bidder also deposited Rs. 32,05,000/- half of the amount and the same can be accepted, (emphasis supplied) ( 19 ) WE find no reason to disagree with the observations of the learned Judge. As rightly observed by the learned Judge the record clearly depict that the petitioner is aware of the auction to be held on 29. 3. 2001. Assuming that the intimation regarding the postponement of the auction was received by him only on 30. 3. As rightly observed by the learned Judge the record clearly depict that the petitioner is aware of the auction to be held on 29. 3. 2001. Assuming that the intimation regarding the postponement of the auction was received by him only on 30. 3. 2001, we are of the view that since the Executive Officer has got the postponement of the auction duly published well in advance i. e. , on 14. 3. 2001 in two Telugu daily newspapers i. e. , Eenadu and Andhra Prabha and one English daily newspaper Indian Express, the delay of intimation is of no consequence. The petitioner having failed to participate in the auction even though he had knowledge of the same, cannot be permitted to contend that there was delay in intimating the postponement of auction even if such allegation is true. Initially, the proposal was rejected only on the ground that interim order was passed by this Court in w. P. No. 9822 of 2001 and after dismissal of W. P. No. 9822 of 2001, the Commissioner approved the proposal submitted by the executive Officer on 11. 4. 2002 by which time the lease period had already expired. It is not the case of the petitioner that auction was conducted without there being any fresh publication in the newspapers. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner in W. P. No. 8589 of 2002 on this score also fails. ( 20 ) FURTHER, the petitioner in W. P. No. 9822 of 2001 has not produced the letter alleged to have been received by it on 30. 3. 2001 from the Executive Officer regarding the postponement of the auction. On the other hand, it produced a letter alleged to have been addressed to one M/s. Lavayna Enterprises, Eluru which has been reproduced by the learned single Judge in the order under appeal. From the said letter, it is clear that the Executive Officer has taken precaution by intimating about the postponement of the auction by telephone also. The petitioner herein has not controverted the said statement. Instead of producing the letter received by it, the petitioner wants to take advantage of a letter received by another agency alleged to have been received on 30. 3. 2001. The petitioner herein has not controverted the said statement. Instead of producing the letter received by it, the petitioner wants to take advantage of a letter received by another agency alleged to have been received on 30. 3. 2001. Even otherwise also, as already held, since the intimation has already been published in the daily newspapers well in advance, the petitioner cannot complain that there was delay in intimating about the postponement of auction. ( 21 ) THE next contention of Mr. Ramachandra Rao is that once the commissioner rejected the proposal on 20. 7. 2001, he becomes functus qfficio and he cannot confirm it again subsequently and it is only the Government, which has power under Section 93 of the Hindu Religious institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (Act 30 of 1987) to consider the matter. We do not find any merit in this submission also. The rejection of the Commissioner in his letter dated 20. 7. 2001 to confirm the leasehold rights in favour of M/s. Gupta enterprises (sic Srinivasa Enterprises) was based on the interim order passed by this court on 16. 5. 2001 in W. P. M. P. No. 12354 of 2001 in W. P. No. 9822 of 2001 filed by m/s. Gupta Enterprises. In his order, the commissioner has not dealt with the aspects relating to the auction. He simply rejected the proposal in view of the orders passed by the High Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Commissioner had passed an order rejecting the proposal on an evaluation of the material on record and with reference to the factual aspects involved regarding the proposals submitted by the Executive Officer. Subsequently, after the W. P. 9822 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court, the Commissioner rightly confirmed the auction proposals. Further, as already noticed, confirmation of the proposal was made only on 11. 4. 2002 by which time the period of one year had already expired. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping pending the proposal submitted by the Executive Officer. We are of the view that the Commissioner is well within his competence to confirm the proposal of auction sent by the Executive officer. 4. 2002 by which time the period of one year had already expired. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping pending the proposal submitted by the Executive Officer. We are of the view that the Commissioner is well within his competence to confirm the proposal of auction sent by the Executive officer. ( 22 ) AS regards the deeming clause referred to by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W. P. No. 18868 of 2001, it may be noted that the Rule 5 (2) of Sale of Movable Property Rules issued under the act has further been amended. The unamended Rule 5 (2) referred to by the petitioner provides that if no order confirming or vetoing the sale is cornmunicated within forty five days from the date of auction or negotiations, the sale shall be deemed to have been confinned. But, Rule 5 (2) as amended in G. O. Ms. No. 612, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department dated 29. 6. 1990 provides that if no order confirming or vetoing the sale is communicated to the purchaser, within forty-five days from the date of receipt of the report by the competent authority, the sale shall be deemed to have been confirmed. Interestingly, in this case, the proposal was submitted by the Executive officer on 9. 5. 2001 along with his report- dated 1. 4. 2001. The petitioner M/s Gupta enterprises however filed writ petition on 14. 5. 2001 challenging the action of the executive Officer in submitting the proposal to the Commissioner for approval and obtained interim stay on 16. 5. 2001 and thereafter the matter was kept pending due to one order or the other passed by this Court in various writ petitions filed by the parties. Therefore, the deeming provision as contended by Mr. E. Mano nar has no application herein. However, the commissioner subsequent to the orders issued in W. P. No. 9822 of 2001 has rightly confirmed the proposal. ( 23 ) IT may also be noticed that thoi. jh the petitioner is alleged to be seriously aggrieved by the action of the Executive officer in not communicating about the postponement of the auction and though the auction was held on 29. 3. 2001, he could not challenge the same in a Court of Law. ( 23 ) IT may also be noticed that thoi. jh the petitioner is alleged to be seriously aggrieved by the action of the Executive officer in not communicating about the postponement of the auction and though the auction was held on 29. 3. 2001, he could not challenge the same in a Court of Law. He thought it fit to challenge the same only when the Executive Officer submitted his report to the Commissioner for approval on 9. 5. 2001. In contractual matters, ordinarily, the parties would be vigilant about their rights. The petitioner has kept quite for more than one month in approaching this court. If he really not aware of the date of auction on 29. 3. 2001, he would have definitely approached the appropriate forum complaining about the non-intimation of the auction. It is also not the case of the petitioner that he filed any appeal before any authority regarding the non-intimation of the auction after the auction was held on 29. 3. 2001. No material has been placed in regard thereto. The petitioner having failed to participate in the auction held on 29. 3. 2001 for reasons best known to him, now, cannot be permitted to contend that he was not properly intimated about the postponement of the auction particularly when the postponement of the auction was duly got published in three daily newspapers. The petitioner having failed to participate in the auction, now wants to unsettle the tender proceedings after the lease period is over. ( 24 ) WE may also notice that in sambaiah v. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara devasthan, Manyamkonda Mandalam, mahabubagar District (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court held that the Commissioner of Endowments should not reject the result of the public auction taking into consideration that someone who did not participate in the auction came forward to offer a little more. It was also held that if is totally irrelevant on the part of the approving authority to take into consideration the representations from third parties after the closure of the auction proceedings. The said view was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 640of 1988. ( 25 ) IT is well settled principle of law that the scope of judicial review of administrative actions in award of contracts is very limited. The said view was confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 640of 1988. ( 25 ) IT is well settled principle of law that the scope of judicial review of administrative actions in award of contracts is very limited. The power of the High court under Article 226 is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with norms of procedure set for it by rules of public administration. The Court can examine the decision making process and interfere only if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness, favouritism or arbitrariness and will always keep in mind the larger public interest in mind whether any intervention is called for or not. Unless the decision making process is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable or the authority committed any procedural impropriety, it cannot be called in question. Recently, this division Bench in a judgment rendered in w. A. Nos. 1165 and 1235 of 2002 dated 7. 11. 2002, has elaborately dealt with the scope of judicial review of administrative actions in award of contracts, after referring to catena of decisions of the Apex Court including the decision in Tata Cellur v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 . Speaking for the Bench, Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, CJ held: from the above decisions, it is clear that while examining legality of the action of the administrative authority, the Court must confine itself to the aspects - whether the decision making authority has exceeded its powers, committed an error of law or there is breach of principles of natural justice or abused its powers or reached decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached. The Court is not empowered to determine whether a particular policy is fair. An administrative action is subject to control by judicial review only in regard to illegality or irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness and procedural impropriety. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court is not empowered to interfere with the decision taken by an expert body and substitute its opinion to that of the body unless the decision is tainted with mala fides or for extraneous considerations. The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court is not empowered to interfere with the decision taken by an expert body and substitute its opinion to that of the body unless the decision is tainted with mala fides or for extraneous considerations. Where the matter involved required commercial or technical prudence and the decision reached is based on the opinion of a technical committee, the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution cannot interfere with such decision unless the allegations regarding unreasonableness, mala fides and collateral considerations are unassailable or can be assailed on a finding of mala fides or extraneous considerations. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny as the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Where the matter relates to commercial considerations, the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest, subject, of course to the adherence to the norms, standards and procedure laid down by them. The Court can examine the decision making process and interfere only if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness, favouritism and arbitrariness 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 restraint and 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 whether any intervention is called for or not. Unless the decision making process is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable or the authority committed any procedural impropriety, it cannot be called in question. ( 26 ) THE petitioner except stating that some conditions are arbitrary and unreasonable and was not properly intimated about the postponement of the auction, to which we have given our careful consideration, has not stated that the auction is vitiated by any other reasons including mala fides duly established or unreasonableness. ( 26 ) THE petitioner except stating that some conditions are arbitrary and unreasonable and was not properly intimated about the postponement of the auction, to which we have given our careful consideration, has not stated that the auction is vitiated by any other reasons including mala fides duly established or unreasonableness. ( 27 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Commissioner confirming the leasehold rights in favour of the petitioner in W. P. 18868 of 2001 for the year 2001- 2002. We do not find any error in the order of the learned single Judge and the appeals deserves to be dismissed. ( 28 ) IN the result, both the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.