ORDER Dipak Misra, J.—The petitioner is a class A-4 contractor registered with the M.P. Housing Board which has adopted the M. P. Works Department Manual for regulating its house building activity. According to paragraph 2.097 of the said manual the contractor likes of the petitioner is eligible for executing works of the value of Rs. 4 Crores. The Executive Engineer, Jabalpur Division No. 1 of M.P. Housing Board (in short 'the Board') invited sealed tenders for construction of 70 Senior L.I.G. and 70 Junior L.I.G. houses at Madhotal, Mother Teressa Nagar on 8-12-2000. The estimated and sanctioned cost of the work was Rs. 112.03 lacs and the petitioner fulfilled all the eligibility conditions for award of the contract. 2. According to the writ petitioner, he submitted his tender along with requisite earnest money and complied with all other formalities and quoted percentage rate @ 24.50% above the prevalent C.S.R. rates and the cost of the said work as per his percentage rate was estimated at Rs. 1,24,53,753/-. This cost was within the eligibility limit of Rs. 4 Crores. The rates offered by the petitioner were the lowest and the Executive Engineer of the Board recommended the case of the petitioner vide Annexure P-2. The Deputy Housing Commissioner also recommended the case of the petitioner to the Additional Housing Commissioner, Bhopal who is the Convener of the Tender Committee. It is put forth that the Deputy Housing Commissioner has endorsed that the financial condition of the petitioner is sound and his working capacity is very good. Although the tender of the petitioner deserved acceptance the Additional Commissioner, Bhopal vide letter dated 27-1-2001 called for further information and the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Jabalpur in turn submitted the requisite information. It is further put forth that though the tender of the petitioner was valid in accordance with the terms fixed by the Board and was the lowest, the Housing Board instead of accepting his tender called for fresh sealed tenders for 90 Senior L.I.G. Houses and 11 Junior L.I.G. Houses. It is urged that vide Annexure P-1 the tenders were to opened on 27-3-2001. It is averred in the petitioner that he has come to learn that his tender was rejected. In this factual backdrop a prayer has been made to issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the notice inviting tender, Annexure P-1 dated 13-3-2001. 3. It is urged that vide Annexure P-1 the tenders were to opened on 27-3-2001. It is averred in the petitioner that he has come to learn that his tender was rejected. In this factual backdrop a prayer has been made to issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the notice inviting tender, Annexure P-1 dated 13-3-2001. 3. A return has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioner and two others namely, Vamo Builders and Pradeep Tamot had submitted their tenders and the rate quoted by them as follows: Harinder Singh Borca (petitioner) : 24.50% above the CSR M/s Vamo Builders : 27% above CSR PradeepTamot : 27.58% above CSR It has been put forth that the tenders being above 1.2 Crores could be passed only by the Chairman of the Board as per circular dated 30-11-1998. The said circular has been brought on record as Annexure R-2. The tenders were put before the Tender Committee which examined all the three tenders and after recording reasons the Tender Committee did not recommend the tender of the petitioner for approval. The Tender Committee considered that the tender was received for another work at the rate of 4.75% above CSR. The report of the Tender Committee has been brought on record as Annexure R-3. As per the recommendation of the Tender Committee the tenders were rejected by the Chairman of the Board vide Annexure R-4 on 26-2-2001. As the tenders were rejected, fresh tenders as per the guidelines given by the Tender Committee were invited for 90 Senior LIG houses and 11 Junior LIG houses. The criterion was that houses were to be constructed double the registration of the houses. In this regard the Board has issued circular dated 3-8-2000 which has been brought on record as Annexure P-5. In response to the notice, contractors submitted the tenders and the lowest tender has been offered by one Shri R. K. Sharma which was 11.94% above the CSR. The Executive Engineer forwarded the tenders to the Deputy Housing Commissioner for consideration. It is put forth that the rate quoted by said Sharma would go a long way to show that it is quite less than the petitioner and the Board would be benefitted. 4. The Executive Engineer forwarded the tenders to the Deputy Housing Commissioner for consideration. It is put forth that the rate quoted by said Sharma would go a long way to show that it is quite less than the petitioner and the Board would be benefitted. 4. According to the respondents though the rates quoted by the petitioner were lowest, the Tender Committee did not find it fit to accept any of the tenders including the tender of the petitioner due to reasons given by it in its report. It has also been put forth that fresh tenders have been opened on 27-3-2001 and the offers have been forwarded to the Tender Committee. It has also been submitted that the rate quoted by the respondent are low and the same is under consideration. 5. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. It is urged in the rejoinder affidavit that the recommendation of the case of the petitioner by the Executive Engineer and the Deputy Housing Commissioner was passed on the base of stark realities of the case. Increase in cost of materials and certain articles have also been highlighted in the affidavit. It is also put forth that the whole position discloses lack of fairness bordering on mala fides. In order to eliminate the petitioner, the cost has been brought below Rs. 83.40 lacs to induct inferior A-3 class contractors and the genuine case of the petitioner has been given a go by. It has been highlighted that initially the Notice Inviting Tender was based on the sound public interest consideration but the said foundation has not been kept in view of the subsequent stage and an effort has been made to oust the petitioner. A reference has been made to Rule 21(VI) of the M.P. Financial Code and it is put forth that the Chairman is not empowered to overlook the financial Code. It is also averred that the Tender Committee has restricted its view to only one tender @ 4.75% above CSR and did not keep in mind the stark realities relating to increase in the cost of material as cement, diesel etc. The conditions of the NIT and the subsequent NIT are not identical and in fact dissimilar and can not be compared with each other. The conditions of the NIT and the subsequent NIT are not identical and in fact dissimilar and can not be compared with each other. Various other aspects have been highlighted which are related to manner of construction and the rates of various materials and some other aspects which need not be stated in detail. 6. I have heard Mr. P. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R. N. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there was no fair consideration and discrimination is writ large and hence, action of the respondents should be lanceted in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It is further urged by him that the Board is bent upon to accept an unworkable offer which is against the public interest. Mr. Tiwari has also criticised the report of the Tender Committee. 8. The learned counsel for the Board on the contrary has submitted that the Board is at liberty to refuse or accept any kind of offer and no one can compel to accept his offer. It is urged by him that the Board has to see its own financial conditions and avail maximum benefit while carrying out the construction. It is put forth that as the offer of all the tenderers in respect of the first tender was exorbitant, the Board was compelled to cancel the Notice Inviting Tender. It is further canvassed that when the instrumentalities of the State act for its benefit and there has been no arbitrariness, this Court should not interfere. It is also put forth that the cancellation of tenders was decided by the Tender Committee and the petitioner can not compel the Board to accept his tender. 9. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to note that the notice inviting tender has been cancelled because the Board was of the view that the price quoted by the petitioner was quite high. The person who makes an offer or gives a tender in respect of notice inviting tender may legitimately expect that his offer would be considered in a most fair and un-arbitrary manner but he can not compel the authorities to accept his tender. The person who makes an offer or gives a tender in respect of notice inviting tender may legitimately expect that his offer would be considered in a most fair and un-arbitrary manner but he can not compel the authorities to accept his tender. In the case at hand the authorities cancelled the tenders and called for fresh offers and in the fresh tenders they have received such offers which are much lower than the offer of the petitioner. Whether an offer is workable or not, a Court can not adjudicate. It is well settled in law that the action of the State or instrumentalities of the State in the matter of entering into contract has to be decided on the touchstone of the Article 14 of the Constitution. The concept of arbitrariness is alien to the conscience of Article 14. In this context I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of New Horizons Limited and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein in paragraph 17 their Lordships expressed as under: 17. At the outset, we may indicate that in the matter of entering into a contract, the State does not stand on the same footing as a private person who is free to enter into a contract with any person he likes. The State, in exercise of its various functions, is governed by the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution which excludes arbitrariness in the State action and requires the State to act fairly and reasonably. The action of the State in the matter of award of a contract has to satisfy this criterion. Moreover a contract would either involve expenditure from the State exchequer or augmentation of public revenue and consequently the discretion in the matter of selection of the person for award of the contract has to be exercised keeping in view the public interest involved in such selection. Moreover a contract would either involve expenditure from the State exchequer or augmentation of public revenue and consequently the discretion in the matter of selection of the person for award of the contract has to be exercised keeping in view the public interest involved in such selection. The decisions of this Court, therefore, insist that while dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with the standards or norms which are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant, It is, however, recognised that certain measure of "free play in the joints" is necessary for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere. 10. In the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, their Lordships examined the scope of judicial review and the area relating to entering into the contract and held as under: (1) The modern 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. 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 facets 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 increase and un-budgeted expenditure. 11. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facets 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 increase and un-budgeted expenditure. 11. It is apposite to state here that in the case of Tata Cellular (supra) the Apex Court dealt with the concept of "Wednesbury principle of reasonableness" and held that it is open to the Court to review the decision-maker's evaluation where it would appear that such a decision could not have been taken in thelogical manner and if the decision is absolutely unreasonable being partial and unequal in its operation as between different classes, the concept of judicial review would be attracted. In this context, I may profitably refer to the decision rendered in the case of Delhi Science Forum and others Vs. Union of India and another, wherein a three judge Bench of the Apex Court held as under: In respect of grant of any right or licence by the Central Government or an authority which can be held to be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution not only the source of the power has to be traced, but it has also to be found that whether the procedure adopted for such grant was reasonable, rational and in conformity with the conditions which had been announced. Statutory authorities have sometimes used their discretionary power to confer social or economic benefits on a particular section or group or community. The plea that the first proviso to section 4(1) of the Telegraph Act vests power in them to be exercised as they "think fit" is misconceived, since such provisions while vesting powers in authorities including the Central Government also enjoin a ideology". As such Central Government while exercising its statutory power under first proviso to section 4(1) of the Act, of granting licences for establishment, maintenance and working of telecommunications has a fiduciary duty as well. The new experiment has to fulfil the tests laid down by courts for exercising its statutory discretion. It cannot be exercised in a manner which can be held to be unlawful and which is now known in administrative law as Wednesbury principle. The new experiment has to fulfil the tests laid down by courts for exercising its statutory discretion. It cannot be exercised in a manner which can be held to be unlawful and which is now known in administrative law as Wednesbury principle. The aforesaid principle is attracted where it is shown that an authority exercising the discretion has taken a decision which is devoid of any plausible justification and any authority having reasonable persons could not have taken the said decision. As such Central Government is expected to put such conditions while granting licences, which shall safeguard the public interest and the interest of the nation, such conditions should be commensurate with the obligations that flow while parting with the privilege which has been exclusively vested in the Central Government by the Act. 12. At this juncture, I may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Others, . In paragraph 10 it has been held : 10. There have been several decisions rendered by this Court on the question of tender process, the award of contract and have evolved several principles in regard to the same. Ultimately what prevails with the Courts in these matters is that while public interest is paramount there should be no arbitrariness in the matter of award of contract and all participants in the tender process should be treated alike. We may sum up the legal position thus: (i) The Government is free to enter into any contract with citizens but the Court may interfere where it acts arbitrarily or contrary to public interest. (ii) The Government cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for entering into such a relationship or to discriminate between the persons similarly situate. (iii) It is open to the Government to reject even the highest bid at a tender where such rejection is not arbitrary or unreasonable or such rejection is in public interest for valid and good reasons. The present factual matrix has to be appreciated on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles. As has been indicated hereinbefore the Board on appreciation of the offer made by the tenderers had arrived at a conclusion that the price quoted by them was exorbitant. On the aforesaid foundation the Board cancelled the tender and went for fresh tender. The present factual matrix has to be appreciated on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles. As has been indicated hereinbefore the Board on appreciation of the offer made by the tenderers had arrived at a conclusion that the price quoted by them was exorbitant. On the aforesaid foundation the Board cancelled the tender and went for fresh tender. The stand of the petitioner is that the Board has not kept in view the stark and manifest ground realities like price rise of various materials and offer given in respect of second tender is totally unworkable. Be that as it may, as a stand has been taken that keeping in view the public interest which indubitably en-capsules the financial implications, the Board cancelled the first tender, this Court can not substitute its view as put forth by the petitioner. In my considered opinion, the same is in the domain of the owner and the said action does not suffer from bias, arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed without any order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed