ORDER: The prayer is for a Mandamus directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider the counter or matching offer of rates submitted by the petitioner dated 30.10.2001 while considering the counter or matching offer of rates submitted by the third respondent before taking a decision on the award of the handling and transport contract relating to the tender bearing No.H and T/901 (34)/01, dated 26.4.2001. 2. By consent, the main writ petition itself was taken up. 3. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is an existing contractor of the first respondent/ Corporation for handling and transport at Inland Clearance Deport at Singanallur, Coimbatore. It was entrusted on an ad hocbasis after calling for tender from various transport contractors, and after considering the comparative merits of the tenders and the technical and financial bids submitted by them. The first respondent/ Corporation is a wholly owned Government of India undertaking. The second respondent is the Regional Manager, who is the authority to call for tenders with regard to entrustment of handling and transport of ISO containers and allied services at the Inland Clearance Depot at Singanallur. The third respondent is another transport contractor competing with the petitioner for the contract work. The third respondent was disqualified on two previous occasions when it submitted its tenders and the tenders were rejected even at the time of opening the technical bid and before opening the financial bid on the ground that it did not have the requisite experience in handling of transport containers. Notice, inviting tenders for handling and transport of ISO containers and allied services at Inland Clearance Depot (ICD) at Singanallur, was issued on 26.4.2001. That was the fourth time, such tenders were called for. On the earlier three occasions, the tender process were cancelled before entrustment of the contract. On the first occasion, the petitioner’s sister concern M/s. Freight Line Services Pvt. Ltd., was the lowest tenderer. However, after opening the technical and financial bids the tenders were cancelled and re-tender was ordered by the first respondent. On the second occasion, the petitioner firm itself participated in the tender and was the lowest tenderer. The third respondent was disqualified after opening the technical bid for lack of experience and equipment. That time also the tenders were cancelled and re-tender was ordered due to certain lapses on the part of the first respondent/ Corporation. On the second occasion, the petitioner firm itself participated in the tender and was the lowest tenderer. The third respondent was disqualified after opening the technical bid for lack of experience and equipment. That time also the tenders were cancelled and re-tender was ordered due to certain lapses on the part of the first respondent/ Corporation. On the third occasion, both the tenders, submitted by the petitioner and the third respondent, were rejected for technical reasons. On the fourth occasion, the petitioner and the third respondent participated in the tender and there were 79 items of work as per the schedule. The tenderers were asked to give their rates for each and every times of work. On the opening of the financial bid, it was found that the petitioner had offered lowest rates in respect of 71 items of work whereas the third respondent had offered lowest rate for only 7 items of work and in respect of one time of work the petitioner and the third respondent were placed equally. The second respondent had called upon the third respondent to give a matching rate which would match the rate offered by the petitioner for 71 items of work in respect of which it was the lowest tenderer. The petitioner was not given any opportunity to give a matching offer in respect of 7 items of work for which the third respondent had quoted lower rates. The action of respondents 1 and 2 was arbitrary, ultra vires and against Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is more experienced and an existing contractor in the field. The petitioner, however, to prove its bona fides had voluntarily submitted a matching offer on 30.10.2001 in respect of eight items of work for which the third respondent had originally given a lesser rates. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed for the relief already mentioned. 4. The writ petition was admitted on 2.11.2001 and in W.M.P. No.31021 of 2001 interim injunction was granted for two weeks, which was being extended from time to time. After they entered appearance, the respondents filed their counters, and the petitioner also filed its reply affidavit. As already noted, the main writ petition itself was taken up. 5. In the counter of respondents 1 and 2, this is what is stated: The tender was opened on 5.5.2001 and the technical evaluation was conducted. After they entered appearance, the respondents filed their counters, and the petitioner also filed its reply affidavit. As already noted, the main writ petition itself was taken up. 5. In the counter of respondents 1 and 2, this is what is stated: The tender was opened on 5.5.2001 and the technical evaluation was conducted. The petitioner and the third respondent were found technically qualified. The rate bids were opened on 27.7.2001. On a comparison made between the rates of the petitioner and the third respondent, it was found that the rate payable was Rs.4.23 lakhs less as far as the third respondent was concerned. This was taken as a bench-mark to decide the lowest tenderer. Though the petitioner had quoted lowest rates for 71 out of 79 items, the third respondent had quoted lowest rates for 7 time which were the main operative clauses in terms of Inland Clearance Depot (ICD), Singanallur in the past. The rates received for those items were significant. As the third respondent rate was Rs.4.23 lakhs less, it was declared as the lowest tenderer. An opportunity was given to the third respondent to give counter offer for 71 items of work, which were quoted low by the writ petitioner. Once the lowest tenderer was decided, the respondents had to conduct negotiations only with the lowest tenderer as per the guidelines issued by the Vigilance Commissioner. Once it was decided, the petitioner would be nowhere in the picture and it has no say in the negotiation of the contract. It was not obligatory on the part of the Warehousing Corporation to call for all the tenderers for negotiation. Clause 13 of the tender notification provides that the corporation reserves the right to call all the tenderers or any of them for negotiations/ clarifications. The petitioner is stopped from contending that it had not been given an opportunity to give a matching offer in respect of 7 items of work for which the third respondent had quoted the lowest rates. The petitioner was not the lowest tenderer in terms of cost analysis made by the main operative clauses of 7 items for which it had quoted high rates. Respondents 1 and 2 were under an obligation to deal with the lowest tenderer only in the post tender proceedings as per the Vigilance Commission Guidelines issued in the matters of contract. The petitioner was not the lowest tenderer in terms of cost analysis made by the main operative clauses of 7 items for which it had quoted high rates. Respondents 1 and 2 were under an obligation to deal with the lowest tenderer only in the post tender proceedings as per the Vigilance Commission Guidelines issued in the matters of contract. That was only with a view to protect the financial interest of the Corporation. There was no other motive in calling upon the third respondent to quote counter offer. There was no infringement of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The right to choose could not be considered to be an arbitrary power, unless it was exercised for any collateral purpose. Respondents 1 and 2 had acted in a fair and just manner. No favouritism or discrimination had been shown in the matter of choosing the lowest tenderer. The writ petitioner had on his own submitted counter offer on 30.10.2001 and insisted the Court to consider its counter offer. Since the determination of the lowest tenderer has already been decided by the Corporation, the writ petition is not maintainable. Since the Corporation played a prominent role in the international trade for handling the tenders meant for export/ import, immediate finalisation of a regular contract at ICD Singanallur should be made. 6. The third respondent had filed a counter. It is to the following effect: The approval of the award by the competent authority was made after proper verification of the details furnished by both the petitioner and the third respondent by the Technical Committee. Consequent to the approval of the award of the contract, the third respondent, as directed by the authorities, furnished the rate counter offer and the original documents of the vehicles and equipment, and the same were verified by the second respondent. As all the formalities were completed, the prayer in the writ petition does not survive and it has become infructuous. It is not correct to say that the third respondent does not have the requisite experience in handling of transport containers. It was a reputed transport contractor having contracts with Steel Authority of India Ltd., FACT, Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Hindustan Lever Ltd., TATA. The competent authority/first respondent has finalised the contract keeping in mind the revenue involved and the efficiency of work that can be done. It was a reputed transport contractor having contracts with Steel Authority of India Ltd., FACT, Ordnance Factory, Ministry of Defence, Hindustan Lever Ltd., TATA. The competent authority/first respondent has finalised the contract keeping in mind the revenue involved and the efficiency of work that can be done. The petitioner has not alleged any motive on the part of respondents 1 and 2. There is no mala fides in approving the contract in favour of the third respondent. There is no discrimination and thus Art.14 of the Constitution of India is not violated. In the absence of regular contract, the petitioner is carrying on the work on and ad hoc basis with exorbitant rates,causing huge revenue loss to the authorities. The petitioner’s intention is to continue the same by any means and only to delay the grant of work order to the third respondent, the present writ petition has been filed. All the formalities having been complied with and only the furnishing of work order being pending, which is only procedural, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. A reply affidavit has been filed in the main writ petition reiterating the contents in the main affidavit and further stating that the writ petition is maintainable in as much as in this matter the decision making process of the authorities concerned is vitiated by arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. The contract has not yet been awarded in favour of the third respondent as claimed. It is not correct to say that all the formalities have been completed. The prayer in the writ petition still survives. The third respondent was found to be lacking in requisite qualification on previous occasions. In the absence of relevant documents, the claim of the third respondent regarding subsisting contract with Steel Authorities of India Ltd. and other organisations cannot be said to be well founded. The third respondent gave the counter offer only at the instance of respondents 1 and 2. There is discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power offending Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is carrying on the present contract work on ad hoc basis at a very nominal rate. The tender conditions are in favour of the petitioner as the same had to be read into Art.14 of the Constitution of India. There is discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power offending Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is carrying on the present contract work on ad hoc basis at a very nominal rate. The tender conditions are in favour of the petitioner as the same had to be read into Art.14 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have deviated from the tender conditions by stating that they are obligated to invite only the so called lowest tenderer, in total derogation of Clause 13 of the tender conditions. They had acted with ulterior motive. The tenders were cancelled three times in order to award the contract to the third respondent, would itself amount to sufficient proof of mala fide and collateral exercise of power on the part of the respondents. Favouritism and discrimination are obvious from the bench-mark adopted by the respondents to suit their convenience in order to select the third respondent as the lowest tenderer. Adoption of any undisclosed bench-mark makes the entire exercise arbitrary. The writ petition has to be allowed. 8. Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this is a case where there is discrimination and violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. In his submission, the petitioner has a public right to be considered on an equal footing with the third respondent and it ought to have called for negotiation or given an opportunity to submit matching offer. Principles of equality require that when the third respondent has decided to submit counter offer for 71 items of work, the petitioner should also have been given an opportunity to submit its offer. The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dutta Associations Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd., (1997)1 S.C.C. 53 in support of his submission. 9. Mr.Abdul Razak, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that they had followed the directions given by the Central Government Vigilance Commission that the owners/tenderers should be called to the negotiating table, and this had been done, and that the third respondent had been offered the contract. The learned counsel further submitted that if the contract was given to the third respondent, it would be every substantial amounts for the first respondent/ Corporation and this would be in public interest. The learned counsel further submitted that if the contract was given to the third respondent, it would be every substantial amounts for the first respondent/ Corporation and this would be in public interest. The learned counsel further submitted that the contract has been awarded to the third respondent and there was no question of going back on that, and that the petitioner had no locus standi to question the award of the contract to the third respondent. 10. Mr.Jayachandran, learned counsel for the third respondent, submitted that the third respondent has as much experience as the petitioner that the offer made by the third respondent was much lower than the offer made by the petitioner, and that respondents 1 and 2 were perfectly justified in awarding the contract to the third respondent. 11. In the main affidavit, in support of the writ petition, nothing is alleged against respondents 1 and 2. The allegations that the contract had been awarded for any collateral purpose, and that there was favouritism in favour of the third respondent and discrimination against the petitioner, have been raised only in the reply affidavits and they not been raised in the fore-front in the writ petition, though discrimination under Art.14 is referred to. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that for 71 items the offer of the petitioner was lower than the third respondent, and only with regard to seven items the third respondent’s offer was lower. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, it is not the number that would matter but the total value, and there is absolutely no dispute that the third respondent’s total offer is less by more than 4 lakhs than that of the petitioner. It cannot be said that respondents 1 and 2 should have taken into consideration individual items for arriving at the final offer on the individual tenderers. As pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, seven items in respect of which the third respondent had quoted lower figures of the main operative clauses in the terms of Inland Clearance Depot (ICD), Singanallur in the past. The rates received for those items, in my view, alone should settle the issue. 12. Mr.Viduthalai contended that respondents 1 and 2 changed the rules of the game after the game had started. 13. I do not agree. The rates received for those items, in my view, alone should settle the issue. 12. Mr.Viduthalai contended that respondents 1 and 2 changed the rules of the game after the game had started. 13. I do not agree. In Dutta Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Merchantiles Pvt. Ltd., (1997)1 S.C.C. 53 it has been laid down that whatever procedure the Government proposes to follow in accepting the tender must be clearly stated in the tender notice. The consideration of the tenders received and the procedure to be followed in the matter of acceptance of a tender should be transparent, fair and open. While a bona fide error or error of judgment would not certainly matter, any abuse of power for estraneous reasons would expose the authorities concerned to appropriate penalties at the hands of the Courts. In that case it was found that the entire procedure followed by the Commissioner and the Government of Assam in accepting the tender of the appellant was unfair and opposed to the norms which the Government should follow in such matters, namely, openness, transparency and fair dealing. In that case, the tender notice did not specify the “viability range” nor did it say that only the tenders coming within the viability range would be considered. More significantly, the tender notice did not even say that after receiving the tenders, the Commissioner/Government would first determine the “viability range” and would then call upon the lowest eligible tenderer to make a counter-offer. The exercise of determining the viability range and calling upon the lowest tenderer, the appellant, to make a counter-offer on the alleged ground that he was the lowest tenderer among the eligible tenderers is outside the tender notice. Fairness demanded that the authority should have notified in the tender notice itself the procedure which they proposed to adopt while accepting the tender. They did nothing of that sort. Again, according to the Supreme Court it was not possible to appreciate the concept of “viability range”, its necessity and/or its real purpose; and having determined the “viability range”, the government called upon only the appellant to make a counter-offer to come within the “viability” range and his revised offer at the higher limit of the “viability range” was accepted. No such opportunity to make a counter-offer was given to any other tenderer including the first respondent. This was equally a vitiating factor. 14. No such opportunity to make a counter-offer was given to any other tenderer including the first respondent. This was equally a vitiating factor. 14. The principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. 15. The action of awarding contract by a public authority falls within the purview of public law but the terms of contract regarding rates, time specified for completion of work, etc. fall outside the realm of public law and no judicial review is possible, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 11: (1994)6 S.C.C. 651 . "......The principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Art.14 of the Constitution have to kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Art.14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purposes the exercise of that power will be struck down. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they are not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. The judicial power of review is exercises to rein in any unbridled executive functioning. The restraint has two contemporary manifestations. One is the ambit of judicial intervention; the other covers the scope of the Court’s ability to quash an administrative decision on its merits. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself. These restraints bear the hallmarks of judicial control over administrative action. Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in support of which the application for judicial review is made, but the decision-making process itself. The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: (1) Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? (2) Committed an error of law; (3) Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice; (4) reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached; or (5) abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality: This means the decision- maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision- making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. The principles deductible relating to scope of judicial review of administrative decisions and exercise of contractual powers by government bodies are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) 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. (4) 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. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere. 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. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative sphere or quasi administrative sphere. However the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesday principle of reasonableness (including its other facts but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. In the same decision, the requisites of a valid tender have been broadly set down and they are as follows: 1. It must be unconditional. 2. Must be made at the proper place. 3. Must conform to the terms of obligation.4. Must be made at the proper time. 5. Must be made in the proper form. 6. The person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations. 7. There must be reasonable opportunity for inspection. 8. Tender must be made to the proper person. 9. It must be full amount. 16. In M/s. Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, UMC, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2272: (2000)5 S.C.C. 287 it has been held that in Government Contract, where tenders are invited and alteration in eligibility condition is made after offers have been received, the entire process of tender has to be carried out afresh. This is what is stated in para 10. "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. 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 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. 17. In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2000)8 S.C.C. 606 , it has been held that, "It will be very difficult for the Courts to visualise the various factors like commercial/technical aspects of the contract, prevailing market conditions, both national and international and immediate needs of the country etc. which will have to be taken note of while accepting the bid offer. It would be hazardous for the Courts to venture on a guesswork as compared to the technical assessment that is made, correctness of which is not disproved by cogent materials. In such a case, unless the Court is satisfied that the allegations levelled are unassailable and there could be no doubt as to the unreasonableness, mala fide, collateral considerations alleged, it will not be possible for the Courts to come to the conclusion that such a contract can be prima facie or otherwise held to be vitiated so as to call for an independent investigation." 18. In that case, the Supreme Court held, on facts, that it would be unsafe to rely upon a retracted statement of a person to come to the conclusion that the contract was actuated by collateral considerations. 19. In that case, the Supreme Court held, on facts, that it would be unsafe to rely upon a retracted statement of a person to come to the conclusion that the contract was actuated by collateral considerations. 19. In the course of its judgment, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J & K, (1990)4 S.C.C. 1 : (1980)3 S.C.R. 138, wherein it was held- “We have referred to these considerations only illustratively, for there may be an infinite variety of considerations which may have to be taken into account by the Government in formulating its policies and it is on a total evaluation of various considerations which have weighed with the Government in taking a particular action, that the Court would have to decide whether the action of the Government is reasonable and in public interest.” 20. The Supreme Court also referred to the various observations made in Tata Cellular Case, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 11: (1994)6 S.C.C. 651 . In that case, all criteria had been followed. 21. In West Bengal State Electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Company Limited, (2001)2 S.C.C. 451 , while dealing with tenders, it was held that rule of law and constitutional values, must be adhered to when awarding contract. Party floating tender and all bidders are bound by the rules governing the process of tender and the instructions to bidders. Rules and instructions must be complied with scrupulously in order to avoid discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism. Relaxation by state or its agencies of a rule or condition in favour of a particular bidder not permissible unless expressly provided for in the rules. It was also held in that case that negligent mistakes in bid documents cannot be permitted to be corrected on the basis of equity, where facts indicate that- (i) it was not beyond the control of bidder to correct the error before submission of bid; (ii) that he was not vigilant, and (iii) that he did not seek to make corrections at the earliest opportunity, such bidder cannot be permitted to correct his bid documents afterwards. This is particularly so in the case of major public works involving international competitive bidding, in which only parties able to fulfill pre-qualification criteria may participate. In that case consortium of respondents 1 to 6 submitted lowest bid (for civil works of Purulia Pumped Storage Project). This is particularly so in the case of major public works involving international competitive bidding, in which only parties able to fulfill pre-qualification criteria may participate. In that case consortium of respondents 1 to 6 submitted lowest bid (for civil works of Purulia Pumped Storage Project). During scrutiny period, consortium wrote twice to appellant Board indicating that a “repetitive systematic computer typographical transmission failure” had occurred in their bid documents. However, details were not provided. The Board itself carried out corrections and by letter dated 18.12.1999 sought response of consortium. Consortium filling writ petition and getting permission to file fresh representation. For the first time it indicated one and a half months after submission of bid that in 37 items 50% of the unit rate had been quoted in Indian Rupees and 50% in US Dollars. The appellant Board rejected the representation. Ultimately, the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the letter dt. 18.12.1999 and directed the Board to allow consortium of respondents 1 to 4 to correct the mistakes and to consider the bid along with other bids. It was held by the Supreme Court that the Division Bench was within jurisdiction in quashing the letter dt. 18.12.1999 but erred in allowing corrections be made. “Equity follows the law”. It also held that protection of public interest required that there should be adherence to the rules. It further held that rules and conditions have to be complied with, even in respect of the lowest bid, that principle of awarding contract to the lowest tenderer, applied when all things are equal. There is no obligation to award contract to lowest bidder. It is open to Government or its agency to negotiate with next lowest bidder and try to reach an economically viable and mutually acceptable price. 22. The main complaint of Mr.Viduthalai is that there is discrimination in the matter of choosing the lowest tender. We have already noticed that only in the reply affidavit, favouritism is mentioned. A serious objection is raised to the bench-mark adopted by respondents 1 and 2 in order to select the third respondent as the lowest bidder and that no bench-mark was noticed in the tender. We have already noticed that only in the reply affidavit, favouritism is mentioned. A serious objection is raised to the bench-mark adopted by respondents 1 and 2 in order to select the third respondent as the lowest bidder and that no bench-mark was noticed in the tender. As already noticed, though the number of times is 79, the main items are only 7 in number and respondents 1 and 2 took into consideration the total offer made by the petitioner and the third respondent found that the third respondent was the lowest tenderer and they negotiated with the third respondent to give its matching offer for the 71 items, for which the petitioner had quoted lesser rates. 23. I do not find any impropriety on the part of respondents 1 and 2, particularly when it came to the total offer, the third respondent’s tender was found to be lower than the petitioner’s by Rs.4.52 lakhs. The first respondent is a wholly owned Government of India undertaking dealing with public funds and public interest. They wanted to reduce the offer further and thereby reduce the burden on the exchequer. I am also not able to subscribe to the stand taken by the petitioner that respondents 1 and 2 changed the rules of the game after it had started. What respondents 1 and 2 had done was to follow the directions issued by the Vigilance Commissioner and once they decided on the lowest tender, the petitioner goes out of the picture and respondents 1 and 2 were well within their rights in negotiating with the third respondent for bringing the rates further down. Public interest is paramount. No doubt, there should be no arbitrariness in the matter of award of contract. A technical assessment was made and respondents 1 and 2 had chosen the third respondent. The petitioner has not been able to show any unreasonableness, mala fide or collateral consideration in the award of the contract to the third respondent. The petitioner also has not substantiated that the third respondent does not have the necessary experience in the field. This, in my view, was the subjective satisfaction of the Technical Committee, which alone had the decision making power. The discretion exercised by respondents 1 and 2 has been so done, properly and no interference is called for. 24. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. This, in my view, was the subjective satisfaction of the Technical Committee, which alone had the decision making power. The discretion exercised by respondents 1 and 2 has been so done, properly and no interference is called for. 24. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No.31021 of 2001 is dismissed.