ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. All these writ petitioners are aggrieved by the Award of a contract passed by the respondent-Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. an instrumentality of the State of Jharkhand in favour of five contractors namely, M/s. Rungta Projects Ltd., M/s. Chanani Transport, M/s. Globe Roadways (P) Ltd., M/s. Naween Transport Company and M/s. B.K.B. Transport (P) Ltd. 2. The contract pertains to transportation of coal from different collieries to Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. The Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. is a Thermal Power Station which is operated mainly by use of coal. The coal Is supplied to the aforesaid Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. by certain collieries of Central Coalfields Ltd. On 17.8.2001 notice inviting tender was floated by the Nigam for transportation of coal by road for a period of one year from the collieries of Central Coalfields Ltd. to Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (in short Nigam) by NIT No. 3/TVNL/Ranchi/ 2001. The nature of work was transportation of coal from collieries of Central Coalfields Ltd. i.e. Parej East Open Cast Project, Kedla Open Cast Project, Pundi, Tapin South, Tapin North, Kedla Washery etc. to Tenughat Thermal Power Station. The estimated quantity of coal to be transported from various collieries to the Thermal Power station at Lalpania was about 1.20.000 M.T. per month. The last date for submission of the tender was 20.9.2001 and the date of opening of the tender was also the same. 3. In W.P. (C) No. 5590/2001. the case of the petitioner M/s. Sainik Transporters Pvt. Ltd. is that pursuant to the tender notice petitioner deposited necessary amount and obtained tender papers from the respondent and then submitted its tender papers along-with requisite earnest money. It is stated that tender bid was opened on 20.9.2001 and a letter was issued to the petitioner on 20.9.2001 asking the petitioner to appear in the office of the Chief Engineer, Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Ranchi on 29.9.2001 and to produce all the original certificate of experience, Character certificate issued by the District Administration and other associated documentary evidence regarding financial status, Income Tax Certificate. Labour Licence and affidavit. Petitioners further case is that in response to the said letter petitioners representative appeared on 29.9.2001 before the Chief Engineer and produced all the original documents. Labour Licence and affidavit. Petitioners further case is that in response to the said letter petitioners representative appeared on 29.9.2001 before the Chief Engineer and produced all the original documents. It is alleged that although petitioner fulfilled all the requisite terms and conditions of the tender but the petitioners tender was not opened for the reasons best known to the respondent and ignoring the tender of the petitioner, the contract was awarded to the other contractors. 4. Similar is the case of M/s. Eagle Carries Pvt. Ltd., who is petitioner in WP (C) No. 5591 of 2001. In this case also the grievance of the petitioner is that on submission of tender, it was opened on 20.9.2001 and a letter was issued to the petitioner asking it to appear in the office of the Chief Engineer, Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd.. Ranchi on 29.9.2001 and to produce all the original certificate of experience. Character Certificate issued by the District Administration and other associated documentary evidence. In this case also it is alleged that although petitioner fulfilled all the requisite terms and conditions of the tender notice but the tender of the petitioner was not opened for the reasons best known to the respondents and the contract was awarded to other contractors. 5. In WP (C) No. 5594 of 2001, the case of the petitioner M/s. Shankar Transport & others is that pursuant to tender notice, petitioners submitted tender which was opened on 20.9.2001 and a letter was issued to the petitioners on the same day asking the petitioner to appear in the office of the Chief Engineer, Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and to produce all the original certificates of experience, Character Certificate issued by the District Administration, financial status. Income-tax Certificate, Labour Licence etc. Petitioner said to have appeared before the Chief Engineer and produced all the original documents. Petitioners case is that all the writ petitioners are existing contractors of the respondent-Nigam and executed the same work i.e. transportation of coal from the various collieries to the yard of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. and they were awarded the same work for the period 17.8.2000 to 16.8.2001. Petitioners further case is that one of the conditions imposed in the tender notice that the contractors must have experience ,of executing the work of atleast Rs. Petitioners further case is that one of the conditions imposed in the tender notice that the contractors must have experience ,of executing the work of atleast Rs. 4-crores during any period of 12 months was incorporated with mala fide intention to favour certain contractors though petitioners have been executing the same type of work in the respondent-Nigam. It is stated that when the petitioners tenders were rejected on this ground they immediately sent protest letter on 26.10.2001 and approached the respondents to know as to on what basis tender bids of the petitioners have not been opened, but no reasons have been assigned to the petitioners for non opening of their tender bids. 6. In WP (C) No. 5590/2001 and 5591/ 2001 the stand of the respondent-Nigam is that petitioners disqualified in the first part of the tender bids because they have failed to submit character certificate and Labour Licence Certificate alongwith their tender as per the requirement of para 36 of the terms and conditions of the tender paper. It is stated that petitioners were required to submit Labour Licence and Character Certificate issued by the District Administration. Petitioners had no such document on 20.9.2001 hence they were disqualified in the technical part of the tender and were not allowed to enter into second part of the tender, Respondents further case is that second part of the tender was opened on 24.10.2001 and the tender of only those contractors were: opened who did qualify in the first part of the bid as per the satisfaction to the authority concerned. 7. In WP (C) No. 5594/200l, the respondents case is that petitioners disqualified in first part of the tender bid due to lack of adequate experience in transportation and financial soundness. It is stated that tender applications of the petitioners were opened in the office of the Nigam wherein petitioners were found misfit, to enter into second part i.e. rate part of the tender Petitioners representative appeared before the committee and produced original documents but they failed to fulfill, the conditions contained in the tender. Petitioners were required to submit experience certificate with regard to execution of similar work for the value of Rs. 4 crores but the petitioners submitted experience papers of execution of work for the value of less than Rs. 4 crores. 8. Mr. A. Sahay. Petitioners were required to submit experience certificate with regard to execution of similar work for the value of Rs. 4 crores but the petitioners submitted experience papers of execution of work for the value of less than Rs. 4 crores. 8. Mr. A. Sahay. learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted that the action of the respondent-Nigam in rejecting first part of the tender of the petitioners for want of character certificate and Labour licence is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. According to the learned counsel when the first part of the tender was opened on 20.9.2001, the Chief Engineer issued letter on the same day asking the petitioners to appear in the Office and produce original documents including Character Certificates issued by the District Administration. Pursuant to that letter petitioners of WP (C) No. 5590/2001 and 5591/2001 produced Character certificates issued by the District Administration. These petitioners very categorically informed the respondents that Labour Licence can be produced only after allotment of work. Despite submission of papers respondents arbitrarily rejected the first part of the tender and did not allow the petitioners to participate in the second part of the tender. Learned counsel referred Clause 11 (xi) of the tender notice and submitted that although Character certificate was issued by the competent authority but it was illegally rejected by the respondents. Learned counsel further referred Rule 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules and submitted that Labour Licence is issued only after allotment of work order. In support of case of the petitioners in WP (C) No. 5594/2001, Mr. Sahay submitted that admittedly petitioners are existing contractors and they have executed the work upto Rs. 3 crores and odd but the respondents with a mala fide intention rejected the tender of the petitioners just to give favour to other contractors. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent-Nigam has failed to consider that the total work was distributed to more than one contractors therefore working experience in respect of execution of same work upto the value of Rs. 4 crores became immaterial. 9. On the other hand. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the Nigam, firstly submitted that petitioners failed to fulfill the conditions of the tender notice inasmuch as they have not submitted Character certificate and experience certificate alongwith their first part of the tender and therefore respondents rightly rejected their tender. 4 crores became immaterial. 9. On the other hand. Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the Nigam, firstly submitted that petitioners failed to fulfill the conditions of the tender notice inasmuch as they have not submitted Character certificate and experience certificate alongwith their first part of the tender and therefore respondents rightly rejected their tender. Learned counsel submitted that tender was opened on 20.9.2001 and on that date these petitioners were called upon by letter dated. 20.9.2001 to produce original documents, copies of which were submitted alongwith the tender. Admittedly, petitioners did not submit the Character Certificate and experience certificate alongwith tender and therefore submission of Character certificate on subsequent date does not amount to fulfilling the conditions of tender notice. As against the stand taken by the petitioners in WP (C) No. 5594/2001. Mr. Sinha learned counsel submitted, that the petitioner who after accepting the terms and conditions of the tender notice submitted their tender and therefore they can not be allowed to challenge the conditions of tender. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme court in the Case of Ramna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 489 , Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka and Ors. AIR 1900 SC 958 and in the case of Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M. & N. Publications and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 51 . 10. Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Contractors in whose favour work order has been issued, firstly submitted that no allegation of mala fide and favouritism have been alleged by the petitioners, nor the petitioners have fulfilled the terms and conditions of the tender notice. On the contrary these contractors in whose favour work order has been issued by the respondent- Nigam have fulfilled all the conditions of the tender notice in all respect and they were found fit by the Committee for allotment of work order. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 617 and in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 606 . 11. Learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 617 and in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 606 . 11. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties, I would first like to refer the relevant Clauses of the tender notice dated 17.8.2001, copy of the tender notice has been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. The tender notice was for the transportation of coal by road for the period of one year from different collieries of Central Coalfields Ltd. to Tenughat Thermal Power Station, Lalpania, District Bokaro. The tender notice prescribed the eligibility criteria of the tenderers, which reads as under :-- Eligibility of the tenderer.--(a) They should have adequate experience in transportation of coal by road and executed at least 50% (fifty percent) of the above estimated quantity in any consecutive 12 (twelve) months during last 3 (three) years & possess sufficient number of dumpers either in their name or in the name of their partner. (b) They should be financially sound having executed order worth at least Its. 4.00 crores (Rupees four crores) (in case of transportation work from Bokaro East Collieries) and Rs. 2.00 (Rupees two crores) (in case - of transportation works from Bokaro East Collieries) in any consecutive 12 (twelve) months during last 5 (five) years; (c) They should submit copy of upto-date Income Tax Clarence Certificate. Tender documents shall be issued by:ac-counts Officer. TVNL, Doranda, Ranchi on payment of cost of BOQ (Non-refundable) in shape of Bank draft or pay order from any Nationalised Bank in favour of "Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd." payable at Ranchi and documents in support of their eligibility, if any the tender will be received in the office of the Chief Engr. TVNL Hq.. Nepal House, Room No. 018/2, Doranda Ranchi-2, Date of opening of price part will be intimated to eligible tenderers in due course. (d) The conditional tenders/tender without earnest money will not be ac- cepted. TVNL reserves the right to reject any or all the tenders or distribute the work among the tenders without assigning any reason thereof." 12. TVNL Hq.. Nepal House, Room No. 018/2, Doranda Ranchi-2, Date of opening of price part will be intimated to eligible tenderers in due course. (d) The conditional tenders/tender without earnest money will not be ac- cepted. TVNL reserves the right to reject any or all the tenders or distribute the work among the tenders without assigning any reason thereof." 12. The terms and conditions of the tender notice of technical part one of the tender (NIT No. 03/2001) is also annexed with the writ petition. Clause 7. prescribes experience and financial conditions of the contractors which is quoted herein below : Experience and financial status of contractor.--(a) The experience should be of the similar work executed satisfactorily in any consecutive 1.2 (twelve) months during last 05 (five) years from the date of tender. During this 12 (twelve) months period the tenderer must have executed work equivalent to 30% (thirty percent) of the tendered quantity. (b) A certificate to the above shall be furnished alongwith the tender, issued by C.C.L. or a Govt. Undertaking/Govt. Department. (c) The tenderer must have executed order for similar work 04 (four) crores in any consecutive 12 (twelve) months during last 5 (five) years. The copies of such orders shall be furnished alongwith the tender. (d) A certificate from Bankers in respect of financial soundness shall be furnished. The certificate should not be more than three months old from the date of tender. The balance sheet of previous year shall also be submitted. Clause 36 are the conditions for submission and opening of tenders. This clause is worth to be quoted herein below : Submission and opening of tenders.--Tenders should be submitted in two (2) parts (Part-I Technical. Part II Price) complete in all respects with all informations as per the requirement of the specification either directly by the tenderer or sent by registered post. Incomplete tenders with Inadequate information may be rejected. Both parts of the tender should be submitted in separate envelope duly sealed and superscribed on it NIT No. due date of opening and name of the work. The envelope should be marked as Part I and Part II (Price). Part I.--The Part-I of the tender shall contain the following details:--(i) General information as asked in Part I (Technical) of the Bill of quantity along with the terms & conditions of the tender documents duly signed. The envelope should be marked as Part I and Part II (Price). Part I.--The Part-I of the tender shall contain the following details:--(i) General information as asked in Part I (Technical) of the Bill of quantity along with the terms & conditions of the tender documents duly signed. (ii) Bank draft from nationalized bank towards earnest money as per tender specification. (iii) List of dumpers and pay loader with registration no. (iv) Certified copy of upto date income tax assessment. (v) Labour licence. (vi) Copy of money receipt for purchase of tender paper. (vii) Experience certificate and documentary evidence regarding financial status as Clause 7.0 (viii) An affidavit sworn in the court of the First Class Magistrate that you or any of your partners is not directly or indirect-ly related to any of the Nigams employees posted at Tenughat TPS. (ix) Other information except rate of transportation. (x) Documents submitted with the tender should be duly signed by the authorised signatory of the contractor and fully stamped on each paper. (xi) Character certificate from the District Administration. Part II.--(i) Part II of the tender shall contain rate of transportation." Clause 36.1 prescribes procedure for opening of tender which is quoted herein below :-- Opening of tender.--(i) Part I of the tender shall be opened on the date specified in the NIT or extension if any. (ii) Any clarification/confirmation desired by the Nigam after opening Part I shall be submitted by the tenderer within the time specified in such request. In case of delay in submission of such clarification/confirmation the tender is likely to be rejected summarily. (iii) Part II containing rate of transportation shall be opened on a later date and information in this regard will be intimated to the tenderer who will meet the condition detailed in Tender document. (iv) At the time of opening of Part I of the tender the envelope of Part II of the tender will be signed by the TVNL. Officers opening the tender and also representative of the tenderers, if present," 13. Clause 36.2 provides that if the tenderers fail to fulfill the terms and conditions or deviate from the terms, then their tender shall be rejected. Officers opening the tender and also representative of the tenderers, if present," 13. Clause 36.2 provides that if the tenderers fail to fulfill the terms and conditions or deviate from the terms, then their tender shall be rejected. For better appreciation Clause 36.2 is quoted herein below :-- Rejection of Tender.--It shall be noted that tender of those bidders who do not accept all the terms and conditions of the Nigam specification or deviate from the terms indicated in the tender specification or put extra condition of their own or do not furnish the desired information or are incomplete in any respect are liable to be rejected without any reason." 14. From reading of the eligibility criteria prescribed in the tender notice and the genera] terms and conditions, the admitted position emerged is that a tenderer must have adequate experience in transportation of coal by road and executed atleast 50% of the estimated quantity in any consecutive 12 months during last 3 years and he must be financially sound and having executed work worth at least Rs. 4 crores, in case of transportation work from Bokaro East Collieries and Rs. 2 crores in case of transportation work from Bokaro East Collieries in any consecutive 12 months during last 5 years. A tenderer was also required to furnish, besides other Income-tax assessment, Labour Licence, affidavit and Character certificate from the District Administration. 15. The only question that falls for consideration in these writ applications by this Court is as to whether petitioners fulfilled the conditions while submitting their tenders. As noticed above, the last date for submission of tender was 20.9.2001 and on that day first part of the tender was opened. After submission of tender by the petitioners M/s. Sainik Transport (P) Ltd. and M/s. Eagle Carriers (P) Ltd. (WP (C) Nos. 5590/2001 and 5591/ 2001), they were called upon by letter dated 20,9.2001 to appear in the office of the Chief Engineer on 29.9.2001 and submit all original certificates of experience, Character Certificates issued from the District Administration. The case of these petitioners is that on 29.9.2001, their representatives appeared before the Chief Engineer and produced all the original documents including Character Certificates, photocopies of which were already submitted alongwith the tender papers. The case of these petitioners is that on 29.9.2001, their representatives appeared before the Chief Engineer and produced all the original documents including Character Certificates, photocopies of which were already submitted alongwith the tender papers. The petitioner in WP (C) No. 5590/2001, M/s. Sainik Transport Pvt. Ltd. annexed copy of the Character certificate submitted by it in response to the letter issued by the respondent-Nigam. From perusal of the said certificate it appears that it was issued by the Superintendent of Police. Angul (Orissa) which is dated 4.10.2001. The said petitioner also annexed a letter submitted to the Nigam declaring that Labour Licence shall be submitted within ten days from the date of receipt of the work order. Admittedly therefore petitioner M/s. Sainik Transport Pvt. Ltd. did not submit character certificate and Labour Licence on 20.9.2001 alongwith tender paper and the Character certificate produced by him was obtained from the Superintendent of Police on 4.10.2001. 16. Similarly, petitioner M/s. Eagle Carriers Pvt. Ltd. in WP (C) No. 5591/2001 in response to the letter dated 20.9.2001 issued from the office of the Chief Engineer submitted a Character certificate issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner after 20.9.2001. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that petitioner had submitted Character certificate alongwith tender paper which was issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner but the said certificate was incomplete as it did not bear the signature of Deputy Commissioner. Subsequently, petitioner produced different certificate containing signature of Deputy Commissioner dated 24.9.2001. It is therefore clear from the case of this petitioner that it did not strictly fulfilled the conditions of the tender notice. Similarly, in WP (C) No. 5594/2001, petitioner M/s. Shankar Transport & Ors. were called upon by letter dated 20.9.2001 to produce all the original certificates of experience, and other certificates which were submitted alongwith tender appear. Admittedly petitioner did not submit experience certificates as per the conditions of the tender notice. However, petitioner has challenged the very conditions contained in tender notice whereby a tenderer is required to submit certificates in support of the fact that he has executed similar work order for the value of Rs. 4 crores in any consecutive 12 months. From these admitted fact it is therefore clear that admittedly all these petitioners did not submit required documents particularly Character Certificates, Labour licence and required experience certificates alongwith tender papers. 17. 4 crores in any consecutive 12 months. From these admitted fact it is therefore clear that admittedly all these petitioners did not submit required documents particularly Character Certificates, Labour licence and required experience certificates alongwith tender papers. 17. Now the question that falls for consideration is as to whether rejection of first part of the tender of the petitioners by the respondents is mala fide on the ground that subsequently petitioner furnished the required certificates and whether it was obligatory on the part of the respondent-Nigam to consider the certificates subsequently filed by the petitioners. 18. From perusal of letter dated 20.9.2001 (Annexure 4), it appears that these petitioners were called upon to furnish original certificates which were submitted alongwith tender papers. This letter does not extend the time for furnishing certificates which were not produced alongwith tender papers. As noticed above, pursuant to that letter petitioners submitted Character certificates which were obtained after 20.9.2001. Petitioners also failed to furnish Labour licence certificates, In my opinion therefore non-consideration of Character certificates by the respondent-Nigam will not amount to arbitrary, mala fide or discriminatory. 19. This Court has also the occasion to go through the original records produced before this Court pursuant to the order passed by Letters Patent Court. The note-sheet shows that the tender papers submitted by all the tenderers were scrutinised and examined by the Tender Evaluation Committee and it was recorded in the Minutes that the present petitioners did not submit Character certificates/Labour licence/Experience certificates as required Under the tender notice it was also recorded in the Minutes that the Contractors in whose favour work orders have been allotted have fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the tender notice and they submitted all the papers. The file then placed before the Chairman for approval and for opening of second part of the tender in respect of the tenderers who fulfilled the criteria laid down in the tender notice. Accordingly, after approval from the Chairman, the second part of the tender i.e. the price part was opened and the price part of the tenders which were found lowest were accepted. From the minutes, it appears that the respondent-Nigam after following due procedure proceeded with the finalisation of tender In favour of the competent and suitable contractors. I do not find any infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondent-Nigam in the finalisation of contract. 20. From the minutes, it appears that the respondent-Nigam after following due procedure proceeded with the finalisation of tender In favour of the competent and suitable contractors. I do not find any infirmity in the procedure adopted by the respondent-Nigam in the finalisation of contract. 20. The judicial power of review by this Court particularly in the matter of Government Contracts have been well settled by the Supreme Court. The principle 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 power of judicial review. In the case of Tata Cellularv. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 5G1, the Apex Court after considering various decisions have held that judicial review will not mean to review the merit of the decision rather to review the decision making process. The judicial review is different from an appeal. When hearing an appeal, the Court is concerned with the merits of the decision under appeal. Since the power of judicial review is riot an appeal from the decision, the Court cannot substitute its own derision. Their lordships further observed that where the selection or refection is arbitrary, certain ly the court would interfere. It is not the function of a Judge to act as superboard or with the zeal of a pedantic school master substituting its judgment for that of the administrator. 21. In the case of Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 51 , the Apex Court again reiterated the same principle and held : "While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the "decision making process." In this connection reference may be made to the case of Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans. (1982) 3 All ER 141, where it was said that The purpose of judicial review." ".....is "to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment reaches on a matter which it is authorised or enjoined by law to decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. "By way of judicial review the Court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Courts have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time as was said by the House of Lords in the aforesaid case. Chief Constable of the North Wales Police. Evens (supra), the Courts, can certainly examine whether "decision making process" was reasonable, rational, not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." If the contract has been entered into without ignoring the procedure which can be said to be basis in nature and after an objective consideration of different options available taking into account the interest of the State and the public then Court cannot act as an appellate authority by substituting its opinion in respect of selection made for entering into such contract But once the procedure adopted by an authority for purpose of entering into a contract is held to be against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Courts cannot ignore such action saying that the authorities concerned must have some latitude or liberty in contractual matters and any interference by Court amounts to encroachment on the exclusive right of the executive to take such decision." 22. In the case of Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 393 , the Supreme Court while considering the case where the award of contract by public authority was challenged by unsuccessful contractors held as under : "This is not a case where any mala fides have been alleged against any member of the Board. Nor is there any allegation of any collateral motive for awarding the contract to M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. The only ground of challenge in the writ petition filed by M/s. IVR Construction Ltd. is that M/s. Raunaq International did not fulfil the qualifying criterion of having laid such pipeline for a distance of 3 kms. But the Challenger M/s. IVR Construction Ltd. also docs not fulfil the qualifying criterion. But the Challenger M/s. IVR Construction Ltd. also docs not fulfil the qualifying criterion. In these circumstances, we fail to see any basis for passing the impugned order, When a writ petition is filed in the High Court challenging the award of a contract by a public authority or the State, the Court must be satisfied that there is some element of public interest involved in entertaining such a petition. If for example, the dispute is purely between two tenderers, the Court must be very careful to see if there is any element of public interest involved in the litigation. A mere difference in the prices offered by the two tenderers may or may not be decisive in deciding whether any public interest is involved in intervention the proposed project may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost for more than any saving which the Court would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in favour of the tenderer or the other tenderer. Therefore, unless the Court is satisfied that there is a substantial amount of public interest, or the transaction is entered into mala fide, the Court should not intervene under Article 226 in disputes between two rival tenderers." 23. In the ease of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors. 2000 (2) SCC 617 a similar question came for consideration by the Apex Court as to the scope of judicial review in the matter of award of contract by the State or its instrumentality. While discussing the scope of judicial review, their lordships held as under : "The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Celluar v. Union of India, Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It nay not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. Rut the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid clown by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review the court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. 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 should 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 in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public on interest requires interference, the Court should intervene." 24. The Apex Court again in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 606 , while considering reasonableness in the price fixation in respect of Govt. contract and the Courts power of judicial review observed as under : "It is clear from the above observations of this Court 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. which will have to be taken note of while accepting the bid offer. In such a case, unless the court is satisfied that the allegations levelled are unassailable and there could he 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, as prayed for by the appellants. Therefore, the above contention of the appellants also fails." 25. Last but not the least, the Apex-Court again laid down the law on the principle of judicial review in respect of contractual power of the government in the case of Asia Foundation & Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (I) Ltd.. (1997) I SCC 738 and observed that : "Therefore, though the principle of judicial review cannot be denied so far as exercise of contractual powers of government bodies arc concerned, but it is intended to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and it is exercised in the larger public interest or if it is brought to the notice of the court that in the matter of award of a contract power has been exercised for any collateral purpose. But on examining the facts and circumstances of the present case and on going through the records we are of the considered opinion that none of the criteria has been satisfied justifying Courts interference in the grant of contract in favour of the appellant. We are not entering into the controversy raised by Mr. Farasaran, learned senior counsel that the High Court committed a factual error in coming to the conclusion that Respondent 1 was the lowest bidder and the alleged mistake committed by the consultant in the matter of bid evaluation in not taking into account the customs duty and the contention of Mr. Sorabjee learned senior counsel that it has been conceded by all parties concerned before the High Court that on corrections being made Respondent 1 was the lowest bidder. As in our view in the matter of a tender a lowest bidder may not claim an enforceable right to get the contract though ordinarily the authorities concerned should accept the lowest bid. As in our view in the matter of a tender a lowest bidder may not claim an enforceable right to get the contract though ordinarily the authorities concerned should accept the lowest bid. Further, we find from the letter dated 12.7.1996 that Paradip Port Trust itself has come to the following conclusion : "The technical capability of any of the three bidders to undertake the works is not in question. Two of the bids are very similar in price. If additional commercial information which has not been provided by bidders through Paradip Port Trust, had been available at the time of assessment the outcome would appear to favour the award to AFCONS." 26. Coming back to the instant case, as noticed above, the main grievances of the petitioners in the writ petitions are that although pursuant to letter dated 20.9.2001, they submitted required certificates but the respondents totally ignored the case of the petitioners and the contract was awarded to other contractors. As found above, these petitioners admittedly did not produce Character certificates, labour licence and Experience certificates. Only the Character certificate was submitted latter on which was obtained on the dale subsequent to the date of submission of tender. No specific allegations of unreasonableness, mala fide, favouritism or collateral consideration have been levelled against the respondent-Nigam. In such a case, it is not possible for this court to come to the conclusion that the contract awarded to the private respondents is vitiated on these grounds. This Court further found that neither the decision making authority exceeded its power nor committed a breach of rules of natural justice. 27. Helving regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed herein above. I am of the opinion that the award of the contract by the respondent-Nigam is not illegal, arbitrary or mala fide or it is violative of the principle of natural justice. I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent No. 1 awarding the contract to other respondents. There is no merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed.