N. V. RAMANA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in prescribing Condition No. 10 in the Tender Notification C. T. N. No. C. E. (R and B) NABARD/8/2002/2003, dated 17-1-2003, published in the Times of India, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without the authority of law, and violative of fundamental Rights guaranteed under articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution of india, apart from being contrary to the directive Principles of State Policy, and consequently direct the respondent not to insist on the said condition and to finalize the tenders without reference to the same. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, who claims to be a class-I registered Contractor, is assailing the tender Notification, dated 17-1-2003, issued by the 1st respondent inviting tenders in respect of the works mentioned therein. He is, however, confining his challenge to the tender Notification insofar as Condition no. 10 is concerned, whereunder the intending tenderer is required to have WBM (Water Bound Maccadam) to a tune of rs. 40,500/ -. ( 3 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh with a view to usher in comprehensive reforms for streamlining and standardizing the procedures for inviting and award of tenders, appointed a Cabinet Sub- committee vide G. O. Ms. No. 99, T (R and B (Roads-I) Department, dated 9-6-1998, to suggest reforms. The Cabinet Sub- committee having considered and reviewed various aspects of the matter, suggested certain reforms in the shape of recommendations. The Government having considered the recommendations of the cabinet Committee, first spelt out the reforms, by way of conditions, issued in g. O. Ms. Nos. 132, T (R and B) Department, dated 11-8-1998, and in partial modification of the said G. O. , the Government issued another G. O. in G. O. Ms. No. 23, Irrigation and Command Area Development (PW:cod) Department, dated 5-3-1999, which were required to be fulfilled by those who intended to tender for Government works. ( 4 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the Tender Notification, issued by the 1st respondent, imposing conditions, more especially Condition No. 10, is without power and authority of law, and he could not have issued such Tender Notification, unless the Government had delegated the power to him. He secondly contended that condition No. 10, which requires the intending tenderers to have WBM (Water bound Maccadam), to a tune of Rs. He secondly contended that condition No. 10, which requires the intending tenderers to have WBM (Water bound Maccadam), to a tune of Rs. 40,500. 00 is onerous and impractical to be complied with, and excludes the petitioner from tendering though he is entitled to tender for works ranging from Rs. 100. 00 lakhs to rs. 500. 00 lakhs. At any rate, inasmuch as the said conditions do not find place in the g. Os. issued by the Government, the respondents ought not to have imposed them. ( 5 ) THE learned Government Pleader for roads and Buildings on the contrary, submitted that the respondents are well within their power to issue the Tender notification for it is the Chief Engineer who deals with the invitation and award of tenders. The impugned Tender Notifiction issued by the respondent, is in conformity with the G. Os. issued by the Government. The petitioner being an intending tenderer cannot question the validity or otherwise of the impugned condition, which requires holding of a particular qualification by the intending tenderers. The Tender notification, imposing the challenged condition No. 10, has been issued in terms of specification No. 1506 (Water Bound macadam) of the A. P. Standard specifications for Road Works. Inasmuch as the impugned Condition No. 10 has been imposed keeping in view the nature of work required by the respondents, the same cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. ( 6 ) THE award of contracts being a commercial transaction, depends on various factors, namely - price of the offeree, specifications to be complied with, financial soundness of the tenderer, past experience of the tenderer, time that may be required by the tenderer for completing the tendered work, and post-contractual obligations, and the power of this Court to interfere in such matters is very limited, and is confined to cases where it is shown that the decision arrived at by the administrative authorities is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonbleness, that is to say, the decision of the administrative authority is such that no reasonble person on application of mind, could have reached such a decision, and procedural impropriety. See Tata Cellular v. Union of India. ( 7 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh, in partial modification of G. O. Ms. No. 132, tr and B (Roads-I) Department, issued g. O. Ms. See Tata Cellular v. Union of India. ( 7 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh, in partial modification of G. O. Ms. No. 132, tr and B (Roads-I) Department, issued g. O. Ms. No. 23, Irrigation and Command area Development (PW: COD) Department, dated 5-3-1999. Para 2. 02 of the guidelines, relating to Technical Sanction, issued to the officers concerned, in the Annexure-I appended thereto, reads as follows: notwithstanding anything contained in the relevant codal provisions, APSS and Government orders with regard to the procedure of according the technical Sanction, enhanced powers are delegated to the Field Officers as follows: executive Engineers upto :rs 10 lakhs superintending Engineers upto : Rs. 50 lakhs. Chief Engineers upto : Value of the administrative approval. ( 8 ) FROM a reading of the above, it becomes clear that in spite of the relevant codal provisions and other Government orders with respect to according Technical sanction, the Government has delegated its power to the respective Field Officers to accord Technical Sanction for the value of the works mentioned against each of them. Inasmuch as the Government has delegated the power of Technical Sanction to the respondents, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned Tender Notification, issued by the 1st respondent, is without authority of law, cannot be accepted, and is therefore, rejected. ( 9 ) INSOFAR as the contention of the petitioner that the respondents could not have imposed conditions, and more particularly Condition No. 10, which is not found in the G. Os. issued by the government, is concerned, the Government after examining the recommendations made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, issued the g. Os. incorporating certain suggestions made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee. Apart from the G. Os. the respondents while inviting tenders are required to keep in view the Standard Specifications for Road Works. The Standard Specification for Road Works, contains a specification for Water Bound macadam, in Specification No. 1506, and it specifies the description and the type of material to be used in the execution of the works. Specification 1506. Apart from the G. Os. the respondents while inviting tenders are required to keep in view the Standard Specifications for Road Works. The Standard Specification for Road Works, contains a specification for Water Bound macadam, in Specification No. 1506, and it specifies the description and the type of material to be used in the execution of the works. Specification 1506. 1 reads thus: description: Water bound macadam shall consist of clean aggregates mechanically interlocked by rolling, and bonded together with screenings/filter material with the help of water laid on a prepared sub-grade, sub-base, base or existing pavement as the case may be and finished in accordance with the requirements of these specifications in conformity with the lines, grades and cross-sections shown on the drawings. ( 10 ) THE respondents keeping in view the above specification have incorporated condition No. 10, in the Tender Notification, requiring WBM for compacted thickness of 75 mm/100 mm each layer in Sqm. The imposition of such a condition in the Tender notification, which is based on the Standard specifications for Road Works, can in no manner be said to be illegal or arbitrary. The guidelines isused in the G. Os. cannot be treated as a Code in itself. They form part and parcel of the other already existing standard Specifications, and the guidelines issued in the G. Os. cannot be read in isolation to the Standards Specifications for roads. ( 11 ) WHILE issuing Tender Notification, it should be presumed that the issuing authority will having regard to the nature of the work and the technicalities involved in the execution of such work, impose such conditions or technical specifications, as may be necessary, for getting quality work done through a tenderer. The apex Court in raunaq International Ltd. v. I. V. R. Constructions Ltd. held any judicial relief at the instance of a party, which does not fulfil the requisite criteria, would be misplaced. Merely because a particular condition is onerous, and is impracticable to be complied with, the same cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary, justifying interference by this court. If any such interference is made and the conditions relaxed, it would amount to substituting the view of the Expert Bodies and compromising with the quality of the work that was required to be attained by imposition of such conditions. If any such interference is made and the conditions relaxed, it would amount to substituting the view of the Expert Bodies and compromising with the quality of the work that was required to be attained by imposition of such conditions. What are the conditions required to be imposed for getting a particular work done, depends upon various factors, and is exclusive within the domain of the Expert Bodies, and this court shall not interfere in such matters, and say that a particular condition or technical specification is onerous and impracticable to be complied with, and therefore, liable to be set aside. ( 12 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit, and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.