JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. All these cases arise out of a common Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) No. 02/2002-03 issued by the Executive Engineer, Suber-narekha Canal Division, Ghatshila. The NIT No. 02/2002-03 was published in newspaper "PRABHAT KHABAR" on 27th September, 2002 for several earth filling and Check Dam (C.D.) construction works of Chandil left main Canal. The Group No. 1 related to earth filling between 78.598 K.M. to 80.45 k.m. and C.D. construction works at 80.39 k.m. The Group No. 2 for earth filling between 80.45 k.m. to 83.99 k.m. and C.D. works at 81.13 k.m. & 81.55 k.m. The Group No. 3 for earth filling from 83.99 k.m. to 85.17 k.m. and the Group No. 4 for earth filling : 85.33 k.m. to 86.44 k.m. 2. All the three writ petitions being confined to aforesaid four Groups, it is not necessary to discuss the rest of the works such as Group Nos. 5, 6 and 7. 3. The petitioner Kew Construction Private Limited of WP (C) No. 6871 of 2002 submitted tender papers in respect to Group No. 2 works. The other petitioner V.K. Sahani Const. (India) Pvt. Ltd. of WP (C) No. 6910 of 2002 submitted tender papers in respect to group Nos. 3 and 4 works, whereas petitioner M/s. Ajay Engicone Private Ltd. of WP (C) No. 83 of 2003 submitted tender papers in respect to Groups 1, 3 and 4 works. 4. Curiously, the contesting respondents of the respective writ petitions and the corresponding petitioners, all of them, and some others quoted same rate i.e. 15% below the estimated cost. Thereafter, the work orders having issued in favour of some of the contesting respondents, the petitioners challenged the decision of the Tender Committee dated 14th December, 2002, with further prayer to command the respondents to produce the consequential work orders and to quash them. In one of the cases te. WP (C) No. 6910 of 2002, prayer has been made to direct the respondents to allot the work in favour of the petitioner. 5. The common grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have allotted the work orders, mainly on the ground that the Contractors are "local". No other factors taken into consideration. In one of the cases te. WP (C) No. 6910 of 2002, prayer has been made to direct the respondents to allot the work in favour of the petitioner. 5. The common grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have allotted the work orders, mainly on the ground that the Contractors are "local". No other factors taken into consideration. It is alleged that the allotment of work on sole criteria that the Contractor is local is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned senior counsel for the petitioner M/s. Ajay Engicone Pvt. Ltd. of WP (C) No. 83 of 2003, referred to the decision of the Tender Committee dated 14th December, 2002 to suggest that the work orders were issued mainly on the ground that the Contractors are local. It was submitted that the petitioner being a local Contractor of the State of Jharkhand, no further classification could have been made amongst the local contractors of Jharkhand that one belongs to one or other particular district or a Block. Such classification having no nexus with the object to achieve is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Placing reliance on NIT-02/2002-03, it was pointed out that none of the clauses stipulate that the local Contractors will be preferred. It was highlighted that the petitioner M/s. Ajay Engicone Pvt. Ltd. of W.P. (C) No. 83 of 2003 is backed with vast experience of doing same and similar work in the Government of Bihar and also in the Government of Jharkhand to the tune of Rs. 50 (fifty) crores. In respect to respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the said writ petition, it was submitted that they were also the Contractors working all over the State of Bihar now in the State of Jharkhand. They were also not intimated that any preference will be given taking into consideration the local factors in respect to job of more than crores. Mr. Mahto also placed reliance on the chart enclosed with the counter affidavit (Annexure-B series) filed by the respondent State. Therein the comparative statement of contractors have been shown in tabulated chart. They were also not intimated that any preference will be given taking into consideration the local factors in respect to job of more than crores. Mr. Mahto also placed reliance on the chart enclosed with the counter affidavit (Annexure-B series) filed by the respondent State. Therein the comparative statement of contractors have been shown in tabulated chart. In respect to plant and machinery, the petitioner M/s. Ajay Engicone Pvt. Ltd. of WP (C) No. 83 of 2003 was shown to have more machineries than respondents M/s. Laxmi Narayan Magnotia; M/s. K.K. Builders; and M/s. Himachal Construction Corporation Pvt. Ltd. The number of technical persons in the employment of petitioner M/s. Ajay Engicone Pvt. Ltd. was shown a little more than the Engineers available with respondent M/s. Laxmi Narayan Mangotia. Similarly, financial turn over of petitioner M/s. Ajay Engicone Pvt. Ltd. is more than the financial turn over of respondent M/s. Laxmi Narayan Mangotia. 7. The counsel for the petitioner V.K. Sahani Const. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (6910/02) while adopted the argument advanced by Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior Counsel, also placed reliance on the comparative chart enclosed by the respondents and the decision of the Tender Committee to suggest that local factor was the main factor to allot the works in favour of the contesting respondents. 8. Mr. A.K. Sahani for the petitioner Kew Construction Private Ltd. of WP (C) No. 6871 of 2002 also relied on the decision of the Tender Committee to suggest that the respondents of the said case was allotted work order only on the ground of local contractor. 9. The aforesaid submissions were opposed by the learned Advocate General. The stand of the respondents is that various factors were taken into consideration to issue work order in favour of the contesting respondents and others. 10. From the proceeding of Tender Committee dated 14th December, 2002, it appears that the Committee recommended to issue Work orders in favour of respondents not only on the ground that they are local contractors but also on other grounds such as, their seniority in registration as Contractors, annual turn over and work experience. 11. Admittedly, the respective petitioners and corresponding respondents quoted same rate. They are experienced & Registered Contractors. 11. Admittedly, the respective petitioners and corresponding respondents quoted same rate. They are experienced & Registered Contractors. When everything is equal then some factors are to be taken into consideration by the competent authority for elimination and to find out who amongst them is best for allotment of work. It is not that the petitioners are better than their respective competitor (respondents) in all aspects. For example, the turn over of 5th respondent M/s. Triveni Enterprises of WP (C) 6871 of 2002 is over Rs. 644.37 lacs, whereas the turn over of petitioner Kew Construction Private Ltd. is only Rs. 277.13 lakhs. Similarly, the turn over of M/s. Ajay Engicone Pvt. Ltd. of WP (C) No. 83 of 2003 may be more than the contesting respondents M/s. Laxmi Narayan Mangotia, but such turn over of M/s. Ajay Engicone Pvt. Ltd. is much less than the turn over of M/s. K.K. Builders and M/s. Himachal Construction Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Merely because a Contractor has more number of Engineers does not mean that the work is to be allotted in favour of such Contractor. If other Contractor has requisite number of Engineers, such Contractor can also be allotted the work, if otherwise is found better. The petitioner V.K. Sahani Const. (India) Pvt. Ltd. (6910/02) has not impleaded any Contractor as party respondent who has been allotted with work. Prayer has been made to direct the respondents .to allot the work of Groups 3 and 4, though it is not permissible or desirable for the Court to decide who amongst the bidders is to be allotted the work. 12. It is a settled law that the Court cannot act as an appellate authority and examine the details of terms of contract. The primary concern of the Court is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision making process or not. In the case of Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M/s. M & N Publications Limited, reported in AIR 1996 SC 51 , the Supreme Court while held that the Court has power to examine whether the decision making process was reasonable, rational and not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or not, held that, otherwise, the judicial review of such decision is not permissible; the Court cannot act as appellate authority. 13. 13. Taking into consideration similar decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 ; AIR 1999 SC 393 ; (2000) 2 SCC 617 ; (1997) 1 SCC 738 and (2000) 8 SCC 606 , a Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Sainik Transporters Pvt. Ltd. v. Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd., 2002 (1) JLJR 421 , held that it is not the function of a judge to act as a super board to substitute its judgment for that of the administrator. 14. In the facts and circumstances, the quotations of petitioners and the corresponding Contractors to whom the works have been allotted, being same, the Contractors in whose favour, the works have been allotted being otherwise eligible and viable, it is not desirable for this Court to sit in appeal over the finding of the Tender Committee merely on the ground that the local factor is one of the factor taken into consideration, apart from other reasonable factors. 15. I find no merit in these writ petitions. All the writ petitions are dismissed.