D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of 1st and 2nd respondents in awarding contract to the 4th respondent in respect of work at Sl. No. 20 of tender Notice No. 4/2002-2003/1600, dated 24-06-2002, as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential direction that the petitioner is eligible for award of the said contract. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix is that the petitioneris a P. W. D (Randb) Special Class Contractor involved in construction of buildings since 1966. The 4th respondent also is a Special class Contractor in the same field. The 1st respondent issued a tender notice no. 4/2002-2003/1600, dated 24-06-2002, soliciting sealed tenders from the registered contractors for construction of various works including construction of Unified command and Control Room for Counter intelligence at Lakdikapool, Hyderabad, enumerated at Sl. No. 20 of the said notice. The approximate value of the work was specifically indicated as Rs. 480. 00 lakhs. Experience is the eligibility criteria. The said experience should be in relation to satisfactory completion of works of similar nature in building/road works, as the case may be, in the Government/quasi- government of value of not less than the work indicated in the said tender notice in any one financial year preceding 5 years of tender notice. There are some other formalities prescribed in the said tender notice. One of such formalities is to the effect that the experience certificates should be furnished along with application for the tender schedule. Such experience certificates should be issued by the Executive Engineer of the concerned department duly countersigned by the Superintending Engineer. There are certain other formalities, which are not very relevant to mention. The last date for receipt of the application for tender was fixed as 11-07-2002. The tender schedule will be issued between 22-07-2002 and 24-07-2002 and the last date for receipt of the sealed tenders was 26-07-2002. Subsequently, the last date for receiving the tenders was postponed to 27-08-2002. The tenders were opened on the same day i. e. , 27-08-2002. In all 5 contractors submitted their tenders. Out of the said 5 tenders, 3 contractors including the petitioner, 4th respondent and another tenderer by name das Engineering Company quoted the same rate i. e. , 10% less than the estimated contract amount, resulting in a tie. The tenders were opened on the same day i. e. , 27-08-2002. In all 5 contractors submitted their tenders. Out of the said 5 tenders, 3 contractors including the petitioner, 4th respondent and another tenderer by name das Engineering Company quoted the same rate i. e. , 10% less than the estimated contract amount, resulting in a tie. Consequentially, negotiations were resorted to and all the said 3 contractors were required to file fresh sealed quotations. The petitioner and another contractor by name Das engineering Company filed fresh quotations. The petitioner quoted the price reducing 0. 17 whereas the 4th respondent did not file any fresh quotation reducing any further and stuck to his original quotation i. e. , @ 10% less to the estimated value of the work. Since the offer of Das Engineering company is very marginal, its case need not be referred to in this case inasmuch as he is not a contestant in the present proceedings. In the said fresh quotations, during the process of negotiations by the petitioner, a conditional offer was made to the effect that the petitioner should pay the security deposit by way of bank guarantee, only on 0. 17% reduction whereas the Das engineering Company declined to pay any additional security deposit. All the three fresh quotations were placed before the tender Committee, which met on 24-09-2002 and passed a resolution. ( 3 ) FROM a perusal of the said resolution ofthe Tender Committee, it could be seen that all the 3 tenderers stand at 10% less. It was recorded that the petitioner reduced at the rate of 10. 17% less with a condition that the additional security deposit would be paid at 0. 17% on the estimated contract value, instead of 5% estimated contract value as per the tender conditions. The Das engineering Company quoted at 10. 05% less with a condition that no additional security deposit would be paid by them against the 5% of estimated contract value as per the tender conditions. The 4th respondent quoted 10. 00% less i. e. , no reduction for the original tender price and therefore, no additional security deposit need be paid. The Das engineering Company quoted at 10. 05% less with a condition that no additional security deposit would be paid by them against the 5% of estimated contract value as per the tender conditions. The 4th respondent quoted 10. 00% less i. e. , no reduction for the original tender price and therefore, no additional security deposit need be paid. At this juncture itself, it is to be noted that the additional security deposit is required to be paid only when further reduction is made by the tenderers less than 10% in order to avoid cut-throat competition and also to invite only genuine tenderers. ( 4 ) AFTER recording as above, the Tendercommittee, resolved as follows:" (A) The condition put forth by the 2 tenderers on the partial and non-payment of additional security deposit mentioned above is not acceptable, and hence the committee rejects the further offer tendered by them. All the 3 lowest tenderers mentioned above now stand at 10% less at their first tendered percentages and therefore the tender shall be decided based on the merits of the tenderers. (b) Consequently the credentials of all these 3 lowest tenderers viz. , sri K. Krishna Reddy, M/s. Das engineering and M/s. Sagar constructions be assessed independently by conducting verification of experience certificates produced, for genuinity, segregating. category-wise work experience from out of those certificates produced i. e. , independent buildings, multistoried buildings, complexes etc. , duly separating plain supply items like furniture, interiors etc. , and obtaining audited balance sheets and Pandl accounts of the last 3 financial years. (c) The above details may be produced to the tender committee which will meet again on 30-09-2002 at 3. 00 p. m. , for the purpose. " ( 5 ) THEN, the 1st respondent called for theinformation required by the Tender committee particularly experience certificates from the authorities of the concerned departments, who issued experience certificates to the above 3 tenderers. After perusing the experience certificates to evaluate the work done by the above 3 tenderers, the case of 4th respondent was accepted while rejecting the case of the petitioner and the other tenderer, who is not a party to the present writ proceedings. The said rejection was made through resolution, dated 18-10-2002, giving out the reasons therein. ( 6 ) THE reasons and the validity of thesame will be discussed at a latter stage. The said rejection was made through resolution, dated 18-10-2002, giving out the reasons therein. ( 6 ) THE reasons and the validity of thesame will be discussed at a latter stage. Challenging the rejection of the tender of the etitioner and the action of the 1st respondent in awarding the contract to the 4th respondent, the present writ petition is filed. ( 7 ) SRI D. V. Sitharama Murthy, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner vehemently contends firstly: that though the tender notice, dated 24-06-002, prescribes the approximate value of the work as Rs. 480. 00 lakhs, in the tender schedule the valuation of the work is only Rs. 402. 00 lakhs and since the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not satisfy the condition that in any one financial year he should have done the work for the value mentioned in the tender schedule even though he performed the work to an extent of rs. 439. 00 lakhs as indicated in the experience certificate issued by the concerned authority, dated 16-12-1999, his case ought to not have been rejected; secondly that the eligibility criteria is a threshold question and if the respondents want to discard the claim of the petitioner, the same could and should have been done at the outset itself and that having allowed the petitioner to participate in the tender proceedings till the last stage, rejecting his case on the ground mentioned by the Tender committee is not justifiable; thirdly that the 4th respondent did not do similar nature of works as was done by the petitioner or as required by the 1st respondent in the tender notice, whereas the petitioner had performed similar nature of work as mentioned in the tender notice; and fourthly that the petitioner had performed the works worth of Rs. 439. 00 lakhs as could be seen from the certificates issued by the concerned authorities, but rejecting his tender only the ground that the said works worth was not done in a financial year cannot be a valid ground and hence the said action is arbitrary. ( 8 ) FINALLY, the learned counsel for thepetitioner lays much stress on the aspect of mala fides on the part of the 1st and 2nd respondents. ( 8 ) FINALLY, the learned counsel for thepetitioner lays much stress on the aspect of mala fides on the part of the 1st and 2nd respondents. In order to substantiate his contention on this aspect, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the managing Partner of 4th respondent is the brother of 3rd respondent and again the 2nd and 3rd respondents are classmates. He further submits that the 2nd respondent, being the Chief Engineer of 1st respondent, was and has been under the influence of 3rd respondent and that the 3rd respondent used to advise the 2nd respondent in all aspects and by virtue of their relationship as classmates, the 2nd respondent got prejudiced with the adverse advices of 3rd respondent and saw the tender of the petitioner was rejected. He further asserts that since the 3rd respondent and the managing Partner of the 4th respondent are brothers there is every possibility for the 3rd respondent to see that the case of the petitioner for awarding the contract was rejected on one ground or the other in order to favour the 4th respondent. He further submits that since no counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in spite of attribution of mala fides specifically, it is to be inferred that the 2nd respondent has no answer to the mala fides and hence his silence as regards the specific averments made against him amounts to agreeing with the contentions of the petitioner. Finally, he contends that on the sole ground of mala fides inasmuch as the same was not responded to by the 2nd and 4th respondents, the tender granted in favour of the 4th respondent should be set aside and consequentially the case of the petitioner alone should be considered. ( 9 ) INSOFAR as the first contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the tender notice, the approximate value of the work was mentioned as Rs. 480. 00 lakhs. In this context, it is to be noted that condition no. ( 9 ) INSOFAR as the first contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is not in dispute that in the tender notice, the approximate value of the work was mentioned as Rs. 480. 00 lakhs. In this context, it is to be noted that condition no. 5 of the tender notice deals with experience, which is as under:"experience: The intending tenderer should furnish experience, in his name, of having executed satisfactory similar nature of building/road works (as the case may be) in Government/quasi- government of value not less than the work indicated in the notice in any one financial year in the last 5 financial years. " ( 10 ) FROM the above, it is clear that thetenderer should furnish all the relevant material including the works satisfactorily executed by him and value not less than the value indicated in the tender notice in any one financial year preceding 5 years of the tender notice. The said condition regarding experience postulates 2 conditions; one is value of the works should not be less than the work indicated in the tender notice and such value of the work should be in relation to one financial year preceding 5 years of the tender notice. ( 11 ) FINANCIAL year is different fromcalendar year. It is to be noted that the expression financial year has been specifically mentioned in condition No. 5 of the tender notice vis-a-vis the experience. Further, it is to be noted from the said condition that the value of work should be not less than the work indicated in the tender notice. As already noticed, the value of work was estimated at Rs. 480. 00 lakhs. Merely because in the tender schedule the value of the work was quoted as Rs. 402. 00 lakhs that does not mean that there is change in the terms and conditions of the tender notice. Both the tender notice and tender schedule should be read and understood together. ( 12 ) TENDER notice is the basic documentand the conditions mentioned therein are fundamental in nature. They have to be scrupulously adhered to by the tenderers. The estimated contract value in the tender schedule, as the expression itself denotes, is only estimation but the expected value of the work would be indicated only in the tender notice. ( 12 ) TENDER notice is the basic documentand the conditions mentioned therein are fundamental in nature. They have to be scrupulously adhered to by the tenderers. The estimated contract value in the tender schedule, as the expression itself denotes, is only estimation but the expected value of the work would be indicated only in the tender notice. It is clear from the tender notice that the experience should be not below the value of the work notified in the tender notice and that should be understood as the value of work expected to have been done by the tenderer though the actual estimated contract value is lesser. When the intention of the 1st respondent is clear that the value of the works done by the tenderer is expected to be higher than the estimated contract value, the same cannot be found to be arbitrary or irrational. It is only such an approximate fixation of value of work at the initial stage i. e. , in the tender notice, which should be taken into account in order to test the value and quality of the work of the tenderer. ( 13 ) NORMALLY, in Government contracts,there is nothing wrong for the State or its agencies to have higher expectations of the value of the work in terms of the quality and capacity of the tenderer, eventhough the actual assessment of the value of the work is less. Quite often, some tenderers with less experience or with less financial capacity would aspire to enter into big deals with the government or its agencies and also quite often because of various reasons including the financial incapacity of the tenderer, the works of the Government or its agencies would get hampered at the cost of State exchequer and public cause. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. ( 14 ) INSOFAR as the second contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is to be noted that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the tender process because he had furnished the experience certificate regarding the work performed as prime contractor on work of similar nature and magnitude for the last 3 years i. e. , 1992-1995 to 1997-1998. It is clear from the said particulars that the Deputy executive Engineer has assessed the value of the work executed by the petitioner as rs. 515. 00 lakhs. It is to be noted that the said rs. 515. 00 lakhs was completion cost as per the revised estimate. The said figure relates to the years 1993-1995 to 1997-1998. It is to be further noted that in the experience certificate, dated 16-02-1999, issued by the concerned authority pertains to the period from July 1998 to December 1998. The said experience certificate furnished by the petitioner was sent for verification to the office of the Executive Engineer, Public health Department, Hyderabad, and in response to the same, the said Executive engineer gave the experience certificate, dated 16-12-1999, which discloses that the value of work executed by the petitioner during 1998-1999 was Rs. 439. 50 lakhs. ( 15 ) A perusal of said experiencecertificate reveals that the value of the work executed by the petitioner during the period 1997-1998 was Rs. 69. 139 lakhs and during the period 1998-1999 was Rs. 439. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the maximum value of the work done by the petitioner as certified by the executive Engineer and counter-signed by the Superintending Engineer was only rs. 439. 50 lakhs. It is to be remembered that the said experience certificate is required as per the condition No. 6 of the tender notice. ( 16 ) FROM the above, it is clear that basingon the initial information furnished to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the tender process. When there was a tie between 3 tenderers, the initial information regarding the value of work and upon verification of the value of the works executed by each tenderer was necessitated the 2nd respondent to call for the information from the Executive engineers concerned as regards the value of the works executed by them. It has to be remembered that the said verification was in fact necessitated as per the resolution, dated 24-09-2002, of the Tender Committee in view of the tie between the 3 tenderers. ( 17 ) AS already extracted, it was indicatedin the first resolution of the Tender committee in the meeting held on 09-04-2002 that all the 3 tenderers stood at 10% less at the first stage and therefore a tender shall be decided based on the merits of the tenderers. ( 17 ) AS already extracted, it was indicatedin the first resolution of the Tender committee in the meeting held on 09-04-2002 that all the 3 tenderers stood at 10% less at the first stage and therefore a tender shall be decided based on the merits of the tenderers. Therefore, necessary information was called for by the 2nd respondent and consequently the experience certificate, dated 16-12-1999, had emerged in relation to the petitioner. Insofar as the 4th respondent and his value of works are concerned, there is no dispute. Therefore, the question of discarding the case of the petitioner did not arise for the respondents at the threshold. Further, allowing the petitioner to participate in the tender proceedings and the action of respondents in rejecting his case on merits at a later date does not amount to estoppel. In other words, just because the petitioner was allowed to participate in the tender process it does not mean that he had any vested right and in fact that right was not taken away. Even if the case of the petitioner could have been discarded for any reason and further even if the petitioner was allowed to participate in the tender process, the same does not create any accrued right in favour of the petitioner. It is to be noted that the petitioner was given full opportunity at all stages to prove his case on merits and eventually his case was rejected because he did not satisfy the requirement of experience as envisaged in the tender notice. ( 18 ) TIME and again the apex court andvarious High Courts held that the conditions in the tender notice are to be adhered to in strict sense and there shall not be any deviation from the same. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this issue also. ( 19 ) INSOFAR as the third contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is again to be noted that insofar as similar nature of works done by the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent is concerned, it has already been assessed by the Tender Committee consisting of group of experts, who are technically qualified. ( 19 ) INSOFAR as the third contention of thelearned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is again to be noted that insofar as similar nature of works done by the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent is concerned, it has already been assessed by the Tender Committee consisting of group of experts, who are technically qualified. ( 20 ) FURTHER, it is to be noted that in thetender notice, it was specified that the tenderer must have an experience in executing the works not less than the value of the work indicated in the tender notice i. e. , Rs. 480. 00 lakhs, in one financial year preceding 5 years of tender notice. As already noticed, the experience certificate, dated 16-12-1999, issued by the Executive engineer as attested by the Superintending engineer discloses that the break of work executed during the year-wise of financial years from 1993-1995 to 1997-1998 are rs. 69. 139 lakhs and Rs. 439. 50 lakhs respectively. Obviously, this figure if tested with the condition No. 5 of the tender notice, as already extracted, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained whereas the 4th respondent stood to all the tests laid down by the conditions of the tender notice. It is to be further noted that after obtaining necessary information regarding experience and value of the work executed by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, the tender Committee, which met on 18-10-2002, verified and assessed the experience and work of the tenderers, as was resolved by the Tender Committee in the earlier meeting, dated 24-09-2002, wherein it was observed that the petitioner was not satisfying the condition No. 5 of the tender notice regarding value of work in any one of the financial years preceding 5 years of the tender notice and accordingly, it was decided that in view of the insufficient experience the petitioner is not qualified and recommended awarding of contract in favour of 4th respondent. ( 21 ) IT is to be further noted that the entiretender process was conducted in a methodical manner. ( 21 ) IT is to be further noted that the entiretender process was conducted in a methodical manner. Further, a perusal of the material supplied by Sri G. Pedda Babu, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, reveals that the procedure adopted by the 1st and 2nd respondents was strictly in accordance with the tender notice and the further decision taken by the Tender committee, consisting of group of experts, who are technically qualified, basing on the material as regards the experience discarded the case of the petitioner. The said exercise was totally transparent and rational. In my considered view, there is no arbitrariness whatsoever on the part of the 1st and 2nd respondents. ( 22 ) UNLESS and until the arbitrariness ispalpably demonstrated, the action of the government or its agencies in the matters of tenders, the courts would normally decline to interfere. In the instant case, I do not find any apparent illegality or infirmity in the entire tender process including finalization of tender and awarding tender in favour of the 4th respondent. The material presented by Sri G. Pedda Babu, the learned Standing counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents is sufficient to come to a conclusion that everything was done methodically and in a transparent manner. ( 23 ) SRI G. Pedda Babu, the learnedstanding Counsel for the A. P. State Police housing Corporation Limited relied on a decision of the apex Court in W. B. State electricity Board v. Patel Engineering Co. #1, wherein their Lordships held as follows:"the principle of awarding contract to the lowest tenderer applies when all things are equal. It is equally in public interest to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited. Merely because a bid is the lowest the requirements of compliance with the rules and conditions cannot be ignored. " ( 24 ) COMING to the averments as regardsmala fides, it is to be noted that just because the Managing Partner of 4th respondent is the brother of 3rd respondent, this court cannot come to a conclusion that mala fides can be attributed to the decision taken by the tender Committee, consisting of group of experts, who are technically qualified and that the 3rd respondent had acted in a way to favour the 4th respondent. It is also equally not comprehendible as to how the relationship of being classmates between the 2nd and 3rd respondents can vitiate the entire tender proceedings. ( 25 ) IN this regard, it is also to be notedthat the Tender Committee, consisting of group of experts, who are technically qualified, viz. , Chief Engineer, A. P. State police Housing Corporation Limited, Chief engineer, Buildings (Randb) Department, joint Secretary to the Government, Finance department and the Managing Director of a. P. State Police Housing Corporation limited. The 3rd respondent, who is the executive Engineer, P. W. D (Randb) department, is not a member of the Tender committee at all. Further, the 2nd respondent, who is the Chief Engineer. A. P. State Police Housing Corporation Limited, is only one among the 4 members representing different departments. ( 26 ) THE most important factor to be notedherein is that the Tender Committee can make recommendations only, as could be seen from the recommendations made in the final meeting held by the Tender Committee on 18-10-2002, and the final decision is to be taken by the Board, which is no other than the 1st respondent. Again the Board consists of different experts from the police department. Therefore, it is wholly unreasonable to come to a conclusion that the 3rd respondent might have influenced the 2nd respondent in getting the contract awarded in favour of the 4th respondent. Afterall the 2nd respondent is only one member among 4 members of the Tender committee, which is only recommending authority and not decision making authority. The decision making authority is altogether different from the recommendation making authority. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard also cannot be sustained. ( 27 ) THE learned counsel for the petitionerrelied on the decisions of the apex Court in express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India #2 and C. S. Rowjee v. State of Andhra Pradesh #3 regarding mala fides. ( 28 ) THE facts and circumstances in thesaid decisions of the apex court (2 and 3 supra) are entirely different to the facts and circumstances in the instant case and hence the said decisions are not applicable to the instant case. ( 29 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do notfind any merit in the writ petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 29 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do notfind any merit in the writ petition and hence the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 30 ) IN the result, the writ petition isdismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The interim direction granted by this court in W. P. M. P. No. 27680 of 2002 on 05-11-2002 is hereby vacated.