GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:"for the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this Hon ble Court may be pleased issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the 1st respondent in awarding the work of extensive Renovations of training Building (Ground floor + 3 upper floors) at Nisiet campus, yousufguda, Hyderabad, pursuant to tender notice No. Nisiet/cw/1/2002-03, dated 16-3-2003 ignoring the claim of the petitioner who is the lowest tenderer as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for awarding work in question and to pass other order or orders as this Hon ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. " ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are thus: the National Institute of Small Industries extension Training, Yousufguda, Hyderabad (NISIET)-the 1st respondent herein, issued tender notification dated 16-3-2003 calling for tenders from experienced and eligible class-I contractors registered with State and central PWD, MES, Railways, Public Sector undertakings and reputed industrial establishments for execution of the work of extensive Renovation of Training Building (Ground floor + 3 upper floors) at Nisiet campus, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. ( 3 ) THE petitioner having found himself qualified and eligible to participate in the tender, obtained tender schedule, which consists of two parts viz. , technical bid and price bid, submitted the same on 22-3-2003. According to the petitioner, out of the seven tenders received by the 1st respondent, five tenders were disqualified in the technical bid itself and only the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were found qualified by the 1st respondent for award of the work. It is stated that on 22-3-2003, part-A technical bid was opened in which both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were qualified and part-B price bid was opened on 24-3-2003 wherein the petitioner seems to have quoted 1. 60 % less than the estimated value of the work, whereas the 2nd respondent seems to have quoted 1. 08 % less than the value of the work. 60 % less than the estimated value of the work, whereas the 2nd respondent seems to have quoted 1. 08 % less than the value of the work. The petitioner claims that he is the lowest tenderer than the 2nd respondent, and in fact the 1 st respondent had orally informed him that the work will be awarded to him, but surprisingly, the 1st respondent has taken a different stand and awarded the work in favour of the 2nd respondent stating that the 2nd respondent has agreed to execute the work at the rate quoted by the petitioner. The petitioner further states that immediately on coming to know that the work is being allotted in favour of the 2nd respondent, though he was the lowest tenderer, he made a representation to the 1st respondent on 29-3-2003 objecting for the award of the work in favour of the 2nd respondent and in spite of the protest and serious objection, the 1st respondent awarded the work in favour of the 2nd respondent on 31-3-2003. ( 4 ) IT is the further case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not eligible to participate in the tender as he did not possess the requisite qualification prescribed under clause 2-B and 2-C of the tender conditions and as such, the 1st respondent was not justified in awarding the work in favour of the 2nd respondent, totally ignoring the fact that he was the lowest tenderer. The petitioner also states that he was not informed as to the acceptance or rejection of his tender and he was not called for negotiations though he was the lowest tenderer. It is also stated that there was no justification on the part of the 1st respondent in permitting the 2nd respondent to reduce the rates quoted by the petitioner without affording such an opportunity to him and no reasons were given for not accepting the lowest tender and the 1st respondent processed the whole matter in a secret manner. It is stated that under those circumstances the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition seeking for the relief set out supra. It is stated that under those circumstances the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition seeking for the relief set out supra. ( 5 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the chief Administrative Officer of National institute of Small Industries Extension training, Hyderabad, it is stated that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent alone qualified for award of the work in question, both the technical and the price bids submitted by them were considered by the committee known as Civil Works Committee (for short, the CWC ) constituted by the 1st respondent for evaluating the tenders. It is further stated that the CWC met on 28-3-2003 and evaluated the tenders of both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent taking into account viz. , assessment of quotation, solvency, financial background, personal attention to work, quality of work, delays etc. and in order to achieve efficiency, qualitative work and completion within the time frame, the CWC reviewed the cases of both the parties keeping in view their performance in earlier contracts. It is further stated that both parties were called for negotiations by the CWC on 28-3-2003 and the petitioner appeared before the CWC at 3. 30 p. m. , and stated that he would complete each floor in two months of the proposed ground plus three floors building i. e. , he would complete the work in eight months as against six months period proposed in the tender schedule and he did not give any specific or affirmative reply as to how he plan to execute the work. It is further stated that the petitioner did not offer for any further reduction. It is stated that the 2nd respondent appeared before the CWC on the same day at 4. 30 p. m. , and stated that he has four gangs of workers and was in a position to divert the workforce so as to complete the project within the period of four months as against six months specified in the tender schedule. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent also agreed to use ready mix concerte to speed up the work and maintain high quality and assured to complete the work within four months by using ready mix concrete instead of conventional mix without any extra cost. It is also stated that the 2nd respondent also agreed to use ready mix concerte to speed up the work and maintain high quality and assured to complete the work within four months by using ready mix concrete instead of conventional mix without any extra cost. It is also stated that the CWC had also considered the technical report dated 26-3-2003 submitted by the consulting Engineer who was a retired Executive Engineer of R and B department of State PWD and on the basis of the critical analysis of both the parties as also the technical report, the CWC decided to award the contract to the 2nd respondent and accordingly the Principal director of the 1 st respondent institution by letter dated 29-3-2003 approved the recommendations of CWC and the work order and execution agreement were entered into by the parties on 31 -3-2002 and the site was handed over to the 2nd respondent on 1-4-2003. It is further stated that merely because the petitioner is the lowest tenderer, he is not entitled for award of contract as a matter of right. It is further stated that earlier the petitioner executed extension of dining halls in the campus of the 1st respondent and as his performance was not up to the expected level, the 1st respondent was compelled to recover rs. 1. 71 lakhs from the bills payable to the petitioner. It is stated that the entire matter was critically analyzed and the 1st respondent was of the view that the 2nd respondent was more suitable to execute the work and therefore the petitioner cannot have a grievance about it. It is also stated that by letter dated 1-4-2003 the petitioner was informed that his tender could not be accepted. ( 6 ) THE 2nd respondent filed counter- affidavit stating that the writ petition has become infructuous inasmuch as the contract was concluded as he has entered into an agreement for execution of the work in question on 31-3-2003. It is further stated that he undertook construction of multi- storied building of seven floors worth rs. 508. 63 lakhs for Engineer-in-Chief, (P. H.), ac Guards, Hyderabad, in the financial year 1997-98-1998-99 as a single contract and thus fulfilled the eligibility criterion prescribed under Clause 2-B of the tender schedule. It is further stated that he undertook construction of multi- storied building of seven floors worth rs. 508. 63 lakhs for Engineer-in-Chief, (P. H.), ac Guards, Hyderabad, in the financial year 1997-98-1998-99 as a single contract and thus fulfilled the eligibility criterion prescribed under Clause 2-B of the tender schedule. It is further stated that he was invited by the 1st respondent for negotiations on 28-3-2003 and sought for his clarification as to how he is going to execute the work if the work is awarded to him, with regard to the time schedule and the quality of work. It is further stated that he was also asked as to the scope for revising the earlier offer and after discussions he agreed to offer his bid for 1. 62 % as against his earlier bid for 1. 08 % and also submitted a written letter before the CWC and the cwc after evaluating both the tenders, forwarded the bid along with the revised offer offered by the 2nd respondent to the principal Director of the 1st respondent institution and accordingly on 31-3-2003 work order was issued accepting his revised bid and thereafter he entered into an agreement dated 31-3-2003 with the 1st respondent and the site was handed over to him on 1-4-2003 and he commenced the work on the same day. ( 7 ) MR. M. R. K. Chowdhary, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the action of the 1st respondent in awarding the work in favour of the 2nd respondent ignoring the fact that the petitioner is the lowest bidder is arbitrary inasmuch as the 2nd respondent did not fulfil the eligibility criterion prescribed under Clause 2-B and 2-C of the tender conditions. Learned Counsel contends that the 1st respondent ought to have called the petitioner for negotiations as he was the lowest bidder, but without so doing, the 1st respondent permitted the 2nd respondent to reduce the rates quoted by him without affording such an opportunity to the petitioner. Learned Counsel also contends it is a clear case of mala fide on the part of the 1st respondent in awarding the contract in favour of the 2nd respondent. Learned Counsel also contends it is a clear case of mala fide on the part of the 1st respondent in awarding the contract in favour of the 2nd respondent. Learned counsel submitted that as stated in the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, the petitioner was never called for negotiations by the CWC and the averment that the petitioner appeared before the CWC on 28-3-2003 at 3. 30 p. m. , is false. The averment that the petitioner offered to complete the work in eight months as against six months stipulated in the tender condition is also equally false as no contractor would say that the work will be executed beyond the time stipulated under the tender conditions and that itself manifestly falsifies the statement made by the 1st respondent. The allegation in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not offer any further reduction is also false as no such occasion has arisen at any point of time. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Monarch infrastmtue (P) Limited v. Comissioner, ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, AIR 2000 SC 2272 ( 8 ) ON the other hand, Mr. D. V. Sitharama Murthy, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that as both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were found eligible for award of the work, the bids submitted by both the parties were entrusted to the CWC for evaluation of the tenders and accordingly the CWC evaluated the tenders submitted by the petitioner and the 2nd respondent taking into account viz. , assessment of quotation, solvency, financial background, personal attention to work, quality of work, delays etc. and reviewed the cases of both the parties keeping in view their performance in earlier contracts and both parties were called for negotiations by the CWC on 28-3-2003 and ultimately on the basis of the critical analysis of both the parties, as also the technical report, the CWC decided to award the contract to the 2nd respondent and accordingly forwarded its decision to the Principal director of the 1st respondent institution, and the Principal Director by letter dated 29-3-2003 approved the recommendations of CWC and pursuant to the approval, work order was issued to the 2nd respondent. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent further contends that merely because the petitioner is the lowest tenderer that does not ipso facto entitles him for award of the work. Mr. Brizmohan Singh, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the 1st respondent was under no obligation to award the work to the petitioner only because he is the lowest tenderer and it is always open for the authority inviting tenders to chose its own method to evaluate the track record of the tenderers with reference to the work that is to be executed and, therefore, the action of the 1st respondent in awarding the work in favour of the 2nd respondent cannot be said to be illegal as the entire process of awarding the work was done in a manner known to law, and the petitioner having participated in the negotiations before the CWC, cannot contend that the 1st respondent awarded the work to the 2nd respondent for extraneous considerations and allege mala fides against him. ( 9 ) AT the outset it may be noted that the law relating to the award of a contract by the State and its instrumentalities has been settled by a catena of decisions of the apex Court. The complaint of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the petitioner being the lowest tenderer, the work in question should have been awarded to him, but curiously the 1st respondent malafidely and for extraneous considerations awarded the work in favour of the 2nd respondent by permitting him to reduce the rates quoted by him without inviting and affording such an opportunity to the petitioner to further reduce the price offered by him at the earlier point of time. ( 10 ) IT is the settled proposition of law that price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract, but it is only one among the other factors and in a given situations the authority inviting tenders may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. It is also permissible for the authority inviting tenders to deviate or relax the prescribed standards for bonafide and legitimate reasons after a fair consideration of the eligible offers, but the only exception is that any such deviation, if made, should not result in arbitrariness or discrimination. It is also permissible for the authority inviting tenders to deviate or relax the prescribed standards for bonafide and legitimate reasons after a fair consideration of the eligible offers, but the only exception is that any such deviation, if made, should not result in arbitrariness or discrimination. This view is fortified by the decision of the Apex Court in Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International airport Ltd. , AIR 2000 SC 801 . Para 7 of the judgment reads thus:"7. The award of 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 of 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 may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down 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 conies to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. " ( 11 ) IN Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the Apex Court at Para 85 of the judgment held thus:"85. Only when it conies to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. " ( 11 ) IN Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the Apex Court at Para 85 of the judgment held thus:"85. 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 Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 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 purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. " ( 12 ) THE contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the 1st respondent malafidely and for extraneous considerations awarded the work in favour of the 2nd respondent by permitting him to reduce the rates quoted by him without inviting and affording such an opportunity to the petitioner is not true. This Court to know the truth or otherwise, called for the relevant records processed by the CWC. A perusal of the minutes recorded by the members of the CWC revealed that the members of the CWC endorsed to the effect that both the petitioner and the 2nd respondent were called for negotiations on 28-3-2003 and both the parties appeared before the CWC. This Court is not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the concessions insisted by the CWC for award of contract in favour of either of the parities, but the endorsement reveals that both the parties were called for negotiations on 28-3-2003. This Court is not inclined to go into the correctness or otherwise of the concessions insisted by the CWC for award of contract in favour of either of the parities, but the endorsement reveals that both the parties were called for negotiations on 28-3-2003. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel that the 2nd respondent has not fulfilled the tender condition under clause 2-B and 2-C and hence ineligible for award of the work in question cannot also be acceded as it is seen from material produced, the 2nd respondent executed the work worth Rs. 508. 63 lakhs in the financial year 1997-98-1998-99 as a single contract thus fulfilling the requirement under clause 2-B of the tender conditions. Even assuming that the 2nd respondent has not fulfilled the criteria under Clause 2-C, it was open for the decision making body to relax the requirement. The Apex Court in raunaq International Ltd. v. I. V. R. Constructions Ltd. , AIR 1999 SC 393 , at para 11 of the judgment held thus:"11. 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 intervening in such a commercial transaction. It is important to bear in mind that by Court intervention, the proposed project may be considerably delayed thus escalating the cost far more than any saving which the court would ultimately effect in public money by deciding the dispute in favour of one 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 deputes between two rival tenderers. 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 deputes between two rival tenderers. " ( 13 ) THE decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in M/s. Monarch Infrastrutue (P) Limited"s case (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case as that case relates to alteration of the tender conditions after receipt of tenders from the tenderers. In the case on hand, there is no alteration of the terms of the tender, but the decision making authority allowed relaxation having found the 2nd respondent suitable for the work to be executed and in the facts and circumstances of the case such relaxation cannot be said to be illegal or discriminatory. The Apex Court in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh engineering Works, AIR 1991 SC 1579 , at para 6 held thus:"6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AS a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories - those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. . . . . . . . " ( 14 ) NOW the only issue that remains to be considered is whether the transaction is vitiated by favouritism, malice or mala fides. Though this Court cannot test the veracity and the factors that weighed with the decision-making process in taking a particular decision, but no doubt that decision has to stand to the judicial scrutiny i. e. , it should be free from non-arbitrariness. Though this Court cannot test the veracity and the factors that weighed with the decision-making process in taking a particular decision, but no doubt that decision has to stand to the judicial scrutiny i. e. , it should be free from non-arbitrariness. As noticed above, the matter was entrusted to the CWC and the CWC after evaluating the merits and demerits of the tenders recommended for award of the work in favour of the 2nd respondent. Only by alleging mala fides, the petitioner cannot unsettle the whole thing which was concluded by the decision making body. Though no allegation of mala fides were attributed against the 1 st respondent in the writ petition, but subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, by way of filing a miscellaneous petition, the petitioner sought to implead the 1st respondent in his personal capacity attributing mala fides. In the absence of attributing any mala fides in the writ petition, it was not open for the petitioner to now attribute mala fides against the 1st respondent. The Apex Court in Gulam mustafa v. State of Maharashtra, at Para 2 of the judgment held thus:"2. Striking down any act for mala fide exercise of power is a judicial reserve power exercised lethally, but rarely. The charge of mala fides against public bodies and authorities is more easily made than made out. It is the last refuge of a losing litigant. Even so, we will examine the merits of the contention here from the point of view of the serious factors placed for our consideration. " ( 15 ) ON the analysis above, this Court is of the view that the award of the work in question in favour of the 2nd respondent is not illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 16 ) IN the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.