L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE Superintendent of E. S. I. Hospital, Tirupathi, the 3rd respondent issued a Tender Notice dated 4. 4. 2002 inviting tenders from Registered Firms and contractors for rendering round-the-clock house-keeping including cleaning, sanitation, water supply, electricity, telephone and other allied hospital services. The last date for submission of tenders was stipulated as 24. 4. 2002 and on the same day the tenders were to be opened. The petitioner and Nine others submitted their tenders for the work. Though the tenders were opened on 24. 4. 2002, the decision in the matter of award of the contract was not taken for quite a long time. Ultimately through orders in G. O. Rt. No. 205 Labour Employment, training and Factories (IMS) Department, dated 31. 1. 2003, the contract was awarded in favour of the 4th respondent at the rate of Rs. 58,563. 00 per month on condition that it shall engage 24 workers. Not being aware of this G. O. and sensing that the contract is likely to be awarded to some other agency, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 5. 2. 2003, seeking a declaration that the action of the Respondents no. 1 to 3 in not allotting the contract to it as illegal and arbitrary and sought for a direction. On coming to know that the contract was awarded to the 4th respondent, w. P. M. P. No. 6039 of 2003 was filed seeking amendment of the prayer and the same was ordered. The 4th respondent got itself impleaded through orders dated 17. 3. 2003 in W. P. M. P. No. 3874 of 2003. ( 2 ) THE petitioner contends that it was recognized as a competent agency to render such services and on the basis of the guidelines contained in G. O. Rt. No. 464 health Medical and Family Welfare (Q2) department, dated 28. 4. 2001, it was entrusted with the work of rendering sanitation services by the 3rd respondent through orders dated 4. 5. 2001 on a remuneration of rs. 29,250/- per month, till the finalisation of the contract. It submits that an experts committee comprising of the Heads of various Departments has considered all the ten tenders and submitted a report dated 30. 5. 2002 not only recommending the case of the petitioner but furnishing the reasons in support of that recommendation. 5. 2001 on a remuneration of rs. 29,250/- per month, till the finalisation of the contract. It submits that an experts committee comprising of the Heads of various Departments has considered all the ten tenders and submitted a report dated 30. 5. 2002 not only recommending the case of the petitioner but furnishing the reasons in support of that recommendation. ( 3 ) A further contention is raised that the Earnest Money Deposits made by the remaining Nine tenderers were refunded on 6. 9. 2002 and thereafter it was not competent for the respondents to award the contract to any such tenderers. ( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 3, it is stated that the report submitted by the 2nd respondent on 30. 5. 2002 was considered by the Government and taking into account the comparative figures, the viability and practicability, the contract was awarded in favour of the 4th respondent. It is stated that the figures quoted by the petitioner were far higher than that of the 4th respondent. ( 5 ) THE 4 respondent, in its counter- affidavit states that though the rate offered by it was most competent and it was awarded the contract, the petitioner has been preventing the working of the same on one pretext or the other. It is stated that the writ petitions cannot be maintained in the matter of award of contracts and the petitioner did not make out any case on merits of the matter also. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri V. Jagapathi, the learned government Pleader for Medical Health and family Welfare for Respondents No. 1 to 3 and Sri O. Manohar Reddy for Respondent no. 4. ( 7 ) THE subject-matter of the writ petition relates to award of a contract of house-keeping services in the E. S. I. Hospital, tirupathi. The scope of interference in the matter of award of contracts is very limited in writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is only in cases where the action of the Executive Government is tainted with mala fides or opposed to settled principles and policies, that the court would interfere in such matters. Law is more than settled in this regard in view of the catena of decisions rendered by this court as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court. It is only in cases where the action of the Executive Government is tainted with mala fides or opposed to settled principles and policies, that the court would interfere in such matters. Law is more than settled in this regard in view of the catena of decisions rendered by this court as well as the Hon ble Supreme Court. Reference to such cases is hardly necessary having regard to the repeated occurrences of the same principles in such matters. ( 8 ) THE fact that the petitioner has been entrusted with the contract before the tender Notification is hardly of any significance. Such entrustment was till the finalisation of the contract and nothing more. It cannot be treated as a certification in favour of the petitioner to be awarded the contract at any cost. It is a matter of record that as many as Ten tenders have been received. The 2nd respondent-the director of Insurance Medical Services, a. P. , Hyderabad and other authorities comprising of the Purchase Committee have processed the tenders. They have taken into account the existing minimum wages and those revised by the District collector, Chittoor. After discussing the matter at length, they submitted a report dated 30. 5. 2002 to the 1st respondent, the government. It is not in dispute that the ultimate authority to award the contract is the 1 st respondent. ( 9 ) IT is a well settled principle of law that howsoever objective and realistic a recommendation may be, the ultimate decision rests with the authority on whom such power is conferred. It is true that recommendations made by a specialized agency are of great assistance and value, in the decision making process. However, the recommendation of any nature cannot curtail the discretion of the decision making authority. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be found fault with on the ground that it runs contrary to the recommendations of the committee. ( 10 ) THERE may be instances, where an aggrieved party may be able to establish that the decision of the ultimate authority is tainted with mala fides. For this purpose, necessary facts have to be pleaded and proved and the persons against whom such allegations are made, are required to be impleaded as parties by name. Such an effort has not been undertaken in this case. For this purpose, necessary facts have to be pleaded and proved and the persons against whom such allegations are made, are required to be impleaded as parties by name. Such an effort has not been undertaken in this case. It needs to be seen as to whether the decision of the 1 st respondent in awarding the contact in favour of the 4th respondent is tainted in any manner. ( 11 ) A reading of the G. O. Rt. No. 205 labour Employment, Training and Factories (IMS) Department, dated 31-1-2003 discloses that the 1st respondent did take into account the report dated 30-5-2002 submitted by the 2nd respondent and it is specifically referred to. It is not as if the 1st respondent did not take into account the reasoning furnished by the 2nd respondent while recommending the case of the petitioner. From a perusal of the report dated 30-5-2002 submitted by the 2nd respondent, the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and the material placed before this Court, it is evident that the 2nd respondent was impressed by the fact that the minimum wages have been revised by the District collector, Chittoor and thereby the actual cost of the contract is nearer to the figure quoted by the petitioner. The 1 st respondent, on the other hand took into account the fact that the minimum wages prescribed by the competent agency for each worker works out to Rs. 1,950. 00 as against Rs. 2,400. 00, indicated by the 2nd respondent. This has made a substantial difference. The corresponding figures for 24 workers recommended by the 2nd respondent was rs. 70,675/- whereas the one indicated by the 1 st respondent on the basis of the notified rates by the competent authority worked out to Rs. 55,392. 00. It is a matter of record that the rate quoted by the petitioner was Rs. 71,686. 00 whereas the one quoted by the 4th respondent was rs. 58,563/ -. The choice obviously fell in favour of the 4th respondent. No exception can be taken to such a course of action. ( 12 ) THE fact that the Earnest Money deposits of the tenderer were returned would have assumed significance, if it was after the award of contract. Admittedly, by the time the Earnest Money Deposits were returned, the contract was not yet awarded. No exception can be taken to such a course of action. ( 12 ) THE fact that the Earnest Money deposits of the tenderer were returned would have assumed significance, if it was after the award of contract. Admittedly, by the time the Earnest Money Deposits were returned, the contract was not yet awarded. Hence there is no substance in this contention. ( 13 ) ANOTHER contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there are several tenderers, who have quoted figures far less than that of the 4th respondent and award of contract to the latter cannot be sustained. It is too difficult to accept such a contention. If at all a person who quoted less amount than that of the 4th respondent, feels aggrieved, it was for him to work out his remedies. A tenderer who quoted a higher amount cannot make out a grievance in the matter of award of a contract in favour of a tenderer for a relatively less amount. It is not as if the contract is to be awarded in favour of the lowest tenderer as a matter of course. Apart from the figures quoted by tenderers, their ability, capacity and other relevant factors have to be taken into account. The 1st respondent has considered various aspects of the matter and has taken a decision to award the contract in favour of the 4th respondent. This Court does not find that the action of the respondent nos. l to 3 suffers from any illegality or infirmity. ( 14 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed.