JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The petitioner, a Super Class contractor, has filed this Writ Application for the following reliefs : (1) To scrutinize the relevant documents and set aside the order selecting the Tender bid of the Opp. Party No. 5 vide Annexure-4 including the decision, agreement and the work order issued in favour of the Opp. Party No. 5; and (2) Direct the Opp. Parties No. 1 to 4 consider and accept the tender bid of the petitioner and issue work order in his favour for execution of the work. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he started his career as D Class contractor in the year 1971 and has upgraded up to a Super Class contractor since last four years. According to the petitioner, he has executed various contract works including construction of road, buildings and canals of various departments of the State Government to the satisfaction of the said department. Pursuant to tender call notice issued by the Opp. Party No. 2 and published in daily 'The Dharitri' on 21.3.2004 for execution of number of packages in Phase III (Part II) under the Pradhan Matri Grama Sadak Yojana Scheme (PMGSY).The petitioner submitted his tender in respect of two packages. Said tender papers were submitted by the petitioner in respect of Package Nos. OR-25-16and OR-25-18. Further case of the petitioner is that tender papers were divided into two parts, i.e., technical bid and price bid. Those who qualify in technical bid can only be considered for opening of price bid. Accordingly, technical bids of all the participants were opened on 22.4.2004 and technical bids submitted by the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 5 were found to be acceptable. Thereafter, on 29.4.2004 price bids were opened and it was found that the petitioner was the first lowest tendered among three successful participants having quoted Rs. 2,30,02,000/- and the Opp. Party No. 5 was found to be the third lowest tender having quoted 20% in excess of the estimated cost. It is also the case of the petitioner is that the Opp. Party No. 3 after consideration of the price bid recommended the case of the petitioner in respect of Package No. OR-25-18. Opp. 2,30,02,000/- and the Opp. Party No. 5 was found to be the third lowest tender having quoted 20% in excess of the estimated cost. It is also the case of the petitioner is that the Opp. Party No. 3 after consideration of the price bid recommended the case of the petitioner in respect of Package No. OR-25-18. Opp. Party No. 2 who is the Chairman of the Tender Committee did not accept the recommendation on the basis of complaint received from an ex-MLA of Phulbani and also a Member of Lok Sabha from Phulbani constituency and accordingly the Opp. Party No. 5 was recommended for the said work. Pursuant to such recommendation the tender of the Opp. Party No. 5 was accepted and an agreement was executed on 11.8.2004. 3. Shri M. S. Panda, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenged the decision of the Opp. Parties No. 1 to 4 in awarding the work in favour of the Opp. Party No. 5 on the following grounds : (1) After holding the petitioner eligible on scrutinizing all the technical bids, said opposite parties could not have rejected the tender of the petitioner solely on the ground that his past performance was not satisfactory. (2) Decision taken by the Opp. Party No. 2 as Chairman of the Tender Committee was under the political influence of an ex-MLA as well as a sitting Member of Parliament. (3) There being allegations of delay in execution of work against the Opp. Party No. 5 also, same should not be taken as a ground for rejection of tender submitted by the petitioner even though he was the first lowest tenderer. 4. In order to substantiate the grounds taken in the Writ Application, Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the Opp. Parties No. 1 to 4 as well as Opp. Party No. 5. So far as the first ground is concerned, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the technical bid, past performance of a contractor is also looked into and the petitioner having been found suitable after opening of the technical bid, his tender could not have been rejected on the ground that his past performance was not satisfactory. Learned Counsel for the State, in reply, did not dispute the statement that the petitioner was found eligible after opening of the technical bid, but contended that the award of contract does not rest on price quoted by a particular tenderer, but several other factors are to be looked into. According to the Learned Government Advocate, the Tender Committee is constituted of experts who are experienced enough to decide as to which tenderer would be most suitable for the work and while taking such a decision several factors are taken into consideration including the capacity of a tenderer to execute such work, availability of the required machineries for execution of such work, past experience of the tenderer in execution of such work as well as possibility of completing the work within the price quoted by him. According to the Learned Government Advocate, complaints were received from ex-MLA and a sitting M.P. with regard to poor past performance of the petitioner and on receipt of such complaints, verifications were made and the allegations were found to be correct. Accordingly, the Tender Committee decided not to accept the tender of the petitioner. Shri S. P. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Opp. Party No. 5 adopted the argument advanced by the Learned Government Advocate and further submitted that so far as allegations made against the Opp. Party No. 5 are concerned, on examination of papers it can be found that there has been delay in execution of work by Opp. Party No. 5 but such delay cannot be attributed to the Opp. Party No. 5 and therefore there has not been any discrimination between the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 5 in the matter of consideration of tenders submitted by both of them. From Annexure-2 it is clear that in respect of Package No. OR-25-16 and OR-25-18 both the petitioner and the Opp. Party No. 5 were found to be qualified. From the procedure adopted for consideration of the tenders, it appears that the technical bids and the price bids are opened by the Superintending Engineer and on the basis of the same recommendation was made to the Tender Committee for further consideration. Party No. 5 were found to be qualified. From the procedure adopted for consideration of the tenders, it appears that the technical bids and the price bids are opened by the Superintending Engineer and on the basis of the same recommendation was made to the Tender Committee for further consideration. The Tender Committee consists of five members including the Chief Engineer of the concerned department and therefore the Tender Committee is competent to again scrutinize the technical bids as well as price bids before accepting or rejecting recommendation made by the Superintending Engineer. In view of the above, the petitioner cannot have a grievance to the effect that he having been found suitable in the technical bid, the Tender Committee could not have reconsidered the question of past performance. We are unable to accept such a ground as initially recommendation is made by the Superintending Engineer subject to the final decision of the Tender Committee and it is open for the Tender Committed to scrutinize all the technical bids as well as price bids to take a different view. We are, therefore, did not find any illegality in the conduct of the Tender Committee in considering the technical bids again before making a further recommendation to the State Government. 5. So far the as second ground is concerned, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew attention to the Court to the counter-affidavit filed by the Opp. Party No. 5 and referring to Paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit of Opp. Party No. 5 it was contended that there is clear admission by Opp. Party No. 5 that a Member of Parliament and local MLA intervened in the tender process. In the said paragraph it is stated that a Member of Parliament of Phulbani constituency as well as local MLA brought to the notice of Opp. Party No. 1 regarding poor performance and bad quality of work done by him in Package No. OR-25-06. It is also stated in the said paragraph that the same was the reason for rejection of the tender of the petitioner in respect of Package No. OR-25-18. Though some allegations have been made against the aforesaid two political persons, they have not been made parties to the Writ Application and therefore we are not inclined to entertain any such allegation made against such political persons in their absence. Though some allegations have been made against the aforesaid two political persons, they have not been made parties to the Writ Application and therefore we are not inclined to entertain any such allegation made against such political persons in their absence. After considering the averments made in Paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit filed by the Opp. Party No. 5 all that comes to light is that a Member of Parliament as well as a MLA who are also responsible for the well being of their constituency where the work is being executed have brought to the notice of the Opp. Parties No. 1 to 4 with the bad quality of work done by the petitioner earlier. Such letters may be basis for consideration of past performance of the petitioner, but the decision taken by the Tender Committee in no stretch of imagination can be said to be under the influence of the political persons. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the second ground taken by the petitioner. 6. So far as third ground is concerned, Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew attention of the Court to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Attention of the Court was specifically drawn to Annexure-9 series and Annexure-10 to show that the work executed by the petitioner on earlier occasions have been found to be good and very good. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also drew attention of the Court to Annexure-11 in which the Opp. Party No. 5 was given extension of time to complete a particular work and Annexure-12 where similar order was passed in respect of another package and it was submitted that the Opp. Party No. 5 does not stand on a better footing than that of the petitioner so far as past performance is concerned. On the basis of the above, it was also contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that since past performance of the petitioner is much better than the Opp. Party No. 5 there was no reason for the Tender Committee to reject the tender submitted by the petitioner and recommended the case of the Opp. Party No. 5. So far as past performances of the petitioner vis-a-vis Opp. Party No. 5 there was no reason for the Tender Committee to reject the tender submitted by the petitioner and recommended the case of the Opp. Party No. 5. So far as past performances of the petitioner vis-a-vis Opp. Party No. 5 are concerned, the Tender Committee was of the view that the performance of the petitioner in Phase II i.e., Package No. OR-25-06 has been reported to be poor and decision was taken by the Tender Committee to award work in favour of Opp. Party No. 5. In reply to the above, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner referring to Annexure-9 series of the rejoinder that for the very same work his performance was found to be good. Annexure-9 series is supposed to be roadwise report of all the National Level Quality Monitor for the month of February, 2004. Said documents are not supplied by any officer and the same are stated to have down loaded from Internet by the petitioner. Even accepting the said report to have been prepared by the Opp. Parties No. 1 to 4 the progress report in respect of the said work is only for the month of February, 2004 and the report does not indicate the quality of work or the performance of the petitioner for the entire work. 7. Apart from the above, this Court cannot sit in appeal against the decision of the Tender Committee which consists of experts, to substitute it's own decision. Scope of interference by this Court is very limited and only when Court is satisfied that the decision making process of the Tender Committee is actuated mala fides, the Court may interfere in the same. In this connection, we would like to refer some decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court with regard to scope and ambit of interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, In the said case, tenders were invited for running Restaurants and Snacks Bar at the Airport from Registered Second-Class Hoteliers having at least five years experience for putting up and running Second Class Restaurant and two Snacks Bars in the Airport for a period of three years. Fourth respondent before the Apex Court was one of the tenderers who was not a Registered Second-Class Hotelier, but tender submitted by it was accepted. Though the Apex Court held that the tender of such a person who does not fulfil requisite qualification should not have been accepted, dismissed the appeal of the unsuccessful tendered and confirmed order of the High Court which had dismissed the Writ Application. The question that actually calls for consideration is jurisdiction of the Court in such matters. In this connection, reference may be made to the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, The Apex Court in the aforesaid case laid down the guidelines where the Court can interfere in contract matters. The Apex Court held as follows : "The principles deductible relating to scope of judicial review of administrative decisions and exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies are : (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness including its other facts but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." In the case of Raunaq International Limited Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. and Others, while considering the question of grant of interim orders in respect of Government contract, the Apex Court held as follows : "Where there is an allegation of mala fides or an allegation that the contract has been entered into for collateral purposes, and the Court is satisfied on the material before it, that the allegation needs further examination, the Court would be entitled to entertain the petition. But even here, the Court must weigh the consequences in balance before granting interim orders. Where the decision-making process has been structured and the tender conditions set out the requirements, the Court is entitled to examine whether these requirements have been considered. However, if any relaxation is granted for bona fide reasons, the tender conditions permit such relaxation and the decision is arrived at for legitimate reasons after a fair consideration of all offers, the Court should hesitate to intervene, it is also necessary to remember that price may not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. Often when an evaluation committee of experts is appointed, to evaluate officers, the expert committee's special knowledge plays a decisive role in deciding which is the best officer. Price offered is only one of the criteria. The past record of the tenderers, the quality on the basis of past performance of the tenderer, its market reputation and so on, all play an important role in deciding to whom the contract should be awarded. At times, a higher price for a much better quality of work, can be legitimately paid in order to secure proper performance of the interest as a low price. At times, a higher price for a much better quality of work, can be legitimately paid in order to secure proper performance of the interest as a low price. The Court should not substitute its own decision for the decision of an expert evaluation committee." The decision in-the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority and others (supra) has also been taken note of by the Apex Court in the said decision. 9. On analysis of the aforesaid three decisions, it is clear that only in certain contingencies as enumerated in the guidelines given by the Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India (supra) the Court can interfere. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring his case within the said guidelines and therefore this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the administrative decision taken by the Tender Committee and interfere with the same. Moreover, specific stand taken by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that execution of the work has already started and the Opp. Party No. 5 has been paid Rs. 3,66,543/- towards running bills. The work have been started for almost last two months. Even on this ground also the Court is reluctant to interfere with the award of the contract in favour of the Opp. Party No. 5 who, by virtue of the agreement, not only acquired right but also has executed a portion of the work within last two months. 10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Writ Application and the same is dismissed. Sujit Barman Roy, C.J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed