JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. J. Roy, learned Standing Counsel for the P.W.D., Govt. of Assam. 2. This writ petition has been filed by, as many as, 7 Contractors who are registered under various categories Class-El, Class-H, Class-I, Class-I(b) etc. Under the P.W. Deptt., Govt. of Assam. The case of the Petitioners is that pursuant to sanction by the North Eastern Council, for short NEC, State P.W.D. invited tenders vide notification dated 17.5.2004 in respect of certain civil works pertaining to Guwahati Medical College Hospital, for short GMCH. In the said Notification the Respondent authorities had incorporated a stipulation/clause that Contractors belonging to Class-1(a) shall only be eligible to participate in the said tender. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the said invitation of single bid for undertaking all the repair/innovation works, as a result of which small Contractors have been eliminated. According to the Petitioners, the above action of the Respondent No. 4 is arbitrary, illegal and unfair and the Petitioners have prayed for quashing the said tender notice dated 17.5.2004. 3. The Respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia, that the Petitioners have no locus standi to prefer the present writ petition; that out of the 7 writ Petitioners, 3 of the writ Petitioners have not executed any work under the NEC Plan for last 5 years and the others had executed petty works for annual value of around five lakhs, that the tender was floated as per the standard bid system formulated by the Govt. of India and the norms laid down by the NEC as the Project is financed by them. It is stated that the bids are exclusively for Class-1 (a) Contractors only as they have experience, equipment, technology and financial capability to execute the work. 4. The Respondents have also detailed about the total value of the work done in the last 5 years by the Petitioners which is as follows : Petitioners Total Value of work done in the last 5 years 1. Sri Ribu Bharali Rs. 5,02,808.00 (annual repairing) 2. Sri Ch. Upen Singh Rs. 28,182.00 (annual repairing) 3. Sri Haren Barman Nill 4. Sri Rajani Kalita Nill 5. Sri Sasanka Shekhar Barman Nill 6. Sri Rabindra Kr. Singh Rs. 1,12,239/- 7. Nabaprati Enterprise Rs. 1,94,880/- (annual repairing) (Ms. Sri Ribu Bharali Rs. 5,02,808.00 (annual repairing) 2. Sri Ch. Upen Singh Rs. 28,182.00 (annual repairing) 3. Sri Haren Barman Nill 4. Sri Rajani Kalita Nill 5. Sri Sasanka Shekhar Barman Nill 6. Sri Rabindra Kr. Singh Rs. 1,12,239/- 7. Nabaprati Enterprise Rs. 1,94,880/- (annual repairing) (Ms. Pratibha Talukdar Bharali) The Respondents have also stated : Besides the works concerned are not ordinary repair works. These works involve extensive repairing/renovation/strengthening of the distress buildings. There are several examples of accidents resulting in even death of inmates of hostels of GMCH, due to collapse of balconies, parapet walls etc. the P.W.D. had long back declared the hostel No. 4 unfit for habitation and ordered to vacate the same. The conditions of other hostels of GMC are no better…. ...the works are very special nature involving extensive rehabilitation and strengthening of distressed buildings. Hence, only specialized contractors having adequate technical ability, sound financial background and also equipped with sophisticated equipments and sophisticated machineries will only be able to carry out the job. Unless some stringent conditions conforming to international standard and norms laid down by the NEC are imposed, there will be very possibility of under specification/below standard works during execution and also there, is all likelihood of costs and time overrun which is more of the major concerns. This may lead to endanger the lives of properties of some 800 old medical students and doctors besides public. 5. The Petitioners have filed an additional affidavit stating, inter alia, that the entire work does not require any specialised skill or ability and the financial condition has been incorporated to oust the Petitioners. 6. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, P.W.D. has produced before us detailed drawings and documents as regards the work which is required to be undertaken. It is also submitted that considering the special nature of work involved, a Seminar was also organised wherein there was presentation on strengthening and rehabilitation to distressed building and a special case study was made as regards the Hostel No. 4. It is, therefore, submitted that this is not an ordinary repairing or painting work which can be undertaken by any unskilled or small Contractor. On perusal of the documents produced before us, we have no hesitation to hold that this is a case of rehabilitation of the distress building which are used by the boarders of Medical College Hospital, the patient and the doctors. On perusal of the documents produced before us, we have no hesitation to hold that this is a case of rehabilitation of the distress building which are used by the boarders of Medical College Hospital, the patient and the doctors. The death of an young medical student due to fall from the Chajas in the hostel is still fresh in the minds of all concerned and the same has not been disputed. 7. The prevalence of classification system in the P.W.D. has not been disputed or challenged in any manner. The seven Petitioners before us also do not belong to the same category or classification and their classification differs from Class-II, Class-iii and Classic) and Class-1(c). The Contractors are registered under separate Classes considering their technical, financial capabilities to execute the work and accordingly the Contractors of a particular class are allotted the work. As per the tender notice, the value of the work for renovation improvement of Hostel No. 4 of GMCH is Rs. 1,38,23,745.00. The Respondents have also produced the NEC guidelines which provides : I. Pre-qualification for the contractor such as past performance, experience and financial status to be seen before qualifying the contractor for issue of tender for NEC works. II. State P.W.D. should maintain a Performance Report for the Contractors and issue the tender papers to only those who have a good record of past performance and are not overloaded with works beyond their capacity. III. Availability of sufficient machinery as per norms is to be ensured by the contractors. IV. NEC work should not be split into small groups and possibility of giving not less than 5 KMs stretch to each contractor should be explored. 8. The basic claim of the Petitioner is that the work in question should be split up so that the entire work can be divided or distributed amongst the small Contractors, who will become eligible if the work is split up. The dispute is basically between the small Contractors and the big Contractors. The big contractors will definitely desire that the entire work should be made composite/integrated so that the value becomes high and they become eligible; whereas the small Contractors will always desire that even if a Project is big, it may be split up to small components so that the small Contractors are benefited. The big contractors will definitely desire that the entire work should be made composite/integrated so that the value becomes high and they become eligible; whereas the small Contractors will always desire that even if a Project is big, it may be split up to small components so that the small Contractors are benefited. The decision is definitely within the realm of the policy decision of the authority, who wants to undertake the work, the Contractors cannot have a say in the matter as it is for the concerned authority to decide considering the nature of the work and other required criteria/parameters etc. to decide whether the work can be split up or it is required to be undertaken as an integrated or one Project. In the present case the Govt. of Assam has taken a conscious decision that considering the special nature of the work and the value involved the entire work will not be split up and if it is split up amongst the small Contractors, the quality of the work will suffer and there is every possibility of financial overrun which the NEC will not fund. Thus, we find that a detailed consideration of the need, viability, financing and cost effectiveness was undertaken by the Respondents. 9. In the case of Directorate of Education v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. AIR 2004 SC 1962 , the Apex Court upon consideration of its earlier decisions in Tata Cellular v. U.O.I. AIR 1996 SC 11 , Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. AIR 2000 SC 801 and Monarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, UMC AIR 2000 SC 2272 , held : The terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny the same being in the realm of contract. The Govt. must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Govt. because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Govt. because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or malafide. The facts in Directorate of Education (Supra) are more or less identical with the present case. 10. The matter relates to supply of computer hard wires to different schools at Delhi. On earlier occasions the Directorate of Education divided the entire contract amongst the four parties. However, for the period 2002-03 the competent authority took a decision that the tenders be invited from firms having a turn over of more than Rs. 20 Crores over the last 3 years. This criteria having a turn over of Rs. 20 Crores over the last 3 years was challenged by the Respondents before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble High Court interfered with the matter. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court and the Apex Court observed : As a matter of policy Government took a conscious decision to deal with one firm having financial capacity to take up such a big project instead of dealing with multiple small companies which is a relevant consideration while awarding such a big project. Moreover, it was for the authority to set the terms of the tender. The Courts would not interfere with the terms of the tender notice unless it was shown to be either arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice. While exercising the power of judicial review of the terms of the tender notice the Court cannot say that the terms of the earlier tender notice would serve the purpose sought to be achieved better than the terms of tender notice under consideration and order change in them, unless it is of the opinion that the terms were either arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice. 11. We also find that in the present case the Govt. has taken a conscious decision to deal with the Contractors of Class-1 (a) only in view of the specialised nature of the contract considering the amount involved and the NEC guidelines the Petitioners have failed to show that the decision was arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. 12. 11. We also find that in the present case the Govt. has taken a conscious decision to deal with the Contractors of Class-1 (a) only in view of the specialised nature of the contract considering the amount involved and the NEC guidelines the Petitioners have failed to show that the decision was arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. 12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.