JUDGMENT P.C. Pant, J. This writ petition has been moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ or direction against the respondent for not considering the pre qualification bid of the petitioner and for further direction in the nature of mandamus to permit the petitioner to participate in the price bid process relating to the tender in question. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi. The respondent No.1 is a joint venture company of Government of India and Government of Uttaranchal; and respondent No.2 is its General Manager. The respondents invited tenders for hydro mechanical equipments for Koteshwar Dam, Spillway, Powerhouse and Penstock. The petitioner was interested in the tender for the aforesaid work and as such pursuant to aforesaid tender enquiry he applied for pre qualification for the work to respondent No.2 enclosing all necessary documents required for the pre qualification. The pre qualification requirements were as under: i) The Bidder must have minimum annual trunover of Rs. 10.00 crores in anyone of the last five years. ii) The Bidder must have experience of fabrication and erection of minimum of 1000 MT in a single contract for hydro mechanical equipment for hydro electric / irrigation project. iii) The Bidder must have designed, fabricated, supplied, erected and commission at least one gate installation with design head of 30m or more, for a hydro electric / irrigation project and the same should be in trouble free operation for a minimum period of three years. 3. The bids were invited in May 1999. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner company fulfilled all the requirements and was entitled to be pre qualified for the above work but was not considered by the respondent on account of some dispute with regard to the work awarded to the petitioner company in 1985 in which claims of the parties are pending for decision. It is further alleged in the petition that as a gesture of goodwill and awaiting adjudication of said dispute, the petitioner even deposited Rs. 7,05,268.00 with respondents vide letter dated 11th February 2004 for treating the petitioner pre qualified on 2nd April 2004, but the respondents called for the financial bids from other bidders, hence the writ petition. 4. It is further alleged in the petition that as a gesture of goodwill and awaiting adjudication of said dispute, the petitioner even deposited Rs. 7,05,268.00 with respondents vide letter dated 11th February 2004 for treating the petitioner pre qualified on 2nd April 2004, but the respondents called for the financial bids from other bidders, hence the writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit it is stated that the respondent is executing the Tehri Hydropower Project with an installed capacity of 2400 MW in Tehri Garhwal on the river Bhagirathi. It is admitted in the counter affidavit that to undertake the hydro mechanical work of Koteshwar Dam and Power Project notice inviting tender for pre qualification of bidders were issued in May 1999. The three conditions for pre qualification as mentioned above are admitted in the counter affidavit apart from narrating other terms and conditions. Respondents in their counter affidavit having mentioned that as per the terms and conditions even if applicant meets the criteria one is liable to be disqualified if he : (a) made misleading or false representation in the form, statement and attachments submitted, and / or (b) has record of poor performance such as abandoning of work, not properly completing the contract. inordinate delays in completion, litigation history, or financial failure etc. 5. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that the pre qualification bid documents were purchased by 14 parties out of which 09 parties submitted pre qualification bids by scheduled date 31.08.1999 which were opened by the respondent on the same day in the presence of bidders and following parties were found eligible for pre qualification for the work: (1) M/s Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co. Ltd., Cochin. (2) M/s Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd., Karnataka (3) M/s Precision Technofab and Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Ahemdabad (4) M/s Texmaco Ltd., Calcutta (5) M/s Alstom Power Portugal S.A. in consortium/joint venture with M/s Alstom Power India Ltd. (6) M/s Trust Hydro Montazh, Russia in consortium with M/s BHEL, Haridwar. According to the respondents, M/s Om Metals and Minerals Ltd. (petitioner) was not recommended for pre qualification as the company, in a contract awarded earlier, as he left the job unfinished and the same had to be completed by another company M/s Triveni Structurals Ltd., Allahabad. According to the respondents, M/s Om Metals and Minerals Ltd. (petitioner) was not recommended for pre qualification as the company, in a contract awarded earlier, as he left the job unfinished and the same had to be completed by another company M/s Triveni Structurals Ltd., Allahabad. It is further alleged in the counter affidavit that petitioner has not furnished details of legal dispute as required in the pre qualification documents and concealed the facts relating with its litigation with Government of Bihar and Government of Madhya Pradesh in another matter. 6. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has alleged that before treating the petitioner black listed it was not given any show cause notice and the petitioner was not invited for financial bids only because of malafide on the part of the respondents. As to the litigation with State of Bihar regarding black listing of the petitioner it is alleged in the rejoinder affidavit that in all 238 companies were black listed by the Bihar Government and not the petitioner alone. 7. We heard Ms. Raman Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the entire record. 8. It is admitted to the parties that in the year 1999, notice inviting tenders were issued for hydro mechanical equipments for Koteshwar Dam, Spillway, Powerhouse and Penstock and petitioner company was one of the parties who made application for pre qualification. It is also admitted between the parties that the pre qualification requirements were as under: i) The Bidder must have minimum annual turnover of Rs. 10.0 crores in anyone of the last five years. ii) The Bidder must have experience of fabrication and erection of minimum of 1000 MT in a single contract for hydro mechanical equipment for hydro electrical/irrigation project. iii) The Bidder must have designed, fabricated, supplied, erected and commission at least one gate installation with design head of 30m or more, for a hydro electric/irrigation project and the same should be in trouble free operation for a minimum period of three years. iii) The Bidder must have designed, fabricated, supplied, erected and commission at least one gate installation with design head of 30m or more, for a hydro electric/irrigation project and the same should be in trouble free operation for a minimum period of three years. It is not denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit that as per the terms and conditions of the contract that a party even if meets the criteria for pre qualification was liable to be disqualified if they have: a) made misleading or false representation in the form, statement and attachments submitted, and/or b) record of poor performance such as abandoning of work, not properly completing the contract, inordinate delays in completion, litigation history, or financial failure etc. 9. In the writ petition in para 11, it is admitted that there was a dispute relating to a work awarded to the petitioner company in 1985. In reply to the para 9 of the writ petition, it has been clearly stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner failed to supply gate leaves as per the drawing in the said contract and the respondent No. 1 had to carry out the work completed by another agency, M/s Triveni Structurals Ltd. In the counter affidavit in the same paragraph it has also been stated that the details of the litigation of the petitioner with Government of Bihar and Government of Madhya Pradesh were concealed. In the rejoinder affidavit no denial has been made regarding concealment of litigation and only it has been mentioned that 238 companies were black listed by the Government of Bihar. Copy of the judgment passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 05.03.2002 in writ petition No. 1215 of 2002 in M/s am Metals and Minerals Ltd. V. Bansagar Control Board (M.P.) and others reported in 2003 Arb. W.L.J. 17 (MP) is filed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-4 which clearly establishes the fact relating to the litigation history of the petitioner with State of Bihar and State of Madhya Pradesh and also shows that the company was black listed and writ petitions were dismissed by High Court of Bihar and High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of tender relating to Bansagar Project of said States. 10. 10. The aforesaid facts clearly attracts clause (b) as mentioned above relating to record of poor performance such as abandoning of work, not completing the contract, inordinate delays in completion and litigation history etc. and the respondents were well within their rights in not treating the petitioner pre qualified. On behalf of the petitioner the attention of this Court was drawn to the principle of law laid down in Raghunath Thakur V. State of Bihar & others reported in (1989) 1 SCC 229 in which it has been held that black listing of contractor cannot be done without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. However, we are of the view that the above principle of law does not help the petitioner in this case for the reason that even if not black listed, the petitioner, as per the terms and conditions as mentioned above, did not fulfill the conditions for the pre qualification. This view is supported by judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Tata Cellular V. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651, where it has been held as under: "(1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of 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. " Therefore, we find no merit in the submission advances on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.