Judgment K.S. Rathore, J.-The respondent No. 4 invited tenders for works providing laying, jointing, testing and commissioning of 1500 mm dia MS Pipe Line from Sarwar to Nasirabad in a strength of 42.1 k.m. under Bisalpur Water Supply Project Phase-II 2. In the notice inviting tender work dated 15.01.2005, the eligibility criteria is also mentioned. Vide notice inviting tender for work dated 15.01.2005, the tenders are invited from AA Class Contractors with the department under the Government of Rajasthan and enlisted contractor with CPWD/Postal, Telcom, Railway, MES, Other State Government/ Central Government undertaking/organizations equivalent o “AA” class of Rajasthan provided they meet out prescribed eligibility criteria. 3. As per NIT 1/2004-2005 the description of works is given providing, laying jointing testing and commissioning of 1500 mm. dia MS pipeline from Sarwar to Nasirabad in a stretch of 42.1 Km. Under Bisalpur Water Supply Project, Phase-II 4. The estimated cost of work was as Rs. 7,170 lacs. The earnest money required to be deposited is to the tune of Rs. 143.70 lacs and cost of tender document was fixed as Rs. 25,000/-and period of completion was prescribed as eight months. 5. The eligibility criteria also laid down in the tender notice, which reads as under: - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA A-FINANCIAL CRITERIA .(a) Annual business turnover: The bidder should have an average turn-over of Rs. 35.85 Crores (Years 1998-99 to 2003-04) .(b) Net Worth: The bidder must have a positive net worth of Rs. 11.95 Crores as on 31.03.2004. .(c) Credit Limit: The bidder must have access to Bank Credit Limit both fund and non fund based to the extent of a maximum of Rs. 32.20 Crores as on date of bidding. The bidder has to submit the relevant sanction letter in original from Bank/Financial institutions alongwith the pre-qualification documents. B-TECHNICAL CRITERIA The bidder should have successfully executed and commissioned providing, laying, jointing, hydraulic and radio graphic testing and commissioning of MS pipe of dia more than or equal to 1200 mm dia in length of 20 (twenty) Km or more in last ten years; OR The bidder should have successfully executed and commissioned a single job of providing, laying, jointing hydraulic and radio graphic testing and commissioning of MS pipe of dia more than or equal to 2200 mm dia in a length of 09 (nine) Km. Or more in last ten years. 6. Or more in last ten years. 6. Beside the eligibility criteria other conditions also to perform the work were incorporated in the tender notice. .7. Pursuant to the tender notice the petitioner also applied. Since, the price bid of the petitioner was not opened, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: - .(i) therespondents may kindly be directed not to proceed further in the matter of Notice Inviting Tenders (Annexure-1) for the works and not to finalize the bid in favour of the respondent No. 5 without first opening the price bid submitted by the petitioner. .(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to open the price bid of the humble petitioner and looking to the lowest price as well as looking to the other criteria fulfilled by the petitioner company, the same may kindly be ordered to be accepted in favour of the petitioner company. 8. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner company is eligible in all respects and fulfill all requisite requirement as envisaged in the tender notice. It is further submitted that the office of the Additional Chief Engineer (PHED) Ajmer, vide their fax message dated 3rd May, 2005 issued directions to the petitioner company to submit the correct declaration relating to the reading/understanding and explain of tender document without changes/revision. It was also desired to submit correct work completion certificate of having successfully executed/commissioned the said work and it is required to submit an attested copy of the work order/agreement in support of the certificate by the company. .9. The compliance of the instructions mentioned in the fax massage dated 3rd May, 2005 was ordered to be made on or before 7th May, 2005 at 3.00 pm. Another fax massage was sent by the office of the respondent Additional Chief Engineer, PHED, Ajmer Region, Ajmer whereby it is informed that the price bid of NIT under subject is scheduled to be opened on 10.05.2005 to 3.00 pm. .10. The main controversy arose from here. 11. As admitted fact of the petitioner that the document which required to be submitted by the petitioner was submitted before the respondents on 10th May, 2005 at 4.22 pm after completion of the process of opening of the price bid. .10. The main controversy arose from here. 11. As admitted fact of the petitioner that the document which required to be submitted by the petitioner was submitted before the respondents on 10th May, 2005 at 4.22 pm after completion of the process of opening of the price bid. The certificate submitted by the petitioner with regard to experience and performance of the work. In the certificate dated 15.07.2004 which was issued by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board at the bottom it was mentioned that the work to the extent of pipeline has been completed and commissioned on 09.04.2004. This certificate has been issued at the specific request of the agency. Since this certificate does not disclose this fact that the work is complete, therefore, another certificate was asked and vide certificate dated 20.05.2005 it was certified by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board that the entire work has been completed and commissioned successfully and this certificate was admittedly submitted on 10th May, 2005 after 3.00 pm at 4.22 pm and was not considered by the respondent and thus the price bid of the petitioner was not opened. 12. This Court vide order dated 18.05.2005 issued notice of the writ petition as well as stay application to the respondents and it was directed to the respondents to consider the representation dated 10th May, 2005 filed by the petitioner before the Additional Chief Engineer, PHED, Ajmer that day itself and shall communicate the decision taken on the representation to the petitioner. 13. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the respondent passed the order, which is placed, before this Court and it was also informed by the respondent that the work order has been issued in favour of Bhoorathnam Construction Co. (P) Ltd., Secundarabad on 28.05.2005 14. Since, this Court vide interim order dated 3rd June, 2005 restrained the respondent No. 5 not to start work pursuant to the work order issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, (PHED), Ajmer, therefore, respondent submitted reply and submitted that this being the urgent nature of work in the public interest and work have to be completed within a period of eight months, therefore, at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, the matter was heard finally at the admission stage. 15. 15. I have considered the preliminary objection as well as merit of the case raised on behalf of the respective parties. 16. The main submission of the respondent is that the writ petition is not maintainable in as much as determination of terms and conditions of the tender inviting notice/tender document for the purpose of awarding contract of supply cannot be assailed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it is for the State Government to decide the terms and conditions. In this regard Judgment s of Honble Supreme Court rendered in the cases “Tata Cellular vs. Union of India”, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 651 ; M/s Raunag International Ltd. vs. IVR Construction Ltd., reported in 1991(1) SCC 492; Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2000(2) SCC 617 and “Center For Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India”, reported in 2000(8) SCC 606 , have been relied upon 17. After referring the aforesaid Judgment s, learned Counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this High Court in the case “M /s. Master Construction vs. Secretary PHED Government of Rajasthan and Anr.”, rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 6/2002 dated 21.02.2002. 18. It is not disputed that the writ petition is submitted before this Court on 16.05.2005 and was listed for admission on 18.05.2005 and during the pendency of the writ petition work order dated 28.05.2005 has been issued. 19. Now the only controversy remains to be decided whether the documents, which are submitted by the petitioner after the stipulated time are admissible or not. 9.20. As per the ratio decided by Honble the Supreme Court in the case Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (Supra), Honble the Supreme Court has laid down that “there may be no interference in the criteria/terms and conditions laid down by the Government and there is restrain to interference in such administrative action and the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal, but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. It was also held by Honble the Supreme Court that 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”. 10.21. It was also held by Honble the Supreme Court that 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”. 10.21. As in the present case, the time was extended from 7th May, 2005 to 10th May, 2005 and the petitioner was asked to submit the requisite document finally on 10.05.2005 at 3.00 p.m. But, admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted the requisite documents prior to the time prescribed by the respondent, which does not require any judicial scrutiny by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 and in view of the settled principles laid down by Honble the Supreme Court in various Judgment s, the documents which are filed by the petitioner after the prescribed time, were rightly been ignored by the respondents for the purpose of opening the price bid. 22. Honble the Supreme Court also held in the case Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport (Supra), as under: “ The Award of a contract whether it is by a private party or a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are para mount are commercial considerations. The State can chose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fixed its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny.” 23. In 2000 (8) SCC 606 , Center For Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India. “It is clear from the above observation of this Court that it will be very difficult for the Court to vasualise the various factor like commercial/technical aspects of the contract, prevailing market conditions, both national and international and immediate needs of the country etc. which will have to be taken note of while accepting the bid offer.” 24. “It is clear from the above observation of this Court that it will be very difficult for the Court to vasualise the various factor like commercial/technical aspects of the contract, prevailing market conditions, both national and international and immediate needs of the country etc. which will have to be taken note of while accepting the bid offer.” 24. Similarly, the controversy was also decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Master Construction (Supra), wherein the Division Bench of this High Court has held as under: -“We would like to observe that assuming what the learned Counsel for appellant is urging is correct, still staying the public work involved in the present case, in our view, would cause greater harm to public interest besides leading to escalation of costs, impact of which may be much more to Rs. Sic crores. The work has already been awarded to another party, and but for the status quo order granted by this Court on 10th of January, 2002 the work would have been commenced. We are, therefore, of the firm view that the Court need not interfere in a public work of this type on such allegations as are being made in the petition.” 25. Here, in the instant case, work order has been issued on 28th May, 2005 and period of completion of work is only eight months and on account of stay granted more than one month is already elapsed and as such the ratio decided by the Division Bench fully cover the present controversy. The Judgment s referred by the petitioner are not applicable to the present controversy. 26. I have also carefully gone through the original recorded placed by the respondent and as per the record it reveals that the document which was filed by the petitioner received in the office of the respondent at 4.22 p.m. on 10th May, 2005 whereas the petitioner himself admitted this fact. In such circumstances, in the consistent view of the Honble Supreme Court in various Judgment s and the ratio decided by this High Court, it is not a fit case where any interference is required by this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioner is utterly failed to make out any case in his favour. The relief claimed by the petitioner becomes infructuous as the moment when the work order was issued in favour of the respondent. 27. For the aforesaid reasons mentioned here in above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no orders as to cost. The interim order granted by this Court on 03.06.2005 also stand vacated.