JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order.of the-learned Single Judge dated 10th February, 2005 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26/2005 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The appellant had filed the writ petition for quashing the orders dated 31st December, 2004 and 1st January, 2005 by which contract to run a medicine store called Life Line Fluid Store in the Zanana Hospital, Jaipur run by the Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society was awarded to respondent no. 3 Shivnath Kansal, and for direction to consider his case for award of contract to him. 2. Short facts of the case are that on 10th July, 2004 the Rajasthan Medicare Relief Society invited tenders for award of contract to run the said medical store. As per the tender notice, tenders were to be submitted by 17th August, 2004 up to 12 Noon. Case of the appellant is that while he submitted tender within stipulated time along with others, respondent Shivnath Kansal filed his tender beyond the stipulated time at 12.45 PM. on 17th August, 2004 and, therefore, he was not eligible for consideration in terms of the tender notice. Further case of the appellant is that he was placed at serial no. 1 in the panel prepared by the Tender Evaluation Committee but by-passing his claim, the respondents awarded contract to Shivnath Kansal who was placed at serial no. 11 in the panel. According to the appellant, no reason was assigned for by-passing his claim. Along with the reply which the respondents enclosed copy of a letter of the State Government in the department of Medical and Health dated 7th December, 2004 showing that the appellant was denied contract in view of his past conduct as previous contractor but the said letter was a cover up. The fact is that the decision had already been taken on 20th August, 2005 to award to Shivnath Kansal. In course of hearing counsel for the appellant went into the factual aspects of the case. He also submitted that the appellant had offered to sell drugs on incentive basis charging 1% of the sale- price of the drugs. 3. At the out-set we may observe that this Court is not supposed to sit in appeal over the decisions of the executive authorities. He also submitted that the appellant had offered to sell drugs on incentive basis charging 1% of the sale- price of the drugs. 3. At the out-set we may observe that this Court is not supposed to sit in appeal over the decisions of the executive authorities. Indeed, law is settled that inviting tenders simply means inviting offers, and unless and until such offer as accepted, no contract is reached between the parties. It is also well settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere with the contract only on the ground of arbitrariness, I.e. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. It is true that the order by which the contract was awarded in favour of Shivnath Kansal did not disclose reason but the reason is writ large on the State Government's letter dated 7th December, 2004. The letter states that complaints had been received against the appellant alleging irregularities which led to enquiry. From the inquiry report it was established that the appellant was over-charging and he had committed other irregularities too. In the circumstances the Government took the view that the offer of the appellant to sell drugs on incentive basis could not be accepted as bona fide offer. 5. The submission of the counsel that decision was taken to award contract in favour of Shivnath Kansal on 20th August, 2005 itself is not borne out by the records. The record in fact shows that the Tender Evaluation Committee could not take decision in its meeting on 2nd September, 2004 as the matter was pending inquiry. The inquiry report was submitted only on 25th September, 2004. May be that the State Government communicated its decision only on 7th December, 2004 but it is apparent that the decision could not be taken earlier as enquiry was pending. It is relevant to mention here that on account of pendency of inquiry the appellant was permitted to run the store upto 31st December, 2004 even though the contract period had expired on 31st August, 2004. 6. An attempt was made to impute motives against the Government but in the absence of mala fide alleged against any officer or officers we are not inclined to entertain the submission. 6. An attempt was made to impute motives against the Government but in the absence of mala fide alleged against any officer or officers we are not inclined to entertain the submission. The letter dated 7th December, 2004 was sent by the Deputy Secretary of the Medical and Health Department but it is clear that the letter communicated the collective decision of the department. In absence of any allegation of mala fide against Deputy Secretary or any officer, we do no think that the action of the Government or the Department as a whole can be said to be mala fide. The decision to award the contract in favour of respondent was taken on the basis of inquiry report in the light of the advice or direction of the State Government and we do not find any error in the decision. 7. As regards the submission of the counsel that the respondent was not eligible for consideration as he submitted tender beyond stipulated time i.e. 12' Noon on 17th August, 2004, it may only be stated that the tenders were to be opened at 1 PM. and, therefore, the action of the respondents in entertaining the tenders cannot be said to be bad. The object of inviting tenders is to allow participation by the public at large and if the authorities considered it appropriate to entertain tender submitted by the respondent to enlarge the ambit of participation, perse it cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.In the above premises, we find no merit in he case of the appellant. Consequently, dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be erroneous to warrant interference by the Division Bench in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.Writ petitions dismissed. *******