Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against order dated 28.9.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12188 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the writ application was dismissed. 3. The writ petitioner-appellant filed the writ application for quashing order dated 5.7.2005, issued under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Budget, Water Resources Department, whereby and whereunder the bid of the Bihar State Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "BSCC") dated 4.5.2007 for execution of restoration of Eastern Gandak Barrage and its appurtenants under Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojna has been accepted and the BSCC was directed to sign the contract. Further prayer was also made for issuance of direction to the respondents to allot work order to the writ petitioner on the ground of being the sole bidder fulfilling eligibility criteria in terms of NIT No. 2. 4. The writ petitioner-appellant has alleged that the bid of BSCC was accepted and work order was allotted to it by the tender committee in breach of terms of NIT No. 2, and, therefore, prayed that the BSCC be restrained from sub-letting the allotted project work to anyone. 5. According to the case of the writ petitioner-appellant, it appears that NIT No. 2 G.C./2006-07 was issued in respect of a scheme known as Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojna, duly sponsored by the Government of India. The writ petitioner, being a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, submitted its bids against NIT in question and at the same time, the BSCC also submitted its bid on the basis of the bid notice. The tender committee considered the bid documents and prepared comparative report on 23.5.2007 showing that the appellant only had fulfilled the eligibility criteria. However, the tender committee in its meeting dated 28.5.2007 finding BSCC not eligible granted time to it to clarify its stand. The tender committee on 4.6.2007 without considering and without taking into account the eligibility criteria accepted its bid. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the order impugned without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in correct perspective. The tender committee on 4.6.2007 without considering and without taking into account the eligibility criteria accepted its bid. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the order impugned without considering the facts and circumstances of the case in correct perspective. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Government Undertakings like the BSCC, which were exempted from fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the NIT, could have been selected even without fulfilling the mandatory terms of the Clauses, as provided under Clauses 4.2 and 4.5, even when there were no terms in the NIT exempting the Public Undertakings from those mandatory provisions of NIT. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge of this Court also erred in holding that the Government Undertaking would get preference in regard to award of work in case of equal quoted rates. Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that the rate offered by the BSCC, was lower the appellant could have been invited for negotiation, which was not done and had it been so, the appellant could have lowered down its rate, thus, the respondent authorities in complete violation of the Principles of Natural Justice finalized the bid in favour of the BSCC. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the action of the authorities suffers from bias, inasmuch as that the Secretary-cum-Commissioner of the Department of Water Resources was also Chairman of BSCC, which obviously shows that cause of BSCC was championed. 7. Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the State, and Mr. J.R Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing for the BSCC, on the contrary, submitted that since BSCC was a Government Undertaking preference was given to it in view of the lower rate quoted by it. They further submitted that preference is always given to Government Undertaking in regard to allotment of contract works and since its rate quoted was much lower than that of the appellant, the bid was finalized in its favour. They further submitted that the quoted amount of the appellant was much higher than that of the BSCC and it was less by 82 crores, and, therefore, the bid was finalized in its favour. They further submitted that the quoted amount of the appellant was much higher than that of the BSCC and it was less by 82 crores, and, therefore, the bid was finalized in its favour. Learned Advocate General further submitted that not-withstanding Clause 28 of the technical bid the employer reserves the right to accept or reject any bid and to cancel the bid process and reject all bids at any time prior to award of the contract, and, therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Court keeping in view these aspects of the matter dismissed the writ application, and, thus, no interference would be required in the matter. 8. The learned Single Judge of this Court on appreciation of the facts and pleadings of the parties, inter alia, held that the action of the respondent authorities would not be subject matter of judicial review, as there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, inasmuch as that the writ petitioner was given proper opportunity to participate at all stages and its technical bid and financial bid were duly considered. The learned Single Judge further held that keeping in view the higher rate quoted by the writ petitioner, which was above 82 crores in comparison to the rate of BSCC bid, was decided in favour of the BSCC. 9. It appears from the pleadings of the parties and materials on record that the tender evaluation committee did not strictly adhere to the provisions of NIT/ tender documents and it further deviated from its earlier stand, wherein it was specifically stated by the technical evaluation committee that they were not convinced with regard to item nos. 9, 10, 13 and 15 of the criteria, as enumerated by a letter of the BSCC. It also appears that admittedly, the writ petitioner-appellant was not invited for negotiation, as was done with the BSCC. 10. It is settled by law that distribution of the Government work or largesse should not be arbitrary and all persons must be considered. While doing so it should be kept in mind that individual interest can be sacrificed for larger public interest and public good. In such distribution there should not be discrimination and the eligibility criterion must be adhered to strictly to finalise the bid in favour of viable eligible party. 11. While doing so it should be kept in mind that individual interest can be sacrificed for larger public interest and public good. In such distribution there should not be discrimination and the eligibility criterion must be adhered to strictly to finalise the bid in favour of viable eligible party. 11. In the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) the Supreme Court held that power of grant of largess must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norms in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. 12. This view has been reiterated from time to time by the Apex Court. In Air India Limited vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. [ 2000(2) SCC 617 ], the Apex Court held that award of contract, whether by a party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction and even if when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretion under Article 226 with great caution, particularly in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. The Court should also keep the larger public interest in mind in order to recite whether its intervention is called for or not. 13. The materials on record manifestly demonstrates that the decision taking authority had not shown transparency in its action nor it considered the case of the appellant in correct perspective of the eligibility criterion, referred in the NIT. The technical evaluation committee was not fully satisfied with the criterion shown by the BSCC, whereas it had found the appellant eligible. 14. The materials on record manifestly demonstrates that the decision taking authority had not shown transparency in its action nor it considered the case of the appellant in correct perspective of the eligibility criterion, referred in the NIT. The technical evaluation committee was not fully satisfied with the criterion shown by the BSCC, whereas it had found the appellant eligible. 14. So far the question of lower rate quoted by BSCC is concerned, it is not in dispute, but, at the same time, this is also not in dispute that the appellant was not called for negotiation to lower down the rate, as preferably it was found to be viable to carry out the work of contract. It is also manifest from the materials on record that the BSCC was not viable and liquidation proceeding to wind up the same was pending in the court. The viability of BSCC is also manifest from its action by sub-letting the work to mini contractors. The decision taking committee, in that view of the matter, could have given importance to the quality of work to be rendered by Company like BSCC in larger interest of the public and merely because the BSCC was a Government Undertaking it could have been given the contract work for making it viable or to save it from liquidation proceeding. It is borne out from the materials on record that the contract work is spread over an area of 6000 k.m. and the work is to be carried out by the petty contractors. 15. Keeping in view this aspect of the matter, the case of the appellant could have been considered in light of its viability and fulfilment of eligibility criteria. Even assuming that the work was also to be given to a Government Undertaking owing to the area of work contract, the work could have been apportioned to the eligible parties, who were the bidders. 16. The appellant could have proved the test of eligibility criterion and also could have lowered down the rate in case it could have been invited for negotiation and by not doing so, there appears to be violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and the action suffers from the element of arbitrariness and discrimination. 17. 16. The appellant could have proved the test of eligibility criterion and also could have lowered down the rate in case it could have been invited for negotiation and by not doing so, there appears to be violation of the Principles of Natural Justice and the action suffers from the element of arbitrariness and discrimination. 17. The element of arbitrariness and discrimination is also reflected from the actipon of the authorities, inasmuch as that the entire things were monitored by high level committee, where the SecretarycumCommissioner, Water Resources Department and the Chairman of the BSCC might have some concern regarding the BSCC. 18. The learned Single Judge of this Court, as it appears, has not taken into consideration the element of bias, arbitrariness and discrimination and has dismissed the writ application only finding the rate of the writ petitioner higher by 82 crores. 19. Transparency was necessary to be shown by the decision taking committee in consideration of the case of the parties in all possible manners and the decision taken by it appears to be unreasonable arbitrary and discriminatory. 20. The primary concern of the Court while exercising the power of judicial review in respect of contract entered into on behalf of the State would be as to whether there has been infirmity in the decision making process and as to whether the decision making process was unreasonable, irrational, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 21. It is manifestly clear from the materials available on record and the pleadings of the parties that the case of the appellant was not considered in proper manner in comparison to the case of the BSCC. 22. On appreciation of the facts, pleadings of the parties and submissions of learned counsel of the parties, we are of the view that there is element of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and discrimination in awarding the contract work to the BSCC, and, thus, the matter requires fresh consideration by the respondent authorities. 23. In the result, this appeal is allowed, order impugned is set aside and the respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the case of the appellant and that of the BSCC afresh after affording them sufficient opportunities in accordance with law.