JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J 1. This petition seeks quashing of terms and conditions of the tender notice, Annexure P.2. Objection of the petitioner is to conditions requiring the tanker to be not more than 12 years old, requirement of ownership of two out of the five tankers and provision for termination of contract if a fatal accident takes place. 2. In the reply filed, the conditions of tender have been justified in the interest of timely delivery, safety and to overcome operational problems. It has been explained that object of requiring the tanker not more than 12 years old is to ensure that there are less break downs and better productivity. Similarly, fatal accidents can cause severe damage to the property of the Corporation and deterrent conditions have been incorporated. The tankers carry hazardous material and careful driving has been insisted upon. Requirement of owning two tankers is also reasonable to secure better services. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. It is well settled that award of contract is essentially a commercial transaction. Conditions of tender imposed on commercial considerations are not open to judicial scrutiny, though the State or its instrumentalities are bound to act fairly and this Court can interfere where overwhelming public interest so requires. 5. In the present case, we do not find that any element of public interest is involved in interfering with the conditions of tender. 6. In Global Energy Ltd. v. Adani Exports Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 2653, it was observed:- “10. The principle is, therefore, well settled that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and the courts cannot whittle down the terms of the tender as they are in the realm of contract unless they are wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. This being the position of law, settled by a catena of decisions of this Court, it is rather surprising that the learned Single Judge passed an interim direction on the very first day of admission hearing of the writ petition and allowed the appellants to deposit the earnest money by furnishing a bank guarantee or a bankers’ cheque till three days after the actual date of opening of the tender. The order of the learned Single Judge being wholly illegal, was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Division Bench.” 7. The order of the learned Single Judge being wholly illegal, was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Division Bench.” 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another, AIR 2001 SC 3887, observing that though the Court will not ordinarily interfere in a policy matter, it can scrutinize whether policy was discriminatory or arbitrary. Reliance was also placed on Full Bench judgment of this Court in Subhash Chand v. State of Haryana and others, (2007) 3 RCR (Civil) 547, dealing with the question of scope of judicial review of a contract entered into by public authority. 8. There is no dispute with the proposition that wherever public interest requires or where action of a public authority is arbitrary, this Court can interfere in exercise of power of judicial review. 9. In the present case, it cannot be held that conditions in the tender are arbitrary or against public interest. Infact, interference with the conditions may be against public interest. 10. We thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned conditions of tender. 11. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.