JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri M.K. Gupta assisted by Shri Vatsal Srivastava for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent No. 1. Shri M.L. Verma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Ravindra Kumar and Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh appear for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, “Air Force Naval Housing Board” (in short, the Board) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in the year 1980 with the main object to promote suitable housing schemes for serving air force and naval personnel on all India basis as per the welfare measure at no profit no loss basis. The Board constructs group housing project for defence personnel to provide residential houses to both serving as well as retired officers and their widows, who are spread all over for national security reasons. The Board established in the year 1979-80 has constructed approximately 16,000 units, all over India known as “Jal Vayu Vihar Societies”. 3. By this writ petition the Board has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA), Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar U.P. by which its application for allotment of group housing Plot No. GH-001, Sector 49 Noida; and group housing Plot No. GH-002, Sector 100 Noida measuring 40,000 sq. mtr. each at the reserved price of Rs. 20,400/- per sq. mtr. were rejected as the Board was not found technically qualified and the pay order/demand draft towards registration money of Rs. 5 crores each was returned. 4. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to consider its bid for allotment of these plots. The prayers were amended on an application by Court’s order dated 12.1.2009. By the newly inserted prayer the petitioners have also prayed for direction to quash the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Desk Officer (GHP) under the directions of respondent No. 2 pertaining to allotment of plots in question to the newly impleaded respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 5. By another amendment application, which is still pending dated 12.1.2009 the petitioners have sought to insert a prayer to issue writ of certiorari quashing Clause-C of the brochure of the group housing scheme Code: GH 2008-II, Code GH-001 Sector 45 and GH-002 Sector 100 Noida Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar, in so far as it prohibits a society from participation in the scheme. 6. Gautam Budh Nagar, in so far as it prohibits a society from participation in the scheme. 6. The facts giving rise to the writ petition are that NOIDA invited sale bids on a two bid system, in the prescribed application form for both the plots as described above, with the norms of development given in Clause-B, with maximum permissible ground cover, at 35%; the maximum permissible FAR at 2.00 and the set backs as per the building bye laws. No limit was prescribed for maximum hight of the building. Clause-C relevant for the purposes of this writ petition of the scheme provides as follows : “C. ELIGIBILITY 1. Any proprietor or partnership firm, private or public limited company or a consortium of any of the above, can submit tender. The firms and the companies should be registered in India. 2. The tenderer should be competent to contract. 3. The tenderer can apply for a maximum of 2 (two) plots in this Scheme Code GH-2008-(II) taken together. However in that case net worth of the applicant should exceed aggregate net worth required for each plot applied for by the applicant taken together. 4. If a company wants to apply through a subsidiary company, then it should have minimum of 51% share holding in the subsidiary company. It is clarified that in this case the applicant will be the subsidiary company who will have to qualify the minimum requirements of net worth, solvency and turnover. 5. In case of company, Board resolution authorizing the applicant to sign on behalf of the company shall be attached with the tender applicable form. 6. In case of partnership firm having more than one partner, all the partners are required to sign the tender document and the attached documents. In case the documents mentioned above are not signed by all the partners, then necessary authorization letter from all the other partners should also be enclosed. 7. In case of partnership firm the following should be enclosed : (i) a certified copy of duly registered partnership deed; (ii) certificate issued by Registrar of Firms. In case of company the following should be enclosed : (i) list of directors duly certified by the Statutory Auditors/Chartered Accountant; (ii) list of share holders with number of allotted shares duly certified by the Statutory Auditors/Chartered Accountant; (iii) copy of its Memorandum and Article of Association.” 7. In case of company the following should be enclosed : (i) list of directors duly certified by the Statutory Auditors/Chartered Accountant; (ii) list of share holders with number of allotted shares duly certified by the Statutory Auditors/Chartered Accountant; (iii) copy of its Memorandum and Article of Association.” 7. Clause D provides for essential qualifications including financial qualifications, providing net worth calculation and work experience. The work experience in Para D3 of the scheme is quoted as below : “D3. WORK EXPERIENCE (i) List of minimum two projects related to real estate development and construction activities (excluding merely trading in real estate) like land development/housing/colonizing jobs of bona fide allotted land commercial/IT ITES Projects development executed by the firm/company along with approximate cost and date of execution in the last 5 years, as per Annexure-1 (c). Copy of completion certificate obtained from appropriate authority should be enclosed. This information may be kept in envelope No. 1. (ii) Minimum average turnover for the period in the field of real estate development and construction activities should be as mentioned above in ‘Financial Status’. Turnover from real estate development and construction activities giving bifurcation of income from major activities duly certified by the statutory auditor should be furnished with the application. (iii) List of such projects hand at present and their status, cost and expected time of completion. (iv) Organization chart, list of staff, details of in house architectural facilities, list of structural consultants/engineers used during the said last three years. (v) Turnover mentioned in this tender document means only turnover relating to real estate activities as described in para D3 (i) above.” 8. The Board wrote to NOIDA on 4.12.2008 pointing out certain discrepancies in the size of the plot and showing its interest in the bidding. Due to the past association and the projects executed in NOIDA and GREATER NOIDA the respondents were well aware of the organisation and the status of the society. The Board was surprised to receive letters dated 19.12.2008 rejecting their financial bids without assigning any reasons. The petitioner was not considered for financial bid. It is stated in the writ petition that after knocking out petitioner in arbitrary, unfair, illegal and mala fide manner, the plots were allotted to private bidders for obvious reasons; the NOIDA as instrumental of the State is not supposed to act in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 9. The petitioner was not considered for financial bid. It is stated in the writ petition that after knocking out petitioner in arbitrary, unfair, illegal and mala fide manner, the plots were allotted to private bidders for obvious reasons; the NOIDA as instrumental of the State is not supposed to act in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 9. A counter affidavit was filed on 9.1.2009. On 15.1.2009 the Court passed an order as follows : “The Additional Chief Executive Officer, Noida is directed to file counter affidavit within one week which should be supported by materials as to whether the policy of allotting the plots to cooperative group housing societies has been changed and now only private builders would be eligible to get the group housing plot. Reasons for departure from earlier policy in this case shall also be disclosed while filing the counter affidavit along with supporting material. The officer filing the counter affidavit shall give full details as in how many schemes in the year 2008 cooperative group housing societies were permitted and in how many schemes only private builders have been permitted to participate in the auction ignoring the cooperative group housing societies. Put up on 27.1.2009 as a fresh case.” 10. On 27.1.2009 the supplementary affidavit was filed. The Court noticed the argument of the counsel for the petitioner with regard to decision taken by NOIDA in its 125th meeting, which was placed on record and observed that NOIDA has violated its policy of allotment of plots. The Court quoted extensively from pages 65-68 of the supplementary counter affidavit giving availability of plots for group housing to builders, societies, U.P. Government office societies, industrial units/institutions and senior citizens society. The Court, thereafter, noticed the argument of Shri R.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate appearing for NOIDA that the petitioner at the most can be a housing society and was not eligible to apply in pursuance of the scheme Code No. GH 2008 as the scheme was open only for the builders and also noticed the argument of Shri Shashi Nandan, Sr. Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the plots mentioned in the 125th meeting of the Board have been allotted only to the builders in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008. Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the plots mentioned in the 125th meeting of the Board have been allotted only to the builders in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008. The NOIDA was required to file a supplementary affidavit clearly explaining as to whether it has complied with the decision taken in its 125th meeting and whether the 8 plots earmarked for the builders out of 17 were actually reserved for them. The NOIDA was also required to clearly state as to what happened about the remaining 9 plots, which were to be allotted to Group Housing Societies, societies of Government officers, industrial units/institutions and other senior citizen society and whether these plots are still available. 11. By an order dated 18.2.2009 the Court again noticed the minutes of the 125th meeting and its resolution No. 3 by which the Board had authorised the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA to identify the plots for allotment to builders as well as to different types of cooperative societies and the other decision taken provided for method of allotment. The Court directed that the decision taken by the Chairman and the Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA in pursuance to the resolution dated 15.4.2005 shall also be filed by affidavit. The supplementary affidavits were filed and thereafter counter affidavits to the supplementary affidavits were also filed. The petitioner thereafter amended the writ petition inserting Prayer-E on 12.1.2009. The second amendment application for inserting Prayer-F is still pending. The actual foundation and the grounds in respect of prayer F have been taken in the writ petition and the supplementary affidavits. We allow prayer No. 5 permitting the petitioner to amend the writ petition by adding the clause ‘E’ in the prayers made in the writ petition. 12. Shri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner as a society clearly falls within the eligibility criteria. A society is legal person and was qualified to participate in the bidding. The eligibility for offering bids was to include the petitioner as a society and that it fulfilled both financial and technical qualifications, as it had requisite minimum net worth, minimum solvency and other financial conditions including the experience of constructions of atleast two project of the real estate development for the members of the society. The eligibility for offering bids was to include the petitioner as a society and that it fulfilled both financial and technical qualifications, as it had requisite minimum net worth, minimum solvency and other financial conditions including the experience of constructions of atleast two project of the real estate development for the members of the society. The NOIDA did not give any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before rejecting the petitioner’s bid for the plots by impugned order dated 19.12.2008 and has preferred only private bidders for the plots. In the alternative Shri M.K. Gupta submits that if the eligibility is narrowed down only to a proprietor or partnership firm, private or public limited company or a consortium, the eligibility criteria is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it restricts the bidding only amongst the private builders excluding the societies and cooperative housing societies, registered for the purposes of providing houses to its members. The petitioner society is carrying out larger public purpose in providing houses to its members both serving and retired and widows of the soldiers defending the nation. The activity carried out by the petitioner society in providing houses to its members has been excluded with no object to be achieved. The plots have been allotted at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per sq. mtr., whereas the petitioner was ready to offer higher bid and has been excluded, only to favour the private bidders causing hostile discrimination, which has no nexus with the objects for which NOIDA has been established. 13. Elaborating the submissions Shri M.K. Gupta submits that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act with the object of providing dwelling house to its members is included in the eligibility criteria (C.1). The NOIDA decided to allot the plots to any proprietor or partnership firm, private or public limited company or a consortium of any of the above to submit the tender with the condition that the firms and the companies should be registered in India and the tenderer should be competent to contract (C.2). Shri Gupta submits that a society is also a person and is included within the definition. He further submits that there is a difference between eligibility and the technical qualifications. Shri Gupta submits that a society is also a person and is included within the definition. He further submits that there is a difference between eligibility and the technical qualifications. The letter of the Desk Officer dated 19th December, 2008 has treated the petitioner on the ground that the bid was not found technically qualified. The technical qualifications are mentioned in Para D.3. ‘Work Experience’ in the brochure. The petitioner fulfilled the criteria of work experience and therefore its bid could not be rejected on the ground that the society was not technically qualified. Shri M.K. Gupta submits that the alternate submission in support of Prayer F is the hostile discrimination without any object to be achieved. Even if the society cannot be treated as a firm, or a company or a consortium of any of these, the exclusion of society from the process of allotment for group housing was arbitrary and unreasonable. He would submit that Noida authorities have reserved the plots without proper classification and that exclusion of the society established for the purposes of providing dwelling houses for serving and retired air force and naval personnel and their widows is an invidious discrimination, violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. In the supplementary affidavit filed on 27.1.2009 it is stated by Shri B.S. Nirola, Legal Officer/Junior Warrant Officer, Air Force Naval Housing Board, Air Force Station, Race Course, New Delhi that previously NOIDA treated the societies and builder at par without any distinction amongst them, pertaining to their eligibility for the Group Housing Scheme. In the Scheme No. GHP/02/02 in the brochure itself there were details of plots available for allotment in the two categories; one for cooperative societies and the other for builders. The petitioner Board had applied for Plot A-38-A in Sector 47, which was shown to be available to builders. The petitioner’s application was accepted and that plot was allotted by NOIDA to the petitioner-society. In the case of GH 2008 (II) Scheme has discriminated the petitioner society from bidding by excluding the societies and group housing societies. 15. Shri M.K. Gupta states that the resolution passed in 125th meeting of the board has reserved 17 plots for group housing, 8 for builders, 3 for societies, 2 for U.P. Government Officers Society, 2 for industrial units/institutions and for senior citizen societies. 15. Shri M.K. Gupta states that the resolution passed in 125th meeting of the board has reserved 17 plots for group housing, 8 for builders, 3 for societies, 2 for U.P. Government Officers Society, 2 for industrial units/institutions and for senior citizen societies. Instead of giving effect to the resolution of its Board, the NOIDA is making allotments on its own, whimsically with the purposes of favouring only private builders. As a state authority falling under Article 13 Noida has to act reasonably and must justify its actions in Court. The allotment of the plots to private builders will result into hoarding and profiteering, which cannot be the object of allotment by a state authority. 16. Shri M.L. Verma, Sr. Advocate has raised objections to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner was fully aware of the eligibility criteria and had clearly understood the eligibility in Clause C-1 in the scheme. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the eligibility criteria in the writ petition. It is only after the Court enlarged the scope of the writ petition, that the petitioner amended writ petition by firstly adding Clause-E, challenging allotments made to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5; and thereafter again amending the writ petition challenging the eligibility criteria on the grounds of discrimination. The petitioner cannot be permitted to be approbate and reprobate in the same proceedings. He would submit that the petitioner society has been the biggest beneficiary of the allotments made by NOIDA so far. He states with reference to para 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit of Shri Yashpal Singh, Officer on Special Duty, NOIDA that so far 90 group housing plots have been allotted to cooperative societies and the organisations like AWHO and the petitioner. In addition 31 plots have been allotted to PSUs. A total of 30,33,550 sq. mtrs. of land has been allotted to cooperative societies including AWHO and AFNHB (the petitioner) and to Government PSUs. The AWHO and AFNHB (the petitioner) have together been allotted more than 61.62% of the total land allotted to cooperative societies and Government PSUs. Thousands of dwelling houses has been constructed by the petitioner at the cost of Rs. 900 crores. As a largest beneficiary of the group housing projects in NOIDA, the petitioner cannot complain of any discrimination. The AWHO and AFNHB (the petitioner) have together been allotted more than 61.62% of the total land allotted to cooperative societies and Government PSUs. Thousands of dwelling houses has been constructed by the petitioner at the cost of Rs. 900 crores. As a largest beneficiary of the group housing projects in NOIDA, the petitioner cannot complain of any discrimination. The NOIDA was not established and has not committed to allot group housing plot only to AWHO and AFNHB (the petitioner). 17. In reply to the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner Shri M.L. Verma submits that a society is an association of persons registered under the Societies Registration Act. It is distinct from cooperative housing society in which members agree to join together for acquiring land and to build houses. In law, a society or a cooperative housing society is an entirely different entity, than a firm, or a company. The petitioner was well aware and fully understood these connotations in law. He submits that the NOIDA has always treated the eligibility criteria as part of technical qualifications. The eligibility falls within the umbrella of technical qualifications. The tenders were invited only from proprietor or partnership firm, public or private limited company or a consortium of any of the above. The petitioner does not fall in any of the category and was not eligible to apply. The general information given to the tenderer clearly mentions that the scheme was open only to firms and companies. The bids were invited by two bid system in two sealed envelopes. Clause E.4 provided that envelopes should be superscribed as technical qualification bid (envelope No. 1) and financial bid (envelope No. 2). When the first envelope was opened, it was found that the petitioner is a society and was not eligible to apply for allotment under the scheme. The letter of the Desk Officer has clearly mentioned that the petitioner’s bid was not found technically qualified. The registration fee, was returned along with the letter. The petitioner is not entitled to refund the non-refundable process fee of Rs. 2 lacs, which has been consumed in the process. Where a society, which is not eligible applies, and has participated in the bid, it does not entitle to refund of the process fees on the ground that it was ineligible to have applied for allotment. 18. The petitioner is not entitled to refund the non-refundable process fee of Rs. 2 lacs, which has been consumed in the process. Where a society, which is not eligible applies, and has participated in the bid, it does not entitle to refund of the process fees on the ground that it was ineligible to have applied for allotment. 18. Shri Verma submits that the petitioner has not pleaded bias or mala fides. The arguments raised by the petitioner of discrimination in excluding societies and group housing societies from the scheme are contradictory to the stand taken by the petitioner that it is eligible, and is included in the eligibility criteria for allotment of the plots. In any case, he submits that the scope of judicial review in the terms of tender prescribing eligibility criteria is very limited. The Courts would not interfere unless it is found that the prescribed criteria is arbitrary, discriminatory or biased. He has relied upon Director of Education and others v. Adu Comp Ltd. and others, (2004) 4 SCC 19 , to submit that fixation of the eligibility criteria is not open to interference only because the Court felt that some other terms would have been more preferable. 19. So far as the issue raised by the Court with regard to resolution passed by the Board in its 125th meeting reserving the vacant plots for certain categories is concerned, Shri Verma submits that the resolution was only by way of a proposal authorising the Chairman/Chief Executive Officer, NOIDA to make a suitable policy and scheme for the purposes of allotment. The NOIDA has not deviated from its policy, nor has made any allotments, contrary to the proposals. Infact CEO, NOIDA has not taken any decision to prepare a scheme for allotment of these plots and has referred the matter to the Board. The NOIDA has complied with the orders passed by the Court, in its third compliance affidavit of Shri Shailendra Kariae, Asstt. General Manager, Group Housing Department, Noida. The allotment made by Noida to various group housing societies between 1981 to 1998 have been detailed in the affidavit. 20. Shri Verma states that Noida has clarified in paragraph 22 of the same affidavit that there has been no decision of the Board approving the 8 plots for builders and 9 plots for various group housing societies. The allotment made by Noida to various group housing societies between 1981 to 1998 have been detailed in the affidavit. 20. Shri Verma states that Noida has clarified in paragraph 22 of the same affidavit that there has been no decision of the Board approving the 8 plots for builders and 9 plots for various group housing societies. The Board in its 125th meeting did not resolve that nine plots as proposed in the agenda item would be allotted to various kinds of housing societies. The proposal was not approved. The Board did not take any decision as the number of plots to be allotted to the builders and society, let alone identification of actual plots. Only a broad policy was approved on 15.4.2005. In para 23 of the affidavit it is stated that no application has been received after 125th Board meeting held on 15.4.2005 from any society of Hon’ble Judges and no such application is pending. Three plots namely GH-04, GH-05 and GH-06 situate in Sector 93B were replanned in pursuance to the decision taken by the Board in its 130th meeting on 19.12.2005. After that date the list of 17 plots has been reduced to 14 plots and that out of these 5 plots have not been allotted as no scheme for allotment of these plots has been formulated. After the 125th Board meeting dated 15.4.2005 the following schemes have been launched : “(a) NRI City (which name was later on, pursuant to a decision of the Board, changed to Express City). (b) Scheme Code-2006 (1)-For allotment of residential plots. (c) GH-2006 (2), (3) & (4) (d) GH 2006 (6), (7), (8) & (9) (e) 2007 (1), (2) (f) 2008 (1), (2) & (3)” 21. Out of these the Scheme 2008 (2) is the subject matter of present writ petition. 22. The scheme in the name of Express City (para 26) was launched on 30.3.2006, comprises of 13,74,000 sq. mtr. of land in three centres. It was open till 29.4.2006 to any person, trust, firm, registered cooperative societies, private limited company, or consortium. Not a single cooperative society applied in the scheme. The petitioner also did not apply. Later on the name of the scheme was proposed to be changed from ‘NRI City’ to ‘Express City’ and the proposal was approved in the 133rd Board meeting on 20th March, 2006. Not a single cooperative society applied in the scheme. The petitioner also did not apply. Later on the name of the scheme was proposed to be changed from ‘NRI City’ to ‘Express City’ and the proposal was approved in the 133rd Board meeting on 20th March, 2006. The other details given in para 28 to 47 have no concern with the issues raised in this writ petition. Shri M.L. Verma states that recently Noida has launched GH-2009 for plots size upto 40,000 sq. mtr. The plot Nos. E-02 in Sector 56 and GH-02 in Sector 110 are open for allotment with plot area of 5903.50 sq. mtr. and 5430.09 sq. mtr. In this scheme any registered cooperative society/society could submit tender under clause C.1. The petitioner, if it was desirous of allotment for the purposes of group housing for its members, could have applied under the scheme. 23. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and Noida and going through the amendment application and supplementary affidavit, we find that the writ petition was filed, claiming a right for allotment on the ground that the petitioner society was eligible for allotment of the plot. The amendment application by which Prayer-E was sought to be added, would show that the petitioner had clearly understood the difference between the firms, companies and societies, and changed the stand from wrongful exclusion to hostile discrimination. 24. A society is an association organised under law for some recognised civil or business purpose (Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyer...II Edition Reprint 2007). A cooperative society is a union of individuals, common labourers, farmers, businessman or small capitalists, formed for the prosecution in common productive enterprise, the profits being shared in accordance with the amount of capital or labour contributed by each member. A society may be registered under the Societies Registration Act, or may be registered, if the profits are to be shared in accordance with the amount of capital or labour and bid by each member, under the Cooperative Societies Act of the State. A firm is not a legal entity. It is a compendious name of the partners, who have entered into partnership with one and other. The expression firm has also been described as a term, which describes the association of several persons. A company is an association of a number of individuals for the purpose of carrying on trade or other legitimate business. It is a compendious name of the partners, who have entered into partnership with one and other. The expression firm has also been described as a term, which describes the association of several persons. A company is an association of a number of individuals for the purpose of carrying on trade or other legitimate business. It is social institution having duties and responsibilities towards the community. A registered company is a legal person. A company may be an association of persons registered as company under the Companies Act or a Government Company under Section 617 of the Companies Act or a company incorporated by Act of Parliament. All these terms are fairly well understood and recognised in law. The petitioner as well as NOIDA clearly understands these terms. The argument that a society is included within the eligibility clause of the scheme therefore has to be rejected. 25. The submission in the alternative is on the arbitrariness and the discrimination caused to the society in the matters of allotment. In Directorate of Education and others v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and others, (2004) 4 SCC 19 , the Supreme Court, deciding a similar question of law alleging arbitrariness in providing for eligibility criteria, relied upon Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ; Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Municipal Corpn., (2000) 2 SCC 617 and Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commr. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpn., (2000) 5 SCC 287 and held : “12. It has clearly been held in these decisions that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny the same being in the realm of contract. That the Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 13. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 13. Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi had invited open tender with prescribed eligibility criteria in general terms and conditions under tender document for leasing of supply, installation and commissioning of computer systems, peripherals and provision of computer education services in various Government/Government aided senior secondary, secondary and middle schools under the Directorate of Education, Delhi. In the year 2002-2003, 748 schools were to be covered. Since the expenditure involved per annum was to the tune of Rs. 100 crores the competent authority took a decision after consulting the technical advisory committee for finalisation of the terms and conditions of the tender documents providing therein that tenders be invited from firms having a turnover of more than Rs. 20 crores over the last three years. The hardware cost itself was to be Rs. 40-45 crores. The Government introduced the criteria of turnover of Rs. 20 crores to enable the companies with real competence having financial stability and capacity to participate in the tender particularly in view of the past experience. We do not agree with the view taken by the High Court that the term providing a turnover of at least Rs. 20 crores did not have a nexus with either the increase in the number of schools or the quality of education to be provided. Because of the increase in the number of schools the hardware cost itself went up to Rs. 40-50 crores. The total cost of the project was more than 100 crores. A company having a turnover of Rs. 2 crores may not have the financial viability to implement such a project. As a matter of policy Government took a conscious decision to deal with one firm having financial capacity to take up such a big project instead of dealing with multiple small companies which is a relevant consideration while awarding such a big project. Moreover, it was for the authority to set the terms of the tender. The Courts would not interfere with the terms of the tender notice unless it was shown to be either arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice. Moreover, it was for the authority to set the terms of the tender. The Courts would not interfere with the terms of the tender notice unless it was shown to be either arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice. While exercising the power of judicial review of the terms of the tender notice the Court cannot say that the terms of the earlier tender notice would serve the purpose sought to be achieved better than the terms of tender notice under consideration and order change in them, unless it is of the opinion that the terms were either arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice. The provision of the terms inviting tenders from firms having a turnover of more than Rs. 20 cores has not been shown to be either arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice.” 26. In the affidavit filed on behalf of NOIDA various allotment made since 1981 to the societies, housing societies, firms and companies, cooperative societies and Government servant/PSUs etc. is given. These details do not prima facie establish that there has been any discrimination in allotment to societies and cooperative housing societies in the matter of allotments. On the contrary it is found that the petitioner society has been the major beneficiary of the allotment. The AWHO and AFNHB (the petitioner) have been allotted, together 61.62% of the total land allotted to the cooperative societies and Government PSUs of 30,33,550 sq. mtr., and that the approximate cost of the projects in the hand of the petitioner is Rs. 900 crores. 27. The object of Air Force, Naval Housing Board (the petitioner) is to provide dwelling houses to the serving and retired members of air force and Indian navy, and the widows of the officers. The need to provide houses to the members of the petitioner society cannot be denied. The Court also does not propose to question the future need of the society, as it is stated that about 3000 employees are still in the waiting list. The society, however, as compared to other housing societies of the Government servants and the employees of PSUs has not so far received an unfair deal from Noida. 28. We find substance in the submission of Shri M.L. Verma that private townships also need encouragement to provide relief to the ever increasing burden of the influx of population and urban planning in National Capital Region of Delhi. 28. We find substance in the submission of Shri M.L. Verma that private townships also need encouragement to provide relief to the ever increasing burden of the influx of population and urban planning in National Capital Region of Delhi. Various category of persons including the citizens, who are not Government servants or employees in public sector undertakings and armed force may also need housing solutions. The policy adopted by NOIDA in its meetings from time to time for allotment of the plots to various categories for group housing, so far, appears to be fair and reasonable. 29. On the facts brought out before us, the policy decision for allotment of the plots in the scheme in question, to the firms and companies or consortium of such firms and companies does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides. 30. The writ petition is dismissed. ————