JUDGMENT Hon’ble Virender Singh, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 27.5.09 passed by Chief Medical Officer, Basti, issuing work order in favour of respondent No. 6 and a further direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2, the District Magistrate to hold inquiry and to decide the representation dated 9.6.09 sent by the petitioner to The Director General Medical and Health Services U.P., the copy of which is sent to respondent No. 2 too. 2. We have heard Learned Counsel Sri Pradeep Kumar asssisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey on behalf of the petitioner, Learned counsel Sri B.N. Singh assisted by Sri P.C. Singh on behalf of respondent No. 6 and Sri C.K. Rai Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner a registered contractor is doing the contract work in 500 OPEC hospitals in Kaili Distt. Basti for repairs, minor construction, electricity repairs, painting and instrument repairs for last 5 years and the officers of the said hospital are fully satisfied with the work of the petitioner. As per tender notice dated 28.11.2008, for three works namely, (i) hospital repairs, painting and minor constructions, (ii) hospitals, electricity repairs and (iii) hospital repairs of furniture and instruments, the petitioner and six other tenderer have submitted their tender forms in two different envelopes, one is for the technical bids and other one for the financial bids, out of which eight tenders were found to be up to the mark but the tender envelope of M/s. Chandra Construction Co., the petitioner was not opened and only three tenderer’s bids were considered. M/s. Diwakar Constructions and Suppliers bid was less than 10.7% as per the scheduled rate fixed by the Public Works Department, M/s. Satyendra Pratap Singh of Barabanki offered 35.75% less than the scheduled rate whereas Nagfani Enterprises, Barabanki offered the bid of 15.6% less than to the scheduled rate. Thus the rates of M/s. Satyendra Pratap Singh were found lowest, but the Committee creating doubt about the potency of construction did not find the offer of the said company up to the mark and the matter was postponed to be considered on 31.1.2009. Thus the rates of M/s. Satyendra Pratap Singh were found lowest, but the Committee creating doubt about the potency of construction did not find the offer of the said company up to the mark and the matter was postponed to be considered on 31.1.2009. The petitioner submitted objections on 19.1.2009, when he came to know that his envelope has not been included in the bid and the matter remained delayed due to declaration of General Elections. Respondent Diwan Chand and other contractors filed WP No. 16070/2009 (M/s Diwakar Constructions and others v. State of U.P. and others) for mandamus seeking directions to the CMO for deciding the representations. On the direction of this Court the representations of those petitioners were decided by the CMO as per impugned order dated 27.05.2009 whereby he granted temporary contract to respondent No. 6 Diwan Chand without calling the meeting of Committee for the period till calling new tenders for financial year 2009-10. The CMO neither rejected the tenders submitted by other tenderer nor accepted any of the tender of the bidders and gave the contract to respondent No. 6 taking interest in him and even without adopting the procedure for accepting and rejecting the tenders. The petitioner came to know that the entire tender proceeding has been canceled while the petitioner’s offer was less to the amount offered by respondent No. 6 receiving the tender illegally from the CMO. The allotment of the work by the CMO to respondent No. 6 without finalization of the proceedings of tender is wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, therefore the petitioner sent a representation in this regard to the Director General Medical and Health. 4. The Learned counsel for respondents submitted that in the case of the petitioner’s tender forms, condition Nos. 7 and 12 were not found fulfilled regarding no-dues certificate and registration certificate from the Trade Tax Department, in respect of which a chart was prepared for all the tenderer bearing the signatures of all the members of the committee scrutinizing the tenders and therefore, the incomplete tenders for all the three works submitted by the petitioner were not considered. In all 11 tenders were found submitted, out of which only seven tenders were found complete and none of the tender of the petitioner for all the three works inviting tenders was found complete. In all 11 tenders were found submitted, out of which only seven tenders were found complete and none of the tender of the petitioner for all the three works inviting tenders was found complete. Out of seven tenders found complete, affidavits of four tenderer were rejected on this ground that they were prepared before the publication of the tender notice and therefore only three tender forms were found complete in all respects. The contract was awarded to respondent No. 6 in the meeting of tender committee dated 9.3.2009. The petitioner himself put his signatures on tender envelopes at the time of opening the tenders and all the three tenders submitted by him were opened and found incomplete. There is no illegality in awarding the contract to respondent No. 6 in any respect as the entire proceedings have been taken up by the tender committee thereby abiding the law and rules, etc. in this regard. 5. As per rejoinder affidavit and supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No. 6 was also required to submit no-dues certificate of Income Tax Department alongwith his technical bid according to Clause 6 of the tender condition but he did not submit the said no objection certificate and simply enclosed the copy of PAN Card which was not required to declare him eligible in the tender process. 6. In the light of the contentions of both the parties we have gone through the entire facts and circumstances on record. This Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) ADJ 300 laid down the law in respect to the contract and notice for inviting tender that an ineligible candidate cannot turn around and challenge the tender notice. Petitioner who is found to be an ineligible candidate for the future contract, has no nexus to challenge the condition under tender. We find in this case before us that the petitioner was found to be an ineligible candidate for the alleged contract, therefore we do not find any substance in this petition. Petitioner who is found to be an ineligible candidate for the future contract, has no nexus to challenge the condition under tender. We find in this case before us that the petitioner was found to be an ineligible candidate for the alleged contract, therefore we do not find any substance in this petition. Here in this case, since the tender form requirements were lacking in the tender of the petitioner pertaining to non-dues certificate of income tax and the registration in the Sale Tax Department, therefore the petitioner was not found entitled to be considered for the contract and we do not find any infirmity in the order of awarding the contract to respondent No. 6. 7. Grant of government contracts without inviting tenders is not permissible. Fresh contract for additional year granted in the garb of extension of original agreement without inviting tenders is void. The law laid down by Apex Court in this regard Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M/s. M&N Publication Ltd., AIR 1996 SC 51 is very much clear, on which strength the petitioner seems to challenge the work alloted to respondent No. 6 in this case, but looking into this fact on record that here in this case, the respondent No. 6 was not alloted the contract without inviting tenders, rather was allotted the work on the basis of tender submitted by him amongst other 11 tenderer, therefore this petition in this regard too, have no force. Court cannot act as appellate authority and examine details of terms of contract. Primary concern of the Court is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision making process. Apex Court in this regard in the case of Sterling Computer (supra) stated as follows : “While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily as to whether there has been any infirmity in the “decision making process”. By way of judicial review the Court cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract which have been entered into by the public bodies or the State. Court have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time the Courts can certainly examine whether “decision making process” was reasonable rational, not arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Court have inherent limitations on the scope of any such enquiry. But at the same time the Courts can certainly examine whether “decision making process” was reasonable rational, not arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. If the contract has been entered into without ignoring the procedure which can be said to be basic in nature and after an objective consideration of different options available taking into account the interest of the State and the public, then Court cannot act as an appellate authority by substituting its opinion in respect of selection made for entering into such contract. But, once the procedure adopted by an authority for purpose of entering into a contract is held to be against the mandate of Art. 14 of the Constitution, the Court cannot ignore such action saying that the authorities concerned must have some latitude or liberty in contractual matters and any interference by Court amounts to encroachment on the exclusive right of the executive to take such decision.” 8. In the light of aforesaid legal preposition, we have examined the case in hand and we have not found any unreasonableness, irrationality, arbitrariness on the part of Authorities violative of Article 14 of the constitution because proper publication of the notice of the tender, is made, several meetings of the committee before finalization of the contract are held, delay is occurred due to declaration of General Election or in decision of various objections raised by tenderer including petitioner. The objections and representation of tenderer respondent No. 6 is decided under the order of this Court and the work order to respondent No. 6 is given on the rates competitive quoted by the tenderer as is well discussed in the impugned order. 9. So far the question of less rates quoted by the petitioner is concerned, since the tender form of the petitioner is not found worth consideration due to not fulfillment of some formalities, therefore this aspect of lessor rates of the petitioner has no adverse impact on the process of tender. Similarly the question of non registration of the respondent as C category contractor is not so much material as he has been registered in that category before the work is allotted to him. 10. Similarly the question of non registration of the respondent as C category contractor is not so much material as he has been registered in that category before the work is allotted to him. 10. So far as the question of petitioner’s rates are concerned, no doubt, the petitioner quoted the rates 0.25% less than the rates quoted by respondent No. 6 receiving the contract in this case, but looking into this fact that petitioner’s tender forms were not duly found complete in absence of the formalities of furnishing the certificate, therefore, the rates quoted by the petitioner less than the respondent No. 6 is of no consequence for awarding the contract to the petitioner in place of respondent No. 6. 11. Thus, we found no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in respect to the alleged irregularities looking in to this fact too that the acceptance of the tender has already been given effect to this extent that the term of contract has already come to an end of it’s completion. However we will like to say that the entitlement of respondent No. 6 to work under the impugned order except to the work already awarded shall not continue after the end of this financial year 2009-10. With the above observation this petition is hereby dismissed, the stay order dated 29.06.09 stands discharged. ————