JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—This writ petition has been filed by a tenderer for obtaining an order quashing the impugned tender notice dated 24th March, 2010 issued for re-auction of toll tax collection on National Highway-119, Meerut-Pauri Road at Mile Stone 68 Ganga Barrage Bridge. The allegation of the petitioner is that for the said purpose the auction was held on 22nd March, 2010, wherein petitioner was the highest bidder, but inspite of the same, agreement was not executed by the respondent authority in his favour. On the other hand, on 24th March, 2010 an order has been passed to hold re-auction on 31st March, 2010 and notice was published in the newspaper on 26th March, 2010, as stated before the Court. 2. According to the petitioner, in the last year the bridge was in the hands of the State Authority. Now the State Authority, as a matter of policy, does not want to engage any contractor to collect the toll tax. However, since the bridge is notified to be under the National Highway Authority by the notification dated 27th January, 2010, there is no embargo on the part of the State Authority to hold the auction as an agent of the Central Authority. The contention of the writ petitioner is that as per clause 3.1 (ii) of the Government Order dated 3rd January, 2004, no question of negotiation will be made available with any tenderer. However, if the authority finds that the rate of bid is not sufficient then fresh tender will be invited by giving notice of ten days. In such circumstances, cancellation of the bid dated 22nd March, 2010 and publication of notice dated 24th March fixing the date of auction on 31st March, 2010 are uncalled for. We were initially surprised that what was the necessity of calling fresh tender so shortly ignoring the Government Order dated 03rd January, 2004 itself and, therefore, adjourned the matter to take up the same at 10.00 a.m. today since the auction is going to take place today itself at 11.00 p.m. Mr. We were initially surprised that what was the necessity of calling fresh tender so shortly ignoring the Government Order dated 03rd January, 2004 itself and, therefore, adjourned the matter to take up the same at 10.00 a.m. today since the auction is going to take place today itself at 11.00 p.m. Mr. Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted before this Court that in proposing fresh auction the authority concerned has ignored the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments in Mahavir Auto Stores and others v. Indian Oil Corporation and others, AIR 1990 SC 1031 and Tata Cellular v. Union of Inida, 1994) 6 SCC 651. 3. We are of the view that it is the settled principle of law that the State acts in its executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution of India in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to the exercise of power in respect of method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract. These are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-discrimination. However, the Court in exercise of such power will confine itself with the decision making process but not the decision. Relevant questions hereunder are as follows : (1) Whether the decision-making authority exceeded its power. (2) Committed an error of law. (3) Committed a breach of the rules of the natural justice. (4) Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached. (5) Abused its powers. 5. In the instant case, when the petitioner’s contention is with regard to shortening of the period in issuing notice for the fresh tender inspite of calling the petitioner being the highest tenderer, we wanted certain explanations from the petitioner. In turn, it is submitted by Mr. Khanna that earlier the auction notice was given on 1st February, 2010 fixing the auction on 16th March, 2010. Ultimately, it was adjourned till 22nd March, 2010. Last year’s price was Rs. 3,96,00,000/- only because the rate fixed by the State was much higher. However, when the bridge has been given in the hands of the National Highway Authority, rates have been reduced and become about 30% of the previous rate. The petitioner has given such rate for this year being Rs. Last year’s price was Rs. 3,96,00,000/- only because the rate fixed by the State was much higher. However, when the bridge has been given in the hands of the National Highway Authority, rates have been reduced and become about 30% of the previous rate. The petitioner has given such rate for this year being Rs. 1,30,00,000 only, 40% of which as usual as per the condition of the tender, has already been deposited. There is no justification to cancel the tender nor any reason has been assigned for such cancellation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Pipersenia, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on instruction of the Commissioner of the Division based on the report of the Executive Engineer has contended before us that some of the participants have complained about fairness of the process of auction and the parties were not in a position to participate in the same. On the basis of their complaints, the Executive Engineer prepared a report and the Commissioner passed an order, which has been produced in the Court by Mr. Pipersenia on the basis of the instruction. According to us, if those reasons are assigned by the Executive Engineer to the Commissioner for cancellation of tender held in the earlier occasion, what was the necessity of cancelling the same without assigning the reason, is not known to us. Therefore, it can be safely construed that today’s instruction of the respondents is outcome of afterthought. However, Mr. Pipersenia has read out the complaints of Krishna Pal Singh, Suresh Chandra and Pramod Kumar, who were participants and who have informed that no fair auction was proceeded before the authority concerned, which fact has been strongly opposed by Mr. Khanna by showing page 131 of the paper book, which is a request letter of one of the named person as above and on whose request date was deferred from 16th March, 2010 to 22nd March, 2010 and it was done when he was not in a position to produce the solvency certificate. Therefore, it clinches the mind of the Court about the genuinity of the report of the Commissioner and the Executive Engineer in respect of inviting tenders one after another. 7. As against the question of not to give ten days’ time to the parties for fresh tender, it has been answered by Mr. Therefore, it clinches the mind of the Court about the genuinity of the report of the Commissioner and the Executive Engineer in respect of inviting tenders one after another. 7. As against the question of not to give ten days’ time to the parties for fresh tender, it has been answered by Mr. Pipersenia that to avoid the revenue loss 31st March, 2010 was fixed for auction. Mr. Pipersenia, however, has relied upon the judgment in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others, 2007 (8) SCJ 359 to establish before us that power of judicial review is not permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest. In such judgment it has been held that before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, the Court has to confine itself to the extent that (i) whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone, or, whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: ‘the decision is such that no reasonable authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached’ ; (ii) whether public interest is affected. 8. Upon going through the above referred three judgments, we find one aspect is clear that writ Court is barred from interfering in the dispute in relation to contract or in the case of awarding the same and its process, but court has its self restriction in respect of the decision making process. In the instant, case two things are very clear and categorical. Firstly, whether the persons, on whose instance the report was prepared by Executive Engineer and the order was passed by the Commissioner are correct persons particularly when on the earlier occasion the date fixed for auction was postponed due to non-fulfilment of the requirement of filing the solvency certificate by anyone of them, whether credentials of such persons can be accepted by the Court and secondly whether in acceptance of such credentials the authority concerned acted biasely or with any ulterior motive. These questions are not avoidable in nature. 9. So far as second question is concerned, why ten days’ period was not given to the parties to fulfil the principles of natural justice, is really unknown to us. These questions are not avoidable in nature. 9. So far as second question is concerned, why ten days’ period was not given to the parties to fulfil the principles of natural justice, is really unknown to us. To that, a stand has been taken by the State that to avoid the revenue loss for the financial year commencing from 1st April, 2010, the same has been done. If it is so, then why the auction notice was earlier given on 1st February, 2010 fixing the date of auction on 16th March, 2010, is also unknown to this Court. Even assuming Mr. Pipersenia’s argument that ten days period is fixed for new auction is correct then the fixation of date on 16th March, 2010 from 01st February, 2010 and adjournment till 22nd March, 2010 at the instance of one of the parties can not be held to be any justifiable cause to support his contention. Again the question comes in the mind of the Court that whether the instruction on the part of the Commissioner is outcome of afterthought or not. The cloud can not be dispelled from the mind of the Court. Had it been the case that the revenue loss is really a matter concerning the State as in the case herein, the process should have been started three months before during the period of current financial year and we hold and say that henceforth when any auction process will be initiated by the State Authority, the same will be processed positively from three months before closing of the financial year. That apart, so far as this case is concerned, we direct the authority concerned to give ten days’ time as per the Government Order dated 3rd January, 2004, to hold a fresh auction upon giving notice in such a manner that all the parties can participate in the same. But such auction should be held neither by the Commissioner nor Executive Engineer of the same division or range but by the Commissioner of the Bareilly division, as proposed by Mr. Pipersenia. However, following the principle of State of Punjab v. Yoginder Sharma Onkar Rai & Co. and others, (1996) 6 SCC 173 , the authority concerned will try to reach to the finality for the interest of the public exchequer by such time. Pipersenia. However, following the principle of State of Punjab v. Yoginder Sharma Onkar Rai & Co. and others, (1996) 6 SCC 173 , the authority concerned will try to reach to the finality for the interest of the public exchequer by such time. So far as the verbal intervention of one of the candidate to give more price is concerned, that can not be accepted since our decision is confined to the decision-making process, not to the decision. Today’s auction is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of, however, without imposing any cost. 10. A photocopy of the instruction of the Commissioner be kept on record. 11. Due to paucity of time we have allowed Mr. Pipersenia to inform the authority concerned telephonically not to hold the auction today. Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—I agree. ————