Judgment :- S.A. BOBDE, J. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the award of a contract for handling and transportation of foodgrains from the Railway Station to the Central Warehouse, Amravati. The bids were invited under a notice inviting tender issued by the respondent Central Warehousing Corporation. One of the conditions which stipulated work experience reads as follows :- TABLE The petitioner's tender was submitted on 18.7.2008 and was rejected at the opening of the technical bid. The tender of respondent No.4 has been accepted and the contract for transportation and handling of foodgrains has been awarded to him by the letter dated 11.2.2009. 3. Shri P.C. Madkholkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the insertion of the following condition in the clause of work experience for making a valid bid, namely, "(b) Handling of average minimum 3-4 rakes per month in a year by the tenderer" is malafide and motivated in order to suit the respondent No.4 who was the existing handling contractor and to non-suit the petitioner, who did not have the said experience. The work for which the tender was invited consists of unloading the foodgrains on the train from the wagon, i.e. the rakes and loading the foodgrains on the truck and transporting the foodgrains to the Central Warehousing Corporation. According to Shri Madkholkar, it was not necessary to insert the said condition at all since the work of handling has been handed over to another agent who has been assigned the work of unloading from wagons and placing inside the RWC Warehouse which is on the platform. According to Shri Madkholkar, as it turns out the work of unloading has been handed over to the RWC after the tender was floated and, therefore, it is not necessary for the contractor to do the work of unloading at all. Therefore, according to Shri Madkholkar, the condition imposed in the notice inviting tender that the bidder should have experience of handling an average of 3 to 4 rakes per month in a year is wholly irrelevant and the whole process right from the notice inviting tender to the award of tender is vitiated on this count. 4. Therefore, according to Shri Madkholkar, the condition imposed in the notice inviting tender that the bidder should have experience of handling an average of 3 to 4 rakes per month in a year is wholly irrelevant and the whole process right from the notice inviting tender to the award of tender is vitiated on this count. 4. It has been accepted on behalf of the Central Warehousing Corporation that after the tender was floated, the work of unloading has been handed over to the RWC and it is not necessary for the successful contractor to do the said work. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the sides, we find that the tender condition in question imposing the requirement of work experience of handling average minimum 3 to 4 rakes per month by the tenderer cannot be said to be irrelevant, irrational and malafide merely because subsequently, the work of unloading the foodgrains from the rake to the platform or the warehouse on the platform has been handed over to a third party. There is a clear difference between the import of the term 'handling' and the import of the term 'unloading'. In prescribing that the bidder should have an experience of handling 3 to 4 rakes per month, the respondent no.2 cannot be said to have required experience only of unloading of the rakes. The term 'handling' in the context means dealing with a minimum number of rakes in a month by the contractor. 'Unloading' refers to the specific act of removing the foodgrains from the railway rake on to the platform. Merely because the work of unloading has been handed over to a third party, it cannot be said that the requirement of experience that a contractor should have the experience of handling an average minimum of 3 to 4 rakes per month is malafide. We may note that we are not concerned here with any grievance made by the successful tenderer that the work of unloading has been deleted while awarding the contract to him though it was understood as part of the contract when the bids were invited. It is a settled law vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 11 , that the terms of invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. It is a settled law vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1996 S.C. 11 , that the terms of invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. The Division Bench of this Court in Mega Enterprises vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 713 has also taken a view that the terms of tender are not liable to be interfered with, unless they are shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice. In the present case, we find that the terms are not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by any malice. 6. In this view of the matter, we see no merit in the petition, which is hereby dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.