Judgment SHANTANU KEMKAR, J. ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the acceptance of tender by the forest department of the respondent/State submitted by the third respondent for supply of eight trucks for transportation of forest goods. ( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated on 13-1-2010 (Annexure P-1) Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter for short referred as "NIT") was issued by the second respondent/ Additional Principal Chief Conservator Forest (Production), Bhopal inviting bids from companies manufacturing trucks for purchase of eight number of trucks. In pursuance to the aforesaid NIT the petitioner as well as the third respondent submitted their bids. The bids were to be submitted in two envelops; one technical bid and another financial bid. Technical bid of both the tenderers was opened and thereafter the financial bid was also opened. ( 3. ) THE committee constituted by the respondent/State for evaluating the tenders after making a comparative assessment of the bids recorded a finding that the offer made by the third respondent deserves to be accepted keeping in view various aspects of the matter including that the truck of the third respondent is more powerful, its clutch and gearbox are better than that of the petitioner's trucks. THE truck of third respondent can be operated on hilly track (forest road) in better way as compared to the trucks of the petitioner. It has also been observed that the trucks of the petitioner are not fit for being operated in the forest region. Having regard to the past experience about the performance of the trucks offered by the third respondent decision was taken to accept the bid of the third respondent. Aggrieving the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 4. ) LEARNED senior counsel Shri Y. I. Mehta appearing for the petitioner argued that the finding of the Committee that the petitioner's trucks are less powerful and inferior to that of the third respondent is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that geardivility of the trucks of the petitioner is better than that of the respondent. It is also the case of the petitioner that the finding recorded by the Committee of the forest department to oust the petitioner by observing that the performance of the clutch and gearbox of the trucks of the third respondent is better, is also incorrect. It is also the case of the petitioner that the finding recorded by the Committee of the forest department to oust the petitioner by observing that the performance of the clutch and gearbox of the trucks of the third respondent is better, is also incorrect. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondents No. 1 and 2 having found the technical bid of the petitioner to be as per specification and having opened financial bid could not have rejected petitioner's offer by holding the petitioner's trucks are of inferior quality than that of the third respondent. Having heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the documents filed with the petition we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out the case for interference in the discretionary powers of this Court vested to it under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 5. ) IT has now been well settled that the discretionary powers under Article 226 are to be exercised with great caution and only in furtherance of public interest. IT cannot be exercised merely on making out of a legal point. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires, it should interfere in the Government's contract tender. While exercising the power of judicial review, in respect of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is primarily concerned as to whether there has been any infirmity in the decision making process. By way of judicial review it cannot examine the details of the terms of the contract, which have been entered into by the public or the State. The Courts have inherent limitation on the scope of any such inquiry. IT is only to examine whether the decision making process was reasonable, rational and not arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court cannot act as appellate authority by constituting opinion in respect of selection made for entering into such contract. The contract is essentially a commercial transaction. While dealing such matters the paramount consideration is commercial consideration, which would include various factors like price of the goods, or service offered are of the requisite specification, whether a person tendering the ability to deliver the goods or service as per specification. The contract is essentially a commercial transaction. While dealing such matters the paramount consideration is commercial consideration, which would include various factors like price of the goods, or service offered are of the requisite specification, whether a person tendering the ability to deliver the goods or service as per specification. The action of the State must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration. The action must be reasonable and should not be arbitrary. ( 6. ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid legal position and applying the same we are of the considered view that no case is made out to interfere into the decision taken by the Committee after assessing the comparative specification of the offer made by the respective tenderers. No case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of the powers could be made out by the petitioner. ( 7. ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.