JUDGMENT S. A. BOBDE, J.: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Misc. Civil Application No. 623/2011 and Writ Petition No. 394/2011 have been taken up together since the prayers are common. Misc. Civil Application No. 623/2011 has been preferred in Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No. 359/2007 which is a Public Interest Litigation praying, inter alia, for directions to the State for improving the standards of health care in the State of Goa and in particular for directions to the State for providing adequate number of Doctors, trained Nurses and other staff and to ensure proper maintenance of hospitals including Asilo Hospital at Mapusa. In the said Public Interest Litigation the present application has been moved by the petitioners praying for an interim order restraining the State of Goa from handing over the District Hospital at Mapusa to private operator with a further direction to the State to commission the District Hospital and run it as a State District Hospital. 3. Writ Petition No. 394/2011 is filed in public interest by a Member of Legislative Assembly, who was formerly a Minister. The petitioner has submitted that Asilo Hospital located in Mapusa is in very bad condition and, therefore, the Government decided to set up and construct a new District Hospital at Mapusa. Accordingly, 25811 square meters of land belonging to the Education Department was released to the Health Department and on that land a 256 bedded District Hospital equipped with all modern facilities has been constructed at the cost of about Rs. 48 Crores. The Government, thereafter, created 200 additional posts, which included 34 Doctors, 76 Nurses and 90 other para medical staff. 136 persons have been recruited and the hospital can be commissioned for providing health care. However, the Health Minister moved a note dated 10.02.2010 requesting the Government to approve the appointment of Consultant for the District Hospital. The Cabinet, thereafter, approved the proposal and the Government has decided to hand over the development, operation and management of the District Hospital on Public Private Partnership (PPP) basis. In pursuance thereof, the Government has floated tenders and has also issued Letter of Intent. According to the petitioner and the applicants in the Misc. Civil Application (Hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners"), this action of the Government is not in public interest, which would drain the Government of his whole finance and would adversely affect health care of the citizens. In pursuance thereof, the Government has floated tenders and has also issued Letter of Intent. According to the petitioner and the applicants in the Misc. Civil Application (Hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners"), this action of the Government is not in public interest, which would drain the Government of his whole finance and would adversely affect health care of the citizens. Further, the petitioners have questioned the decision to privatize the District Hospital on the ground that the rules of business, which govern the conduct of business of the Government have been violated and the Consultant has not been properly selected. Apart from questioning the privatization of the District Hospital, the petitioners have also questioned the terms of Draft Concession Agreement (DCA), which is proposed to be entered into by the Government with the successful tenderer i.e. Radiant Life Care Private Limited, which has been impleaded as intervenor in this proceeding. The petitioners have further questioned the decision of the Government to privatize the District Hospital at Mapusa and also the terms of the tender, which have been Boated by the Government for handing over the hospital to private operator. The learned Advocate General for the State of Goa submitted that the decision to privatize the District Hospital. Mapusa is a policy decision of the Government duly taken by the Government in the best interest of citizens and it is not open for the petitioners to question the decision or the manner of its implementation. It is submitted that the petitioners have not pleaded or proved the breach of any law by the State in either taking this decision or implementing it and in the absence of any malafides, the impugned decisions cannot be questioned in a public interest litigation. 4. The learned Advocate General relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam Vs. Union of India and others; (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 561. That was a challenge to the decision of the Government of Pondicherry to privatize Port. Upon taking decision to privatize, the Government had entered into a contract with the respondent for development of Port. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had given due directions for safeguarding the environment and had protected the interests of people of Pondicherry. That was a challenge to the decision of the Government of Pondicherry to privatize Port. Upon taking decision to privatize, the Government had entered into a contract with the respondent for development of Port. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had given due directions for safeguarding the environment and had protected the interests of people of Pondicherry. Therefore, the element of public interest no longer survives and it was not open for the appellant to challenge the award of the contract in favour of the respondent as this would amount to challenge the policy decision of the Government of Pondicherry through the PPP, which is not permissible. In this judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "113. As far as second preliminary objection regarding locus standi of the appellant to challenge the award of the contract for the development of the Pondicherry Port to Respondent 11 is concerned, this Court finds that the contract assailed in the writ petitions is purely commercial in nature. Neither the parties, which had participated in the process of selection of the consultant/developer nor one of those, which had expressed desire to develop the Pondicherry Port but was not selected, has come forward to challenge the selection procedure adopted by the Government of Pondicherry or the selection of Respondent 11 as developer of the Pondicherry Port. 114. The question of locus standi in the matter of awarding the contract has been considered by this Court in BALCO Employees' Union v. Union of India. This Court, after review of law on the point, has made following observations in para 88 of the judgment: (SCC p. 381) "88. It will be seen that whenever the Court has interfered and given directions while entertaining PIL it has mainly been where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or of human rights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to Court due to some disadvantage. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. In those cases also it is the legal rights which are secured by the courts. We may, however, add that public interest litigation was not meant to be a weapon to challenge the financial or economic decisions which are taken by the Government in exercise of their administrative power. No doubt a person personally aggrieved by any such decision, which he regards as illegal, can impugn the same in a court of law, but, a public interest litigation at the behest of a stranger ought not to be entertained. Such a litigation cannot per se be on behalf of the poor and the downtrodden, unless the Court is satisfied that there has been violation of Article 21 and the persons adversely affected are unable to approach the Court. From the passage quoted above it is clear that the only ground on which a person can maintain a PIL is where there has been an element of violation of Article 21 or human lights or where the litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged who are unable to come to the Court due to some disadvantage. 115. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the only ground on which the appellants could have maintained a PIL before the High Court was to seek protection of the interest of the people of Pondicherry by safeguarding the environment. This issue was raised by the appellants before the High Court and the High Court has issued directions regarding the same, which are to be found in para 24 of the impugned judgment. After the High Court's directions the element of public interest of the appellants' case no longer survives. The appellants cannot, therefore, proceed to challenge the award of the contract in favour of Respondent lion other grounds as this would amount to challenging the policy decision of the Government of Pondicherry through a PIL, which is not permissible. Thus on the ground of locus standi also the appeals should fail." On the scope of judicial review in the matters of policy decision and economic decisions, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "167. In the matter of policy decision and economic tests the scope of judicial review is very limited. Thus on the ground of locus standi also the appeals should fail." On the scope of judicial review in the matters of policy decision and economic decisions, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "167. In the matter of policy decision and economic tests the scope of judicial review is very limited. Unless the decision is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution, the Court would not interfere with an economic decision taken by the State. The court cannot examine the relative merits of different economic policies and cannot strike down the same merely on ground that another policy would have been fairer and better. 168. In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may result in the shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result in adversely affecting some vested interests. Unless any illegality is committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered with by the court. 169. It is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or whether better public policy can be evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical. Wisdom and advisability of economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review. In matters relating to economic issues the Government has, while taking a decision, right to "trial and error" as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of the authority. For testing the correctness of a policy, the appropriate forum is Parliament and not the courts. 170. Normally, there is always a presumption that the governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or against public interest because there are large number of considerations, which necessarily weigh with the Government in taking an action." We find that the challenge to the policy decision to privatize the District Hospital, Mapusa has no merit and ought not to be entertained in this Public Interest Litigation. 5. We have, however, considered the submissions challenging the decision to enter into a PPP, and not to the terms of the RFP in public interest in order to examine if there is anything contrary to the interests of the general public since the matter affects the health of the citizens and the decision seems to have raised many apprehensions. According to the petitioners, the District Hospital, by its very nature, is a hospital which should naturally be run by the Government and cannot be handed over to a private operator. This submission is without any basis in law since the petitioners have not pointed out any duty cast on the Government by any statute of running District Hospital itself. Moreover, there is no merit in the submission that the Government should not be allowed to privatize the hospital because it has spent large amount in setting up the hospital and also appointing the staff. The Government has stated on oath that District Hospital at Mapusa was constructed in order to strengthen the existing health care facilities and the decision of privatization has been taken in public interest and to provide efficient medical services and facilities to the citizens. The Government appointed ICRA Management Consulting Services and Centrum Capital Ltd. as Consultant and the Consultants have suggested a Draft Concessional Agreement, which has been adopted by the Government after due deliberation. It is specifically asserted on behalf of the Government that the policy decision has been taken by the Public Health Department and Director of Health Services. which have been consolidated and associated at every stage. It is specifically asserted on behalf of the Government that the policy decision has been taken by the Public Health Department and Director of Health Services. which have been consolidated and associated at every stage. It is pointed out that the disputes have been raised about the efficiency of health care provided by the Government of Goa and have been pending in this Court since quite some time and the Government has ultimately taken a policy decision to privatize one hospital at Mapusa to provide efficient health care and without suffering any additional financial burden. It is contended on behalf of the State that the Government is entitled to tryout the best method of discharging the obligations imposed on it and one such attempt, which is in question in this petition, ought not to be thwarted. 6. In particular, it is pointed out on behalf of the State that the hospital will provide free medical aid and treatment to patients except where the treatment falls within the scope of Superspeciality in which case the patient will be charged at CGHS rates and not charges, which are normally levied in private hospitals. That in fact the private operator is bound to charge CGHS rates wherever applicable and is not permitted to determine and charge its own rates. It is stated that the Government even otherwise incurs some expenditure by giving free treatment to people and this expenditure will be reimbursed to the private operators, who will provide medical services. Two other aspects, raised by the petitioners have also been adequately answered by the Government as follows: (i) That there will be no interruption of various national health programmes for control and preventive action in respect of Malaria, Filaria, Dengue, Chikungunia, Japaneese encephalitis, TB/HIV AIDS etc. nor any ether disease. The respondents have stated that the Government implements various national health programmes in its Headquarters, such as TB Control Cell, Vector Bome Disease Control Cell, Leprosy Control Cell, Family Planning Cell etc. through various Cells, some at District Hospital and some at village level. (ii) The service conditions of the Government Employees will not be adversely affected in any way. The Government has given options to its employees to be absorbed at the District Hospital under the private operator whereupon they will be sent on deputation and disciplinary control etc. will remain of the Government. (ii) The service conditions of the Government Employees will not be adversely affected in any way. The Government has given options to its employees to be absorbed at the District Hospital under the private operator whereupon they will be sent on deputation and disciplinary control etc. will remain of the Government. This, in our view, substantially answers the requirement of public interest and we do not consider it appropriate to go into the question, whether the Government would save more money if it continues to run the hospital on its own and whether it should have to be the concession at the private operator on terms, which are commercially more beneficial to the Government or otherwise. These are essentially commercial matters, which this Court would not enquire into in a public interest litigation. 7. The learned Advocate General rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in G.B. Mahajan and others Vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council and others; (1991) 3 Supreme Court Cases 91 where the Supreme Court gave judicial recognition to the administrative right to trial and error as long as both trial and error are bonafide and within the limits of the authority in the following words: "22. On a consideration of the matter, it appears to us that the argument that a project envisaging a self-financing scheme, by reason alone of the particular policy behind it is beyond the powers of the local authority is somewhat too broadly stated to be acceptable. A project, otherwise legal, does not become any the less permissible by reason alone that the local authority, instead of executing the project itself, had entered into an agreement with a developer for its financing and execution. The criticism of the project being "unconventional" does not add to or advance the legal contention any further. The question is not whether it is unconventional by the standard of the extant practices, but whether there was something in the law rendering it impermissible. There is, no doubt, a degree of public accountability in all governmental enterprises. But, the present question is one of the extent and scope of judicial review over such matters. The question is not whether it is unconventional by the standard of the extant practices, but whether there was something in the law rendering it impermissible. There is, no doubt, a degree of public accountability in all governmental enterprises. But, the present question is one of the extent and scope of judicial review over such matters. With the expansion of the State's presence in the field of trade and commerce and of the range of economic and commercial enterprises of government and its instrumentalities there is an increasing dimension to governmental concern for stimulating efficiency, keeping costs down, improved management methods, prevention of time and cost overruns in projects, balancing of costs against time scales, quality control, cost-benefit ratios etc. In search of these values it might become necessary to adopt appropriate techniques of management of projects with concomitant economic expediencies. These are essentially matters of economic policy which lack adjudicative disposition, unless they violate constitutional or legal limits on power or have demonstrable pejorative environmental implications or amount to clear abuse of power. This again is the judicial recognition of administrator's right to trial and error, as long as both trial and error are bona fide and within the limits of authority. We might recall the memorable words of what Justice Brandeis said: "The discoveries in physical science, the triumphs in invention, attest the value of the process of trial and error. In large measure, these advances have been due to experimentation ...." "..... There must be power in the States and the Nation to remold, through experimentation, our economic practices and institutions to meet changing social and economic needs ...... "To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the Nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country. This Court has the power to prevent an experiment .... But in the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles." 23. This Court has the power to prevent an experiment .... But in the exercise of this high power, we must be ever on our guard, lest we erect our prejudices into legal principles." 23. In regard to courts and policy we might recall the following words of a learned author:- "The courts are kept out of the lush field of administrative policy, except when policy is inconsistent with the express or implied provisions of a statute which creates the power to which the policy relates or when a decision made in purported exercise of a power is such that a repository of the power, acting reasonably and in good faith, could not have made it. In the latter case, 'something overwhelming' must appear before the court will intervene. That is, and ought to be, a difficult onus for an applicant to discharge. The courts are not very good at formulating or evaluating policy. Sometimes when the courts have intervened on policy grounds, the court's view of the range of policies open under the statute or of what is unreasonably policy has not won public acceptance. On the contrary, curial views of policy have been subjected to stringent criticism. In the world of politics, the court's opinions on policy are naturally less likely to reflect the popular view than the policies of a democratically elected government or of expert administrators ...." "The considerations by reference to which the reasonableness of a policy may be determined are rarely judicially manageable..." (emphasis supplied) 24. In Forward Construction Co. v. Prabhat Mandai (Regd.)- a similar self-financing project was embarked upon by the Municipal Corporation of Bombay. It is true, the present argument as to the manner of execution of the project being ultra vires the powers of the local authority was not in terms raised there. But some of the arguments have a familiar ring. This Court, noticing the financial feature of the scheme observed: (SCC p. 115, para 32) "The mere fact that the Corporation was to make a gain of the non-refundable premium did not mean that, that was the only purpose which was in view. The purpose obviously was the best utilisation of the available space. This Court, noticing the financial feature of the scheme observed: (SCC p. 115, para 32) "The mere fact that the Corporation was to make a gain of the non-refundable premium did not mean that, that was the only purpose which was in view. The purpose obviously was the best utilisation of the available space. If in a commercial zone the Corporation was able to make available accommodation for commercial purposes we do not see why such a venture cannot be one either for the purpose of promoting public safety, convenience or in the nature of facilities being made available as a part of the improvement of the city. If commercial activities are to be pinpointed in a commercial zone and for that purpose the Municipal Corporation takes a step to provide accommodation for commercial purposes it cannot be said that the property of the Corporation was being acquired or held for purposes other than the purposes of the Act." 25. The concern of public law is to discipline the public power by forging "legal techniques as part of the way in which public power is made operational and part of the process through which it is attempted to render such public power legitimate and to think of issues of legal regulation of public power in a way that goes deeper than particular instances and elaborate issues of general principle". There is, however, as Professor Wade points out, ample room, within the legal boundaries for radical differences of opinion in which neither side is unreasonable. In Tameside case-Lord Denning pointed out the error of confusing differences of opinion, however strong, with unreasonableness on the part of one side or the other. Lord Diplock said that the very concept of administrative discretion involves a right to choose between more than one possible course of action upon which there is room for reasonable people to hold differing opinions as to which is to be preferred. 26. .....It appears to us that in the context of expanding exigencies of urban planning it will be difficult for the court to say that a particular policy option was better than another. The contention that the project is ultra vires of the powers of the Municipal Council does not appeal to us." We find that the decision to privatize cannot be questioned on the ground of want of authority and is not attended to by any malafides. The contention that the project is ultra vires of the powers of the Municipal Council does not appeal to us." We find that the decision to privatize cannot be questioned on the ground of want of authority and is not attended to by any malafides. 8. The petitioners also contended that the decision to privatize is vitiated because the Consultant was appointed without complying with the Guidelines on Public Private Partnership (PPP) Projects. We find that the consultant was selected and appointed by the Committee constituted by Minister of Health by note dated 13.08.2010. The Committee comprised of the Secretary, Health, the Jt. Secretary (DMU/Director of PPP Cell, the Dean, Goa Medical College, the Director of Health Services, Jt. Secretary (Health) and the matter was placed before the Cabinet. It is well settled that the guidelines themselves are not law and appointment of the Consultant is not liable to be set aside so as to vitiate the decision to privatize. In this regard, in Poonam Verma and others Vs. Delhi Development Authority; (2007) 13 Supreme Court Cases 154, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "27. Guidelines per se do not partake of the character of statute. Such guidelines in absence of the statutory backdrop are advisory in nature. Mr. Ram Prakash himself has relied upon a decision of this court in Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India- wherein it has been laid down: (See p. 510, para 107) "107. ... This is because guidelines, by their very nature, do not fall into the category of legislation, direct, subordinate or ancillary. They have only an advisory role to play and non-adherence to or deviation from them is necessarily and implicitly permissible if the circumstances of any particular fact or law situation warrants the same. Judicial control takes over only where the deviation either involves arbitrariness or discrimination or is so fundamental as to undermine a basic public purpose which the guidelines and the statute under which they are issued are intended to achieve." [See also Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India, SCC at p. 508; Bhim Singhji v. Union of India, SCC at p. 232; J.R. Raghupathy v. State of A.P. (SCC para 31) and Uttam Parkash Bansal v. LIC of India.] 28. Guidelines being advisory in character per se do not confer any legal right." 9. Mr. Guidelines being advisory in character per se do not confer any legal right." 9. Mr. Thali, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the decision to privatize has not been taken in accordance with the Rules Of Business Of The Government of Goa, 1991, because according to the petitioners the concurrence of the Finance Department was not taken before the decision to privatize was taken. This submission is based on Rule 7 (1)(a),(d) and (2), which reads as follows: "7.(1) Unless the case is fully covered by the power to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds conferred by any general or special orders made by the Finance Department, no Department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Finance Department, issue any order which may- (a) involve any abandonment of revenue or involve any expenditure for which no provision has been made in the appropriation Act; (b) ..... (c) ..... (d) otherwise have a financial bearing whether involving expenditure or not. (2) No proposal which requires previous concurrence of the Finance Department under this rule, but in which the Finance Department has not concurred, may be proceeded with unless a decision to that effect has been taken by the Council." There is no doubt that a decision to privatize a Government Hospital includes the advancement of revenue, which the Government gets from running the hospital though, we do not have the material to give such a finding in this case. But there can be no doubt that the decision to privatize has a financial bearing since the Government would be earning or paying money in the form of an annuity depending on the contract it enters into. Therefore, the concurrence of the Finance department, as distinct from the concurrence of the Finance Minister, was necessary. The notings on the case file placed before us indicate that there is a specific noting that, "FS (Finance Secretary) may also see the draft cabinet note so that Finance Concurrence is accorded with the approval of C.M./F.M." Therefore, a modified cabinet note has been counter signed by the Jt. Secretary (Finance) and the Secretary (Finance), the Health Minister (Minister in charge) and the Chief Minister. The matter thus appears to have been considered by the Finance Department. 10. Secretary (Finance) and the Secretary (Finance), the Health Minister (Minister in charge) and the Chief Minister. The matter thus appears to have been considered by the Finance Department. 10. The learned Advocate General submitted that the Chief Minister is empowered under Rule 10 of the Rules to bring any matter enumerated in the schedule referred to in rule 9 and 10 before the Council of Ministers even if it does not have the consent of the Finance Minister. In particular, the Chief Minister can bring up the following matters before the Council of Ministers: SCHEDULE (See Rule 9 and 10) 1. ….. 2. ….. 3. ….. 4. ….. 5. Any proposal which affects finances of the State which has not the consent of the Finance Minister. 6. Any proposal for re-appropriation to which the consent of the Finance Minister is required and has been withheld. 7. ….. 8. ….. 9. Proposals involving any important change in policy or practice...." There is no doubt that this matter involves proposal involving important change in policy of practice and shall thus squarely covers under Clause (9) above. There is thus no merit in the contention that the matter was not brought properly before the Cabinet i.e. through the Finance Department. It is, therefore, clear that the Chief Minister who is also the Finance Minister was empowered to bring up this matter before the Council of Ministers. We thus do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Government of Goa to enter into a PPP in respect of the District Hospital at Mapusa. 11. In Mahanandi Coalfields Limited and anr. Vs. Mathias Oram and others; (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 269 : [2011 ALL SCR 114] the Supreme Court in para 6 has observed that PPP is the latest Mantra. Para 6 reads as follows: "6. India does not lack material resources required for development. There are vast treasures of minerals lying buried deep inside its earth. But excavation of minerals from the bosom of the earth and putting them to good industrial and commercial use require lots of initial investment and highly advanced technology. Those too are now available as blessings of globalisation. The imperialist's formula of "philanthropy plus five percent" is the accepted norm. Pubic Private partnership (PPP) is the latest mantra. But excavation of minerals from the bosom of the earth and putting them to good industrial and commercial use require lots of initial investment and highly advanced technology. Those too are now available as blessings of globalisation. The imperialist's formula of "philanthropy plus five percent" is the accepted norm. Pubic Private partnership (PPP) is the latest mantra. For some reasonable profits, companies and corporations, both Indian and multinational are willing and ready not only to do the mining for us but also to undertake the development of the region by providing schools, hospitals and many similar amenities and facilities to the local population. Even the public sector undertakings are not lagging far behind in the race." 12. This takes us to some points raised by the petitioners in respect of the terms of the Draft Concession Agreement (DCA), which according to the petitioners are arbitrary and not in favour of the Government. At the outset it may be observed that these terms are not being challenged by any bidders but are being questioned only by the petitioners in this public interest litigation. We have already observed that in Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable unless there is an element of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India or human rights or where litigation has been initiated for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged. Having observed that the decision to privatize cannot be said to be contrary to the public interest, we are of the view that the petitioners cannot proceed to challenge the terms of the contract of the DCA in a Public Interest Litigation. None of the terms above are shown to be contrary to any statutory provisions of the Constitution of India and are purely in the region of commerce. 13. Mr. Kantak, the learned Advocate General and Mr. Aney, learned counsel for the intervenor have rightly relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court of India. In (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 664; Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court observed that in respect of the public projects and policies initiated by the Government the court should not become an approval authority. Aney, learned counsel for the intervenor have rightly relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court of India. In (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 664; Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and others, the Supreme Court observed that in respect of the public projects and policies initiated by the Government the court should not become an approval authority. In this case, a policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with law or is not mala fide, and it would not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate into those areas, which are functions of the executive. 14. In Bajaj Hindustan Limited Vs. Sir Shadilal Enterprises Limited and anr.; (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 640 : [2011(2) ALL MR 946 (S.C.)] the Supreme Court, observed after referring to several earlier decisions, that in areas of economic and commerce, there is a far greater latitude available to executive than in any other matters. 15. On the specific aspect of questioning the terms of the invitation to tender, the Supreme Court has in Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India; (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651 very clearly held as follows :- "(4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts." 16. In these circumstances, we refrain from entering into the question, whether the Government ought to have linked the tariff to the Consumer Price Index or whether the Government could have agreed to pay CGHS rates particularly since it was handing over a fully equipped hospital along with equipments and staff to the private operator. The Government has justified these rates and has pointed out that these terms do not cause any loss to it or exchequer neither do these terms impose any additional financial burden. 17. We would add that a rival bidder has challenged the Letter of Intent issued to the bidder by Government and it would be appropriate to consider the question of legality or propriety of the decision making process or the terms in that petition. 18. In the result, we see no merit in this petition. 17. We would add that a rival bidder has challenged the Letter of Intent issued to the bidder by Government and it would be appropriate to consider the question of legality or propriety of the decision making process or the terms in that petition. 18. In the result, we see no merit in this petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.