JUDGMENT Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by Ms. Lalrohlui, proprietor of M/S North East Supplier Group, a supply business firm (for short hereinafter referred to as, 'the Petitioner') admittedly the lowest tenderer relating to supply of Edible Oil (Vegetable) for quashing the supply order issued in favour of Respondent No. 4 dated 17th March, 2011 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) and to direct the Respondent No. 3 to issue supply order in respect of the Petitioner for supply of Edible Oil (Vegetable) being she is the lowest tenderer. 2. Heard Mr. R. Lallawmpuia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. N Sailo, learned Addl. Advocate General assisted by Ms Helen Dawngliani, learned Government Advocate for the State Respondents. 3. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties and in terms of the order dated 29.03.2011 as well as order dated 06.04.2011, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage. 4. Pleaded case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No. 2, Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of Social Welfare vide tender notice dated 12th July, 2010 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) invited tender in sealed covers from bonafide manufacturers or their Authorised Agents/Dealers for supply of the nutrition food items/agro based items like High Protein Soya Noodles, Masur Dal (Small) Motor Chana, Ground Nut, Edible Oil (Vegetable) and Double fortified salt which would be received by the Director of Social Welfare Department, Mizoram, Chaltlang, Aizawl upto 01.00 P.M. on 25.08.2010 and the tenders will be opened by the Director of Social Welfare Department or his authorized representative at 2.30 P.M. on the same date. 5. In response to the aforesaid tender notice, the Petitioner submitted its bid for supply of Edible Oil (Vegetable) and on opening of the tenders/bids submitted by the respective tenders the Respondent tendering authority found that the rate offered by the Petitioner @ Rs. 57.85 per litre for Aizawl and Rs. 5. In response to the aforesaid tender notice, the Petitioner submitted its bid for supply of Edible Oil (Vegetable) and on opening of the tenders/bids submitted by the respective tenders the Respondent tendering authority found that the rate offered by the Petitioner @ Rs. 57.85 per litre for Aizawl and Rs. 58.95 for Lunglei is the lowest one and the Petitioner also fulfilled the terms and conditions of the NIT and when it was expecting the supply order in its favour relating to supply of Edible Oil (Vegetable) both for Aizawl and Lunglei all on a sudden it came to know that the Respondents are processing the supply order in favour of the Respondent No. 4, M/S Rocilliz Drug and Cosmetic Store, Ramhlun North, Aizawl, a dealer for Edible Oil namely, Dhara, though the said Respondents offered a rate for Dhara Edible Oil @ Rs. 84.00 for Aizawl and Rs. 87.00 for Lunglei in gross violation of the norms mentioned in the Circular No. F. No. Circular/AM/2008 dated 12th November, 2008 issued by the Supreme Court of India, Admn. Material (P and S) Section as well as Guidelines issued by the Chief Technical Examiner's Organization under Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India. 6. An opportunity was given to the Petitioner for supplying Dhara Edible Oil (vegetable) before negotiating the matter with the Respondent No. 4, vide letter No. D. 24012/3/ 2010-DTE(SNP) dated 14.12.2010 to submit the rates relating to Edible Oil brand viz. Dhara, Fortune or Mahakosh for Aizawl and Lunglei respectively by 15th December, 2010. In response to the said letter, the Petitioner submitted the rates for Edible Oil Dhara @ Rs. 83.50 for Aizawl and Rs. 86.50 for Lunglei and for Edible Oil Fortune @ Rs. 82.50 for Aizawl and Rs. 84.00 for Lunglei but the Respondent authority without providing the supply order to the Petitioner issued the impugned supply order in favour of the Respondent No. 4. Hence, the instant writ petition. 7. 83.50 for Aizawl and Rs. 86.50 for Lunglei and for Edible Oil Fortune @ Rs. 82.50 for Aizawl and Rs. 84.00 for Lunglei but the Respondent authority without providing the supply order to the Petitioner issued the impugned supply order in favour of the Respondent No. 4. Hence, the instant writ petition. 7. The official Respondents submitted their affidavit-in-opposition wherein the allegations of the Petitioner has been denied stating, inter alia, that the writ Petitioner's rate was admittedly the lowest but the brand offered by the firm of the writ Petitioner being 'Kiran' did not seem to be a reputed brand and since it was felt that inferior quality oil could adversely effect the health of the Supplementary Nutritional Programme beneficiaries (hereinafter referred to as, 'SNP beneficiaries') by causing harm to the eyes, heart, liver etc. it is advisable to procure good quality and branded edible oil such as Dhara. Being the Petitioner's bid was admittedly lowest amongst the bidders, the Respondent authority in terms of the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission, as referred to by the Petitioner in paragraph 10 of the writ petition, more particularly Clause 11.0 of the said guidelines, asked the Petitioner to submit the rates at which it would be able to supply Edible Oil, brands such as Dhara, Fortune or Mahakosh for Aizawl and Lunglei vide letter under Memo No. D24012/3/2010-DTE (SNP) dated 14.12.2010 and in response to the said letter the Petitioner's firm submitted the rate as stated in the writ petition for edible oil brand Dhara as well as Fortune. 8. In the affidavit in opposition, the Respondents also stated that the Respondent No. 4, M/S Rocilliz Drug and Cosmetic Store submitted a complaint/representation to the Respondent authorities on 10.01.2011 contending that they were the only firm offered Dhara Oil and therefore they should be selected. They also expressed their willingness to supply Dhara oil at the rate even lower than their original offer, i.e. Rs. 82.00 and Rs. 84.00 for Aizawl and Lunglei respectively instead of their original offer of Rs. 84.00 and Rs. 87.00 for Aizawl and Lunglei respectively. The Respondent No. 4 also submitted the necessary certificate of dealership. 9. They also expressed their willingness to supply Dhara oil at the rate even lower than their original offer, i.e. Rs. 82.00 and Rs. 84.00 for Aizawl and Lunglei respectively instead of their original offer of Rs. 84.00 and Rs. 87.00 for Aizawl and Lunglei respectively. The Respondent No. 4 also submitted the necessary certificate of dealership. 9. The State Purchase Advisory Board (hereinafter referred to as, 'SPAB') after taking note of the facts, sat again on 07.03.2011 and examined the offers and documents submitted by the parties including the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 and finally recommended the Respondent No. 4 being the said firm offered lower rate than the Petitioner. 10. Mr. Lallawmpuia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the time of hearing placed the comparative statement prepared by the authorities wherein it is mentioned that the rate offered by the Respondent No. 4 for Edible Oil brand Dhara was 9th lowest both for Aizawl and Lunglei before negotiation and the rate of the Petitioner for Edible Oil was the lowest one. Respondents in their NIT did not mention regarding any specific brand so far the Edible Oil is concerned. Therefore, the Petitioner submitted the rate of Soyabean refined oil namely, 'Kiran' @ Rs. 57.85 for Aizawl and Rs. 58.95 for Lunglei per litre. The Respondent authority when did not mention any brand in their NIT they cannot ask the Petitioner to supply a brand according to their choice taking the benefit of the quotation of the Respondent No. 4 who offered rate of Edible Oil for the brand Dhara and Fortune. 11. He further submits that the Respondent No. 4 offered his rate lower than the Petitioner after furnishing of rate by the Petitioner relating to Edible oil brand Dhara. Therefore, the whole action of the authority is unreasonable and unfair. 12. Mr. Sailo, learned Addl. Advocate General while responding to the contention of Mr. Lallawmpuia would contend that in what circumstances the Court can exercise its power of judicial review is discussed by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994)6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11 , wherein the Apex Court in para 94 of the said law report laid down the principles relation to judicial review. Lallawmpuia would contend that in what circumstances the Court can exercise its power of judicial review is discussed by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994)6 SCC 651 : AIR 1996 SC 11 , wherein the Apex Court in para 94 of the said law report laid down the principles relation to judicial review. He also submits that in paragraph 70 of Tata Cellular (supra) the Apex Court specifically stated that there are inherent limitation in exercise of the power to judicial review and the government being the guardian of the finance of the state has the right to protect the financial interest of the state. The right to refuse the lowest or the any tender is always available with the government subject to the principle laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution. He also placed reliance on paragraph 9 of Raunaq international Ltd. vs. I.V.R Construction Ltd. and other, (1999)1 SCC 492 , wherein the Apex Court stated that the awarding of the contract is essentially a commercial transaction and in arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are of the paramount importance are commercial considerations. 13. In the instant case, according to him, the Respondents took the note of the interest of the SNP beneficiaries to whom the Edible Oil would be supplied and not only that, the Respondent No. 4 is also the dealer in the State of Mizoram for Edible Oil brand Dhara. 14. He further submitted that the SPAB being the expert body while expressed their opinion that the Edible Oil brand 'Kiran', the rate of which was offered by the Petitioner, is an inferior quality of Edible Oil and also can adversely affect the health of the SNP beneficiaries and suggested to procure the good quality of Edible Oil like "Dhara". The Respondent authority rightly accepted the advice of the SPAB, of which the Chief Secretary is the Chairman, and awarded the supply order to the Respondent No. 4 at a lower rate than the rate offered by the Petitioner. 15. He further submits that it is not the case of the Petitioner that it was not asked to participate in the negotiations and without providing any opportunity to it to submit its rate for Edible Oil brand Dhara, the Respondent No. 4 was provided with the supply order. 15. He further submits that it is not the case of the Petitioner that it was not asked to participate in the negotiations and without providing any opportunity to it to submit its rate for Edible Oil brand Dhara, the Respondent No. 4 was provided with the supply order. Rather the Petitioner itself admitted in the writ petition that it was asked to furnish the rate for Edible Oil brands Dhara and Fortuna for Aizawl and Lunglei and the rate which was provided by it was higher in side and so the Respondent authority taking note of the State finance awarded the supply order in favour of Respondent No. 4, particularly keeping in mind that the Respondent No. 4 is a dealer for Edible Oil brand "Dhara" a direct agent of the manufacturer. 16. He again submits that in the case of Air India Ltd vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and other (2000)2 SCC 617 , the Apex Court taking note of Tata Cellular (supra) and Raunaq International (supra) as well as other decisions of the Apex Court, held that the State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. 17. He also referred to the decision of the Apex court in M/s B.S.N. Joshi and sons vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and other, AIR 2007 SC 437 , wherein the Apex Court reiterated its earlier opinion that the contract need not be given to the lowest tenderer but it is actually true that the employer is the best judge there for; the same ordinarily being within its domain, court's interference in such a matter should be minimal. The High Court's jurisdiction in such matters being limited in a case of this nature, the Court should normally exercise judicial restraint unless illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the employer is apparent on the face of the record. 18. He ultimately submits that the Petitioner in her objection nowhere alleged that the official Respondents awarded the supply order to the Respondent No. 4, as impugned in the writ petition, either with mala fide intention or with an ulterior motive. 18. He ultimately submits that the Petitioner in her objection nowhere alleged that the official Respondents awarded the supply order to the Respondent No. 4, as impugned in the writ petition, either with mala fide intention or with an ulterior motive. Rather if the court took note of the entire facts and circumstances then it would be evident from the record that the authority concerned taking note of the interest of the SNP beneficiaries took the decision and not only that, the authority also awarded the supply order to the Respondent No. 4 at a lesser rate than the rate offered by the Petitioner at the time of negotiation. 19. He finally placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in West Bengal State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. (2001) 2 SCC 451 particularly paragraph 31 wherein the Apex Court after taking note of the facts of that case stated, inter alia, "The contract is, therefore, awarded normally to the lowest tenderer which is in public interest. The principle of awarding contract to the lowest tenderer applies when all things are equal. It is equally in public interest to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited. Merely because a bid is the lowest the requirements of compliance with the rules and conditions cannot be ignore. It is obvious that the bid documents of Respondents 1 to 4 is the lowest of bids offered. As the bid documents of Respondents 1 to 4 stand without correction there will be inherent inconsistency between the particulars given in the annexure and the total bid amount, it (sic they) cannot be directed to be considered alongwith the other bids on the sole ground of being the lowest. 20. Referring to the aforesaid law report, Mr. Sailo, further contended that the rates offered by the Petitioner being the lowest one does not ipso facto entitle it to get the award of supply order. 20. Referring to the aforesaid law report, Mr. Sailo, further contended that the rates offered by the Petitioner being the lowest one does not ipso facto entitle it to get the award of supply order. The authority has to consider so many factors like the quality of the product for which the tender notice was issued and the Petitioner offered the rate and also to see whether that quality of the product as offered would do any harm to the SNP beneficiaries for whom the articles/products is going to be received by the Respondents from the tenderer and also has to take note of the interest of the State finance, the note of which has been taken in the instant case by the Respondents. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondent authority acted either illegally or irrationally or with bad faith while awarding the supply order to the Respondent No. 4, rather the Respondents tried to protect the finance of the State as well as the public interest. 21. Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition as well as in the affidavit in opposition, question arises for decision as to whether the authority which issued the NIT has the power to issue supply order to a tenderer whose tender was initially higher in side but subsequently at the time of negotiation became the lowest one, ignoring the tender of the lowest tenderer at the time of opening of the tender. 22. Clause 11.0 (Post Tender Negotiations) as has been referred to by Mr. Sailo placing a document namely, "Common Irregularities/lapses observed in stores/purchase contracts and guidelines for improvement in the procurement system", is quoted herein under, as that would be profitable to come to a proper conclusion regarding the dispute in question. 11.0 Post Tender Negotiations As per CVC guidelines circulated vide letter No. 8(1)(h)/98(1) dated 18.11.98, it has been brought out that "the tenders are generally a major source of corruption. In order to avoid corruption, a more transparent and effective system must be introduced. As post tender negotiations are the main source of corruption, post tender negotiations are banned with immediate effect except in the case of negotiations with L-1 (i.e. Lowest tenderer)". In continuation to these instructions, following further clarifications were issued vide letter No. 98/Order/1 dated 15.03.99 (i) The Govt. As post tender negotiations are the main source of corruption, post tender negotiations are banned with immediate effect except in the case of negotiations with L-1 (i.e. Lowest tenderer)". In continuation to these instructions, following further clarifications were issued vide letter No. 98/Order/1 dated 15.03.99 (i) The Govt. of India has purchase preference policy so far as the public sector enterprises are concerned. It is clarified that the ban on the post tender negotiations does not mean that the policy of the Govt. of India for purchase preference for public sector should not be implemented. (ii) Incidentally some organizations have been using the public sector as a shield or a conduit for getting costly inputs or for improper purchases. This also should be avoided. (iii) Another issue that has been raised is that many a time the quantity to be ordered is much more than L-1 alone can supply. In such cases, the quantity order may be distributed in such a manner that the purchase is done in a fair, transparent and equitable manner. (iv) Despite the above instructions, it has been noticed that still repeated negotiations with the select/all the vendors are being carried out by some of the organizations in gross violation of the above instructions. The instructions/guidelines circulated by CVC on post tender negotiations only with L-1 need to be strictly followed. 23. It is the admitted position that the Petitioner in its writ petition nowhere pleaded that the Respondent authority acted with mala fide intention while awarding the supply order in favour of the Respondent No. 4 and it is also the admitted position that the rate of the Respondent No. 4, which was accepted by the Respondent tendering authority at the time of awarding the supply order relating to Edible Oil brand Dhara, is lesser than the rate offered by the Petitioner subsequent to its initial rate for Edible Oil brand, 'Kiran' which was lowest initially. As Mr. Sailo referred to paragraph 94 of Tata Cellular (supra) it would be profitable to reproduce the same. Accordingly, paragraph 94 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: 94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely review the manner in which the decision was made. Accordingly, paragraph 94 of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: 94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely review the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to the 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. (5) The government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles. (Emphasis supplied) 24. Mr. Sailo very rightly pointed our that the Apex court in paragraph 70 of Tata Cellular (supra) noted that there are there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any tender is always available to the government. But the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing the tender. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any tender is always available to the government. But the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing the tender. In the instant case, it appears from the record, particularly minutes of recommendation of the SPAB meeting held on 07.03.2011 (Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit) wherein the SPAB specifically stated that the lowest tenderer for this item is the Petitioner and the brand name of the soyabean refined oil being 'Kiran' not seemed to be a reputed brand and since inferior quality oil can adversely affect the health of the SNP beneficiaries and is harmful to eyes, hear and liver, etc., the department preferred to procure branded and good quality Edible Oil, i.e. Dhara. The relevant portion of the minutes is reproduced herein under as that would be profitable to come to a proper conclusion. "2. Edible Oil: The lowest tenderer for this item is M/S North East Supplier Group, Zarkawt, Aizawl quoting Soyabean Refined Oil @ Rs. 57.85 per litre FOR Aizawl and Rs. 58.95 per litre FOR Lunglei. The Brand name being KIRAN not seemed to be a reputed brand. Since inferior quality Oil can adversely affect the health of the SNP beneficiaries and is harmful to the eyes, hearts and liver, etc., the Department preferred to procure branded and good quality Edible Oil i.e. DHARA. As suggested by the SPAB in its meeting held on 09.12.2010, the lowest tenderer for Edible Oil viz. M/S North East Supplier Group, Zarkawt, Aizawl was asked to submit their o9ffered rates for supply of Dhara Edible Oil (Vegetable) and they submitted their rates accordingly @ Rs. 83.50 per litre FOR Aizawl and Rs. 86.50 per litre FOR Lunglei. In this regard, two (2) complaints have been received from other tenderers for this item viz. M/S LDP Enterprise and M/S Rocilliz Drug and Cosmetic Store. While submitting complaint, M/S Rocilliz Drug and Cosmetic Store, Ramhlun North, Aizawl, the only bidder who quoted Dhara Oil, has revised their quoted rates from Rs. 84.00 per litre to Rs. 82.00 per litre FOR Aizawl and from Rs. 87.00 to Rs. 84.00 per litre FOR Lunglei and also submitted Dealership Certificate. While submitting complaint, M/S Rocilliz Drug and Cosmetic Store, Ramhlun North, Aizawl, the only bidder who quoted Dhara Oil, has revised their quoted rates from Rs. 84.00 per litre to Rs. 82.00 per litre FOR Aizawl and from Rs. 87.00 to Rs. 84.00 per litre FOR Lunglei and also submitted Dealership Certificate. The SPAB advised the Department to ask M/S LDP Enterprise to submit their offered rates alongwith Dealership Certificate for Dhara Oil. Accordingly, the firm was requested to submit the required information immediately but the firm could not produce Dealership Certificate. The Board, therefore, recommended for approval that M/S Rocilliz Drug and Cosmetic Store, Ramhlun North, Aizawl be selected to supply Dhara Vegetable Oil at their revised rate of Rs. 82.00 (Rupees eighty two) only per litre FOR Aizawl and Rs. 84.00 (Rupees eighty four) only per litre FOR Lunglei. 25. So far the contention of Mr. Lallawmpuia, that the Respondent No. 4 initially did not submit his dealership certificate from the manufacturing company as required under Clause v. of the NIT is concerned, it can be said that the said condition is not one of the essential conditions. Rather it was a general condition and it is settled by this time that requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories, -- one which lays down the essential conditions of eligibility and the other which contains merely ancillary or subsidiary with the object to be achieved by the conditions. In the instant case, the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce the essential conditions rigidly. In all other cases, it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not insist upon the strict literal compliance in appropriate cases. [See Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and other (1991)3 SCC 273 and GJ Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka and other, (1990)2 SCC 488 .] 26. In all other cases, it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not insist upon the strict literal compliance in appropriate cases. [See Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and other (1991)3 SCC 273 and GJ Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka and other, (1990)2 SCC 488 .] 26. In view of the decision in Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) and GJ Fernandez (supra) it can be easily said that the condition for furnishing the dealership certificate from the manufacturing company is a general condition and not an essential condition and the Respondent tendering authority being the guardian of the State finance and the protector of the interest of the SNP beneficiaries has the right even to waive the said general condition and also has the right to call the tenderer for negotiations to save the public exchequer but obviously while calling the said tenderer the authority should have called the lowest tenderer like the Petitioner. 27. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the Respondent tendering authority before calling the Respondent No. 4 asked the Petitioner, the lowest tenderer, to submit its rate relating to Edible Oil brand 'Dhara', which is a better brand than 'Kiran', the rate of which was offered by the Petitioner in its initial tender. The Petitioner offered a rate which was higher in side than the rate subsequently offered by the Respondent No. 4. More so, in the court's view there is a distinction between Notice Inviting Tender where a tendering authority mentions a particular specification/brand for the quality of the product/articles and in a case where no such specification/brand is mentioned. In the former case, the bidder/tenderer will not be entitled to supply the product/article according to his own choice unless the same is accepted by the tendering authority but in the later case the tenderer can question the action of the authority for non-compliance, subject to the product for which he quoted the rate is within the specification/brand. In the former case, the bidder/tenderer will not be entitled to supply the product/article according to his own choice unless the same is accepted by the tendering authority but in the later case the tenderer can question the action of the authority for non-compliance, subject to the product for which he quoted the rate is within the specification/brand. Even if, a tenderer quoted rates for a specified brand then also the tendering authority is not bound to accept the tender and award the contract to the said tender/bidder as it would be evident from paragraph 33 of the Patel Engineering Co., (supra) wherein the Apex Court noted that, "We may, however, clarify that the Appellant is not obliged to award contract to any of the bidders at their quoted price bid. It is always open to the Appellant to negotiate with the next lowest bidder for awarding the contract on economically-viable price bid." Therefore, it cannot be said that the Respondent authority acted either wrongly or with a mala fide intention. Rather they tried to protect the public finance as well as the interest of the SNP beneficiaries. More so, when the Respondent No. 4 is a dealer of the Company which manufactures Edible Oil 'Dhara' the ability of the tenderer Respondent No. 4 and the competency of delivering the goods/articles like Dhara Edible Oil cannot also be questioned. 28. It is a settled position of law that awarding of a contract whether it by a private party or by a public body or State is essentially a commercial consideration and in arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations. The authority has to see so many aspects like the price at which the other side is willing to supply the articles and whether the articles offered are of the requisite specification and up to the mark and the person who offered the rate has the ability to deliver the same in time, more so, the public interest. 29. The authority has to see so many aspects like the price at which the other side is willing to supply the articles and whether the articles offered are of the requisite specification and up to the mark and the person who offered the rate has the ability to deliver the same in time, more so, the public interest. 29. A person may become the lowest tenderer but may not be having other experience or if the person who became the lowest tenderer/bidder but acceptance of the tender/bid would not protect the public interest like the SNP beneficiaries herein for whom the authority has invited the tender for supply of Edible Oil, then the tendering authority has the right to award the supply order even in favour of the highest tenderer/bidder but in the instant case, the authority issued the supply order in favour of Respondent No. 4 who admittedly offered lower rate than the Petitioner at the subsequent stage of opening the tender i.e. at the time of negotiation in which both the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 were asked to provide their respective rates. Therefore, according to this Court, the action of the Respondents relating to issuance of supply order, as impugned, does not call for any interference. 30. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. 31. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. No costs. Petition dismissed.