Judgment :- These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue A Writ of Mandamus or any order appropriate writ or order to the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate and submit the application for the enrollment in registration as registered suppliers of turdal to the R2 the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited to the Tender Reference Dtd.22.03.11 copy at Annex-A & B the request for proposal for the enrolment of supplies for the supply of turdal under the Aksharadasoha Scheme Through Nocex Spot Exchange Ltd. The petitioners have practically sought for quashing Condition No.2 imposed in the Tender Notification dated 22-03-2011 issued by the Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited for supply of Tur Dal under Akshara Dasoha Scheme. 2. Condition No.2 requires that the persons having own/leased Dal Mill with certain facilities are eligible to apply for registration as supplier with KFCSC Ltd,; the Dal Mill should have a minimum capacity of processing 20 MTs of Tur per day; the Dal Mill should have adequate secured storage facility to store minimum 400 quintals of Tur Dal. Other conditions are also imposed. 3. The petitioners are the traders. They are not the Millers. They are neither owning Dal Mill nor having lease of Dal Mills. In the earlier years, similar tenders were invited by the respondents for supply of Tur Dal. There was no embargo on the Traders to participate in the Tender, in as much as, such a condition as is found in the present notification was not imposed by the respondents. For the first time, such a condition is imposed restricting supply by the Dal Millers. According to the petitioners, their livelihood is taken away by such process. 4. The writ petition is opposed by respondents by interalia contending that the State and the Corporation needs 31,700 Quintals of Tur Dal per month for supplying the same to the Schools under Akshara Dasoha Scheme. The Tur Dal is needed on day to day basis and as the traders were middle men, the State was suffering to a large extent as the required quantity and quality of Dal was not being supplied for earlier years. Added to it, by imposing the impugned condition, the State will be saving about Rs.20 to 25 Crores, which would be made use for other beneficial purposes. 5. Added to it, by imposing the impugned condition, the State will be saving about Rs.20 to 25 Crores, which would be made use for other beneficial purposes. 5. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned condition. It is for the experts in the field to impose conditions in the Tender notification. The Respondent No.2 – The Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, is an agency of the State Government for procuring the food items including the Tur Dal. The Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited has issued a Tender Notification for enrolment of suppliers for supply of Tur Dal under Akshara Dasoha Scheme. To overcome the difficulties, that must have been suffered by the State at an earlier point of time, the conditions are imposed in the said notification requiring the Dal Mill owners or the persons having leased Dal Mill with certain facilities are eligible to apply for registration as supplier with KFCSC Ltd. The very notification reveals that adequate secured storage facility to store minimum 400 quintals of Tur Dal is required by the registered Dal Mill owners. It is also mentioned that the Dal Mill should have a minimum capacity of processing 20 MTs of Tur per day. These conditions clearly reveal that the State Government is serious in supplying quality Tur Dal to the Schools under Akshara Dasoha Scheme on day to day basis and by the said process, incidentally, the State would be saving Rs.20 to 25 Crores. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority in such matters to come to a different conclusion. 6. It is by now well settled that in contracts having commercial element, some discretion has to be conceded to the authorities, so that they may enter into contracts with persons, keeping an eye on the public interest and augmentation of the revenue. But even in such matters they have to follow the norms recognized by Courts. It is not possible for Courts to question and adjudicate every decision taken by an Authority, because many of the Government Undertakings which in due course have acquired the monopolist position in matters of sale and purchase of products and with so many ventures in hand, can come out with a plea that it is not always possible to act like a quasi-judicial authority while awarding contracts. Under some special circumstances, a discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess the overall situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. If the decisions have been taken in bonafide manner although not strictly following the norms laid down by the Courts, such decisions are upheld on the principle that Courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of ‘play in the joints’ to the executive (see 1994 (6) SCC 65) and 2004 (4) SCC 19 ). 7. The tender conditions in the context of contract in question cannot be said to be unjustified. Whenever, there are different alternatives, it is not for the Courts to suggest that a particular alternative is justified. The Courts will not strike down the terms of tender prescribed by the authority because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fairer, wiser or more logical. Similarly, Courts will not say that the terms of earlier tender notifications will serve the objectives better. The Court will interfere only if the new terms and arbitrary, discriminatory or activated by malice. Since the experts in the field have decided to impose such a condition and as the impugned condition cannot be said to be irrelevant, harsh and shocks the judicial conscience, the same need not be interfered with. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned notification. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.