Judgment ABHAY M. NAIK, J. ( 1. ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred mainly for rejection of bid/tender of respondent No. 2 and for consideration of tender of petitioner's firm on merits, without objecting to it's eligibility. ( 2. ) FACTS relevant for the petition are that the petitioner is a private limited company duly registered under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in civil work projects like spinning mills, sugar factories, water supply project, power project, etc. Municipal Council, Sendhwa (respondent No. 1) published a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 2-3-2011 for carrying out the construction of water supply at Sendhwa. Date for submission of tender was fixed on 25-3-2011 and the date for opening of tenders was also the same. Copy of NIT is Annexure P/2. Last date for submission of tenders was extended up to 30-3-2011 (03.00 PM) vide Annexure P/3. However, tenderers participating in the bid were required to submit the documents of fulfilment of eligibility criteria on or before 26th March, 2011. Again last date for submission of documents of fulfilment of eligibility criteria was extended up to 30th March, 2011 vide letter dated 23-3-2011 contained in Annexure P/4 and the last date for submission of tender was also extended up to 7th April, 2011 (03.00 PM). On being submitted requisite documents with respective bids for qualifying the prescribed criteria, four firms were shortlisted by respondent No. 1. There were three kinds of envelop; 1st (Envelop-A) contains earnest money deposit, 2nd (Envelop-B) contains technical bid and 3rd (Envelop-C) contains price bid. Shortlisted all the four firms submitted the requisite documents again along with their bid on 7-4-2011. Tenders were opened on 7-4-2011. Tender of respondent No. 2 has been accepted, despite its ineligibility, though pointed out by the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition. Respondent No. 1 submitted its reply stating therein that Municipal Council, Sendhwa has been facing problem in clean drinking water since last many years, and therefore, the Central Government under Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Middle Town (for short, UIDSSMT) granted one time grant, which was duly sanctioned even by the State Government vide Annexure R/1/1 dated 3-11-2010. Respondent No. 1 submitted its reply stating therein that Municipal Council, Sendhwa has been facing problem in clean drinking water since last many years, and therefore, the Central Government under Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small and Middle Town (for short, UIDSSMT) granted one time grant, which was duly sanctioned even by the State Government vide Annexure R/1/1 dated 3-11-2010. Funds made available under the said scheme are time bound funds and the project approval of tenders and execution of work have to be done under overall supervision of Urban Administration and Development Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh. After sanctioning of sum of Rs. 2141.74 lakhs for the said scheme for drinking water of Sendhwa, respondent No. 1 issued NIT in various national newspapers like Indian Express and Financial Express by incurring huge expenses. On 7-4-2011, four successful bidders submitted their documents with the respective rates, detailed below :- (i) P. C. Snehal Construction Company, Ahmedabad - Rs. 1956 lakhs. (ii) Tapi Prestige Products Ltd. Bhusawal - Rs. 2595 lakhs. (iii) Tejas Construction and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 2298 lakhs. (iv) SMC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Dale Maharashtra - Rs. 2455 lakhs. Respondent No. 1 maintained that respondent No. 2 fulfilled the eligibility criteria and its bid being the lowest, writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as such. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT No. 2 submitted its return stating therein that it fulfilled the eligibility criteria and its tender being the lowest, the writ petition submitted by the petitioner is liable to dismissal. ( 4. ) PETITIONER submitted a rejoinder, elaborating thereby the facts and grounds for rejection of tender submitted by respondent No. 2, which has been countered by the respondents, by way of submission of additional affidavit and documents. Shri S. C. Bagadia, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 and Shri Vijay Assudani, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 made their respective submissions. ( 5. ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 did not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under the NIT. IT has been argued in specific that respondent No. 2 failed to produce certificate for executing the project of water treatment plant, and commissioning of intake well. ( 5. ) IT has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 2 did not fulfil the eligibility criteria prescribed under the NIT. IT has been argued in specific that respondent No. 2 failed to produce certificate for executing the project of water treatment plant, and commissioning of intake well. IT has also failed to submit audited balance sheet of last five years, showing the annual turnover equivalent to estimated cost of work and average net worth equivalent to 40% of the cost of the work. Thirdly and lastly, certificate for executing requisite work submitted by respondent No. 1 was not issued by Executive Engineer or equivalent officer. ( 6. ) LEARNED advocates appearing for respondents reiterated their stand that respondent No. 2 was quite eligible and the objections raised by the petitioner are without any substance. At this juncture, we feel it appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of the NIT, which reads as follows :- "Sealed tenders in 3 envelope system are hereby invited on behalf MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SENDHWA for following works on Form "F" for Lump sum/turnkey job basis incl. Design and survey and same will be received in the Office of MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SENDHWA up to 3.00 PM on 25-3-2011 from the experienced contractors registered in S- V. Class or equivalent category in PHED/WRD/UADD in State/Central Government of PSUs or firms of repute and joint Venture Firms. Tender shall be opened on the same day i.e. on 25-3-2011 at 3:30 PM in the presence of contractors or their authorized representatives. A pre bid meeting will be held on 14-3-2011 at 12:30 PM in the Office of the FRM- undersigned. Tenders received after due date and time shall not be considered._ _1_2_3_4_5 Name of the Work (Package) Probable Earnest Time of Validity amount of Money completion of contract (In Rs.) Tender (In Rs. _Lacs)_ 1. Design, Construction, 2080.67 10,50,000 12 Months 120 Commissioning and performance of including days Intake well 8.00 m dia. and 10.00 m rainy high for drawl of 12.00 MLD raw season water and Raw water pump house of 5.00 m height along with approach bridge. 2. Supply, Installation and Commissioning of (a) Raw water V.T. 2 No. Pumps having discharge 150 1ps, with necessary substation, (b) Horizontal split casing Centrifugal Clear water Pumps 2 No. having discharge 140 1ps. With necessary substation. 3. 2. Supply, Installation and Commissioning of (a) Raw water V.T. 2 No. Pumps having discharge 150 1ps, with necessary substation, (b) Horizontal split casing Centrifugal Clear water Pumps 2 No. having discharge 140 1ps. With necessary substation. 3. Providing Lying, jointing and Commissioning of DI K-9 and DI K-7 class pipe for Raw/Clear water pumping main having 500 and 450 mm diameter having 200m and 2597 m. length. 4. Design, Construction and Commissioning of Treatment Plant of 6.00 MLD and clear water sump well of 100 KL capacity and Clear water pump house. 5. Providing laying jointing and Commissioning of DI K-7 pipe for clear water feeder having diameter 200-300 mm with 5729m. length. 6. (a) Providing, laying, jointing and Commissioning of HDPE PE 100 PN 6 and DI K-7 pipe for distribution line having diameter 110 mm to 355 mm HDPE and 350 mm DI K-7 pipe having total length 45528 m, length, (b) Providing, laying and jointing MDPE PE 80 blue pipe as per ISO 4427 having 20 mm diameter house connection for 11000 person. 7. Design, Construction and Commissioning of 2 No. 18 m staging R.C.C. overhead tank cumulative capacity of 2250 KL. 8. Providing and commissioning for connection of HT Feeder line having length 3 km with complete. Firms and Contractors Participating in the tender shall have to furnish following documents for obtaining the tender documents. 1. Registered Contractor have to produce valid Registration certificate in the category of S-V or equivalent in any State/Central Government Department of Government Undertaking, (a) Registered Contractor/ Firms of Repute/joint venture firms have to produce certificate for executing single work of integrated water supply scheme comprising of intake well Raw/Clear water pumping main pumps OHTs, Distribution system completed and running successfully at present, having value equal to 60% of the cost of the proposed works in last 5 years. This certificate should clearly mention amount of Contract, completion period as per Tender and actual compilation period, (In case WPI adjustment for cost of works the same may be furnished along with a certificate of chartered Accountant). The certificate shall be issued from the officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent, (b) Certified copy of audited balance sheet of last 5 year, showing the annual turnover equal to estimated cost of the work AND average Net worth equal to 40% of the cost of works." ( 7. The certificate shall be issued from the officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent, (b) Certified copy of audited balance sheet of last 5 year, showing the annual turnover equal to estimated cost of the work AND average Net worth equal to 40% of the cost of works." ( 7. ) EMPHASIZING on the terms described in the NIT, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that experience for commissioning of intake well is must and respondent No. 2 having no such experience, its tender ought to have been rejected. Municipal Council, Sendhwa (respondent No. 1) has placed on record the documents submitted by respondent No. 2 along with tenders, which are on record as Annexure R/1/6. Contention of Shri Bagadia, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 has no experience about water treatment plant as well as intake well. He referred to page 64, which is a certificate showing the following work as having been executed by respondent No. 2 :- "Design and Build integrated water supply scheme for Upleta including raw water transmission from intake well and transmission of treated clear water from WTP including providing, supplying and laying pipeline, Construction of E.S.R.s, sumps, pump houses and providing erecting pumping machinery." On the basis of the aforesaid, it has been contended that respondent No. 2 has merely an experience of water transmission from intake well, which means transmission of treated clear water. It has no experience of the water treatment plant. We are not convinced with the arguments for the reason that nature of work has been shown as design and build integrated water supply scheme for Upleta including raw water transmission from intake well. Annexure R/1/6 runs in 22 pages (from page No. 18 to page No. 39 both inclusive). We have perused all the papers. Certificate issued by Gujarat Urban Development Company Limited has clearly certified that respondent No. 2 has carried out work of Rs. Annexure R/1/6 runs in 22 pages (from page No. 18 to page No. 39 both inclusive). We have perused all the papers. Certificate issued by Gujarat Urban Development Company Limited has clearly certified that respondent No. 2 has carried out work of Rs. 13,10,19,189/- (2008-09) under integrated drinking water supply scheme for Vyara-Songadh, which contains various components such as providing and laying of DI, PVC and HDPE Pipeline underground tanks, overhead tanks, intake well, connecting bridges, water treatment plants etc, Another certificate is also there on record about having completed the work by respondent No. 2 of various components of integrated drinking water supply schemes like underground tanks, overhead tanks, intake well, connecting bridges, water treatment plants, etc. ( 8. ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that intake well and water treatment plants in the projects were provided to respondent No. 2 by some one else. Looking to the nature of projects, intake well and water treatment plants are liable to be constructed and commissioned. Since respondent No. 2 has been certifies to have completed all such works, we hold that the documents submitted were also in respect of water treatment plants as well as intake wells. Further contention of Shri Bagadia, learned senior advocate is that NIT was issued on 23-2-2011 and respondent No. 2 was required to submit certified copy of audited balance sheet of last five years i.e. from 2005-06 to 2009-10. It has been countered by Shri G. M. Chaphekar, learned senior advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 by saying that the last date for submission of tender was extended up to 7th April, 2011 and thus, Municipal Council, Sendhwa has not committed any error in considering the financial status of respondent No. 2 up to the year 2010-11. This has been further objected to on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that audited balance sheet of the year 2010-11 was not submitted by respondent No. 2, therefore, its tender ought to have been rejected, being in violation of the NIT. ( 9. ) IT is an admitted position that although the last date for tender was initially fixed up to 25th March, 2011, but the same was lastly extended up to 7th April, 2011. ( 9. ) IT is an admitted position that although the last date for tender was initially fixed up to 25th March, 2011, but the same was lastly extended up to 7th April, 2011. Taking the same into consideration, we do not find that respondent No. 1 has committed any error in taking into consideration the financial status of respondent No. 2 from the year 2006-07 to 2010-11. As regards audited balance sheet, it has not been disputed that respondent No. 2 submitted audited balance sheets for years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10. Respondent No. 2 has further submitted certificate issued by its Chartered Accountant in respect of period from 1-4-2010 to 22-3-2011. Certificate is at page 66, which has been issued on the basis of audited books, documents, registers, records, bills and evidences produced before it for verification. Certificate is dated 23-3-2011. IT has been pointed out by Shri Vijay Assudani, learned advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 that by that time, the financial year 2010-11 was not complete and it was not possible to obtain certified copy of the audited balance sheet. IT could not be disputed on behalf of the petitioner that the turnover as shown in the certificate of Chartered Accountant and other documents for last five years, was meeting the requirement as per the NIT. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the particulars and the figures mentioned in the certificate are incorrect. Petitioner, by virtue of sections 159 and 163 of the Companies Act, could have obtained certified copy of balance sheets of respondent No. 2 to demonstrate incorrectness, if any. The petitioner, having not chosen to place any such documents on record, cannot successfully raise any objection, when there is substantial compliance of the NIT in relation to turnover. ( 10. ) LASTLY, it has been contended that the certificate of experience submitted by respondent No. 2 is not issued by the Executive Engineer, but is signed by the Junior Engineer. Therefore, tender document of respondent No. 2 ought to have been rejected. Shri Chaphekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 drew attention of this Court to the completion of experience certificate which is signed by the Junior Engineer, Nagarpalika, Upleta as well as by the Chief Officer of Nagarpalika, Upleta. Therefore, tender document of respondent No. 2 ought to have been rejected. Shri Chaphekar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 drew attention of this Court to the completion of experience certificate which is signed by the Junior Engineer, Nagarpalika, Upleta as well as by the Chief Officer of Nagarpalika, Upleta. His contention is that the post of Chief Officer is the highest administrative post at the level of Nagarpalika, and therefore, he is empowered to issue certificate. Shri Assudani, learned advocate for respondent No. 2 drew attention of this Court to Annexure MA/1, a certificate issued by Gujarat Urban Development Mission whereby it is certified by the General Manager (Technical) that the Chief Officer is empowered to issue experience certificate in proforma 3A, as the Chief Officer is the highest authority of Nagarpalika. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that the post of Chief Officer of Nagarpalika, Upleta was lower in rank than the Executive Engineer. No such material has been placed before this Court to substantiate the objection. Thus, this objection is not liable to be accepted. ( 11. ) IN the light of the aforesaid discussion, we may now consider the legal implications arising from the aforesaid. ( 12. ) VIDE NIT in question, tenders were invited from the experiences contractors. This experience was obviously meant to be in respect of nature and magnitude of work as well as financial potential of executing agency. In order to ensure the same, registered contractors were required to produce valid registration certificate in the category of S-V or equivalent in any State or Central Government Department. They were further required to produce certificate for executing single work of integrated water supply scheme comprising of intake well, raw/clear water pumping main pumps, OHTs, distribution system completed and running successfully at present having equal to 60% of the cost of proposed work in last five years. Certificate was further required to contain clearly amount of contract, completion period as per tender and actual completion period. Certificate was required to be issued by the Officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent. Certificate was further required to contain clearly amount of contract, completion period as per tender and actual completion period. Certificate was required to be issued by the Officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent. Further, certified copy of the audited balance sheet of last five years showing the annual turnover equal to estimated cost of the work and average net worth equal to 40% of the cost of work was also required to be submitted by the tenderer. Object and purpose of the above said requirements is to ensure the working potential as well as financial potential. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 obtained tender documents, after furnishing the documents pursuant to Clause 1 of the NIT. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that experience with regard to intake well and water treatment plant was not available with respondent No. 2. This has already been found incorrect in the preceding paragraphs. Shri Bagadia, learned senior advocate contended that the certificate furnished by respondent No. 2 was signed by the Junior Engineer and the same being in contravention of NIT, tender of respondent No. 2 ought to have been rejected. ( 13. ) WE have already discussed above that certificate is simultaneously signed also by the Chief Officer of the Municipality, Upleta, who is the highest officer in the Municipality. Respondent No. 2 has submitted a certificate issued by Gujarat Urban Development Mission whereby General Manger (Technical) has certified that the Chief Officer is the highest authority in the Nagarpalika, empowered to issue certificate in proforma 3A. It is not the case of the petitioner that the certificate is factually incorrect. He is merely challenging the certificate on the ground that the same has not been issued by the Executive Engineer. In the NIT, it is clearly mentioned that the certificate can be issued by the officer not below the rank of Executive Engineer or equivalent authority. Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner is unable to demonstrate that the Chief Officer of the Municipality is not equivalent to Executive Engineer for the purpose of NIT. In this view of the matter, contention of the petitioner in respect of alleged incompetence with reference to experience certificate is liable to be rejected and hence rejected. ( 14. In this view of the matter, contention of the petitioner in respect of alleged incompetence with reference to experience certificate is liable to be rejected and hence rejected. ( 14. ) ACCORDING to the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, terms and conditions contained in the NIT are to be strictly adhered to. Reliance has been placed for this purpose on decisions in the cases of W. B. State Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. and others, (2001) 2 SCC 451 , Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others, (2000) 5 SCC 287 and Shri Harminder Singh Arora vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 1527 . In the case of Patel Engineering Company (supra), it has been observed to the effect that in a work of particular nature and magnitude where, bidders who fulfil pre-qualification alone are invited to bid, adherence to the conditions of NIT cannot be given a go-by by branding it as a pedantic approach, otherwise it will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favourtism, which are totally opposed to the rule of law and the constitutional values. The very purpose of issuing rules/instructions in the NIT is to ensure their enforcement lest the rule of law should be a casualty. Relaxation or waiver of a rule or condition, unless so provided under the NIT in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness and provide room for manipulation to suit the whims in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts as in the case of distributing bounty or charity. Such an approach should always be avoided, as observed by the Apex Court. It has further been observed that where power to relax or waive a rule or a condition exists under the rules, it has to be done strictly in compliance with the rules. Therefore, adherence to the terms and conditions of NIT is the best principle to be followed, which is also in the best public interest. In the case of Patel Engineering Company (supra), High Court of Calcutta had directed to permit the bidder to correct the unit rate in the bid documents and to consider the bid after correction along with other bids. In the case of Patel Engineering Company (supra), High Court of Calcutta had directed to permit the bidder to correct the unit rate in the bid documents and to consider the bid after correction along with other bids. This was set aside by the Apex Court, holding it to be beyond the purview of judicial review. In the case in hand, no such correction has been permitted to respondent No. 2 by respondent No. 1, therefore, the petitioner does not get any benefit from the decision of Patel Engineering case. ( 15. ) IN the case of Monarch Infrastructure (supra) one of the conditions of eligibility was deleted, after expiry of time limit for submission of tenders and the contract was awarded to a tenderer, who at the time of submission of tender did not satisfy the said condition. This was set aside by the Bombay High Court as arbitrary and the same was upheld by the Apex Court. IN the case of Harmindar Singh Arora (supra), acceptance of tender ignoring the lowest one was held to be illegal. ( 16. ) IT is true that terms and conditions contained in NIT cannot be relaxed in principles. However, they are to be construed in a meaningful manner. Object and purpose liable to be achieved by such conditions is always to be kept in mind. If the object and purpose is achieved by substantial compliance of terms and conditions of the NIT, little deviation merely here or there, will not vitiate neither the tender nor tender process. Here we may profitably quote the following principles deduced by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 :- (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews 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 tender is in the realm of contract. 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 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 un-budgeted expenditure. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not accused respondent No. 1 of mala fides or favouritism. Contention of the petitioner that turnover of the year 2010-11 could not have been considered is also not liable accepted because last date for submission of tender was extended up to 7th April, 2011. Moreover, there is copy of a letter dated 2-4-2011 (Annexure R/1/5 at page 51) on record issued by respondent No. 1, requiring thereby one of the tenderers to furnish details of turnover and net worth of the year 2010-11 on the basis of audited balance sheet. Respondent No. 2 furnished certificate on the basis of audited balance sheet which was received on 23-3-2011 (page 66). Audit for the year 2010-11 was not completed by that time. However, certificate was issued on the basis of the audit books, documents, register, records, bills and evidences produced before the Chartered Accountant for verification. This amounts to substantial compliance of the reference in regard to submission of certified copy of balance sheet, more so the petitioner himself could have obtained copies of audited balance sheet of respondent No. 2 and could have demonstrated incorrectness. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said certificate depicts incorrect turnover or net worth. This amounts to substantial compliance of the reference in regard to submission of certified copy of balance sheet, more so the petitioner himself could have obtained copies of audited balance sheet of respondent No. 2 and could have demonstrated incorrectness. It is not the case of the petitioner that the said certificate depicts incorrect turnover or net worth. This being so, the process adopted by respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. Apex Court in the case of Siemons Public Communication Pvt. Ltd. and anr. vs. Union of India and ors., AIR 2009 SC 1204 has observed that Court, before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of powers of judicial review, should pose to test the following question :- (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone? Equally, it has been observed, as follows :- "32. The matter can be looked at from a different angle. As noted in the case of Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. (supra) at para 77, if two views are possible and no mala fides or arbitrariness is alleged or shown, there is no scope for interference with the view taken by the authorities in inviting tenders. 34. On examining the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that none of the criteria has been satisfied justifying Court's interference in the grant of contract in favour of the appellants. When the power of judicial review is invoked in the matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features have to be considered. A contract is a commercial transaction and evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. In such cases principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contracts is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts will not exercise the power of judicial review and interfere even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that there is a procedural lacuna." ( 17. ) IT has also been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. and another, (2005) 6 SCC 138 :- "14. ) IT has also been observed by the Apex Court in the case of Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. vs. Metcalfe and Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. and another, (2005) 6 SCC 138 :- "14. In Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., (1999) 1 SCC 492 it was observed that the award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations, which would include, inter alia the price at which the party is willing to work, whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications and whether the person tendering is of the ability to deliver the goods or services as per specifications. 15. The law relating to award of contract by the State and public sector corporations was reviewed in Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 and it was held that the award of a contract, whether by a private party or by a State, is essentially a commercial transaction. IT can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. IT was further held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in- the decision-making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary powers under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should interfere." ( 18. ) AFTER considering various authorities on the point, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and another (2000) 2 SCC 617 :- "The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. 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. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review." Examining the case in hand on the aforesaid parameters, we observe that the alleged defects pointed out by the petitioner in the decision making process in respect of the tender in question are inconsequential and interference in the tender process is not in furtherance of public interest, since the issue relates to getting over the problems of scarcity of drinking water and tender process is not found to have been vitiated due to mala fides, unreasonable or arbitrariness. Larger public interest prevents this Court from interfering into the tender process of the case in hand in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In the result, petition fails and is hereby dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.