JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the work order issued in favour of the respondent No. 3 in respect of the Enquiry-Cum-Offer No. RGRM 104059/1701736 dated 01.02.2011, pertaining to supply of Alum Ferric to the official respondents. According to the petitioner, which is a registered Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, they are manufacturer of various items including Ammonium Alum, Ferric, Non-ferric etc. Responding to the enquiry-cum-offer dated 01.02.2011, floated by the respondent No. 1 i.e. the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., for supply of 600 Mt. of Alum Ferric, the petitioner along with the other participants quoted their prices and submitted the offer/bid along with the necessary documents. 2. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated thus :- ..........It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners company had a policy that whoever place order/purchase 600 metric tone of Alum Ferric used to get Rs. 300/- discount on the price and their further quoted price will be Rs. 300/- lesser, however, this has no relevancy for the instant tender/offer.......... 3. In the same paragraph, the petitioner has stated that in pursuance to the said enquiry-cum-offer, they quoted their price @ Rs. 8,302.34 which includes Excise Duty, Education Cess, VAT and Freight charges. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 having quoted its price @ Rs. 8,508.84, as against the petitioners quoted rate of Rs. 8,302.34, the work should have been allotted to them instead of the respondent No. 3. 5. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated about issuance of the work order in the last part of May, 2011 in favour of the respondent No. 3. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition also, the petitioner has stated about the issuance of the work order in the last part of May, 2011 in favour of the respondent No. 3. 6. It is on the above ground, the writ petition was filed after 2 (two) months of the work order and to be precise, on 27.7.2011. By an interim order dated 29.9.2011, it was provided that till the returnable date, which was fixed as 4.11.2011, the respondents No. 1 & 2, should not accept any supply from the respondent No. 3. It is on the above ground, the writ petition was filed after 2 (two) months of the work order and to be precise, on 27.7.2011. By an interim order dated 29.9.2011, it was provided that till the returnable date, which was fixed as 4.11.2011, the respondents No. 1 & 2, should not accept any supply from the respondent No. 3. Against the said interim order, the respondent IOCL, preferred the Writ Appeal being WA 308/2011, entertaining which, the Division Bench while declining to interfere with the interim order, observed that since the matter was under consideration of the learned Single Judge, no order was required to be passed in the writ appeal at that stage. However, the matter was fixed for further hearing on 14.11.2011. It is submitted at the bar that the appeal has been further deferred facilitating decision by this Court. 7. The matter was first heard on 4.11.2011 and the learned counsel for the parties advanced their elaborate arguments. As the hearing remained inconclusive, further hearing was fixed on 21.11.2011, on which date also the learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments. They have also made their further submissions today. 8. While Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that because of the higher bid value offered by the respondent No. 3, the IOCL ought not to have accepted its bid and instead ought to have accepted the bid offered by the petitioner with a lower rate. During the course of argument, he has also referred to the calculation made by the petitioner in a separate sheet to show that the bid offered by the petitioner is lower than that of the respondent No. 3. 9. Countering the above arguments of Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, both Mr. N. Deka and Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsels representing the official and private respondents respectively, have submitted that the calculation shown by the petitioner being not founded on the reflection made in the tender documents submitted by the parties is not acceptable. Emphasizing on the scope of interference of the writ Court in the matter of awarding of contract in absence of any arbitrary exercise of power, both the learned counsel submitted that the writ petition is misconceived. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also considered the entire materials on record. Emphasizing on the scope of interference of the writ Court in the matter of awarding of contract in absence of any arbitrary exercise of power, both the learned counsel submitted that the writ petition is misconceived. 10. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also considered the entire materials on record. During the course of hearing of the matter when the learned counsel for the parties were apprised of that on adjudication of the interim prayer, nothing might survive in the writ petition as the same would touch the respective merits of the parties, they agreed for final disposal of the writ petition. 11. As to what is the contention raised in the writ petition has been noted above. However, the petitioner has developed his case by way of projection touching the expertise of the tender committee taking note of merits and demerits of the offers made by the parties, in his rejoinder affidavit, to which the respondent IOCL has also filed an additional affidavit. 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the IOC Ltd., it has been stated that the price shown to have been quoted by the petitioner, which is Rs. 8,302.34, does not tally with the price bid actually submitted by the petitioner (Annexure-7 to the writ petition). It has been stated that as per the price bid of the petitioner, the total amount quoted comes to Rs. 9,323.34 as detailed below :- Basic price per metric Ton 7000.00 Central Excise(CE) 10% of Basic Price 700.00 Education Cess 2% of Central Excise 14.00 Education Cess 1% of Central Excise 7.00 VAT 13.5% of Basic+ Central Excise + Education Cess + Higher Education Cess 1042.34 Freight Charges 8% of Basic price 560.00 Total 9323.34 13. The respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that the enquiry-cum-offer was not a formal two bids tender. The first bid was a techno commercial bid and not merely a technical bid wherein the bidder was required to give the details of its price bid without actually quoting the price. The petitioner had unilaterally added its own condition that if 100% work is allotted then they would be offering a discount @ 300/- per Mt on the freight charges. The petitioner had unilaterally added its own condition that if 100% work is allotted then they would be offering a discount @ 300/- per Mt on the freight charges. It has further been stated that there is no indication in the techno commercial bid regarding any discount in the freight charges of the price bid. It has also been stated that if the aforesaid discount is taken into consideration, the offered price would come down to Rs. 9,023.34. On the other hand, the price quoted by the respondent No. 3 is as under :- Basic Price per metric Ton 5100.00 Packing and Forwarding per metric Ton 40.00 Central Excise Exempted CST 2% 102.80 Freight Charges 3100.00 Total 8432.80 14. The respondents have indicated in their counter affidavit as to how on the basis of the aforesaid offered prices of the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 and another party, further calculations were made to work out the actual cost of the entire work and while doing so, factors like insurance, Assam Entry Tax, had to be added to the offered prices. On the basis of such calculation, the respondents have shown the price difference between the parties as Rs. 1,84,417/-without considering the conditional discount offered by the petitioner. 15. On the basis of the detailed evaluation of the bids of all the parties, the official respondents found the respondent No. 3's bid to be the lowest without any ambiguity and accordingly the work order was issued to it vide order dated 3.6.2011, it is the stand of the respondents that after issuance of such work order, sufficient progress was made in the work, till the interim order was passed by this Court on 29.9.2011. 16. The respondents in their counter affidavit have emphasized the requirement of submitting bids without imposing any condition of their own, without any ambiguity and the techno commercial bid and price bids are to be identical in all aspects. As the discount offered by the petitioner was a conditional one, the decision was taken by the Tender Committee not to accept such a conditional offer of discount on the ground that in the event there is a reduction in the scope of supply for any reason whatsoever, then such discount will not be applicable and the petitioner might claim at the enhanced (un-discounted) rate. It was in that view of the matter, the tender evaluation Committee which included Officers from Materials and Finance Department was of the opinion that the discount offered by the petitioner was not acceptable, firstly because the same was nowhere indicated in the techno commercial bid and secondly as noted above, in case of any reduction in the scope of work after award of the contract, the discount would not be applicable and as such, the same could not be taken into consideration. 17. The respondents have further highlighted the above aspect of the matter, which was considered by the tender committee, which is in case of reduction in the scope of supply for any reason, whatsoever, the discount offered by the petitioner would not be applicable. For example, if the material supplied are of poor quality or the bidder violates any of the terms and conditions of the tender and consequently the work is terminated midway, then the discount will not be effective making the respondents liable to pay at the enhanced (undiscounted) rate. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that all these factors weighed the mind of the tender committee, which cannot be said to be arbitrary and or un-reasonable. 18. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, they have reiterated their aforesaid stand in the writ petition. While doing so, they have given their own calculation to show that the bid offered by the petitioner is lower than that of the respondent No. 3. While making the said calculation, the petitioner has emphasized on the Govt. Purchase Enlistment Certificate issued by the National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (A Govt. of India Enterprise). 19. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 3 does not have any such registration and in the event of production of any such certificate, the case of the petitioner will fall through. However, when Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 instantaneously produced the registration certificate, about which there is mention in the additional affidavit filed by the respondents, Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such certificate although may be decisive in the matter of 15% price preference as per NSIC but the petitioner will still have its stack in the matter. 20. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such certificate although may be decisive in the matter of 15% price preference as per NSIC but the petitioner will still have its stack in the matter. 20. Although, the petitioner has stated about his quoted rate of Rs. 8,302.34 per Mt. but nowhere in the writ petition, the petitioner has explained as to how the aforesaid figure has been arrived at. Respondents have categorically denied of not taking into consideration the CENVAT benefit resulting in deprivation of the petitioner. On verification of the tender columns, what is found is that the technical bid and price bid should be identical in all respects and the price bid would stack only the price. Further the bidder was required to offer firm freight charges and no bidder was permitted to offer flexible freight charges. 21. The detailed calculation based on which the work order was awarded to the respondent No. 3 vis-a-vis the petitioner, as indicated in the additional affidavit filed by the official respondent, is reproduced below:- Assent Chemicals Gautam Udyog Basic (per MT) 7000.00 5100.00 P&F 0.00 40.00 ED 10.30% 721.00 0.00 Sub Total-1 7721.00 5140.00 VAT/CST 13.50% 1042.34 102.80 (2%) Sub Total-2 8763.34 5242.80 Freight 8% 560.00 3100.00 Sub Total-3 9323.34 8342.80 Insurance 0.50% 46.62 41.71 Sub Total 4 9369.95 8384.51 Entry Tax 2% 187.40 167.69 Total 9557.35 8552.20 Cenvat amount 96.78% 697.78 0.00 Net of cenvat 8859.57 8552.20 Total 600 MT 5734410.42 5131332.56 Net of Cenvat 5315740.14 5131322.56 22. As noted above, the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 are both registered under NSIC and accordingly any benefits on this count shall be applicable to both, and therefore, it will not affect the cost calculation for evaluation purpose and the assertion made by the petitioner that it alone is entitled to price preference of 15%, is not correct. Further, the petitioner under Clause-7 of the agreed terms and conditions, has mentioned that "No transit insurance is required by IOCL as we have own insurance policy" but contrary to this, an enquiry-cum-offer under the head of Transit Insurance, the petitioner mentioned "Includes (IOCL Scope)". Clause-7 of the agreed terms and conditions clearly states that "Transit insurance will be arranged by IOCL. Confirmed transit insurance is excluded from the quoted price." 23. During the course of hearing, Mr. Clause-7 of the agreed terms and conditions clearly states that "Transit insurance will be arranged by IOCL. Confirmed transit insurance is excluded from the quoted price." 23. During the course of hearing, Mr. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner in reference to the notes in the relevant file involving the decision making process of the tender Committee referred to the particular note furnished by the Sr. Manager, which reads as follows :- The discount as mentioned in price bid of M/s. Assent Chemicals, which is not impact on commercial evaluation of tenders. Here there is no condition of split orders in the tenders. Hence, discount has to be considered. Once again, finance may please check priced C/S. 24. The above note was dealt with by the Chief Finance Manager, preceded by the Deputy General Manager, as follows :- Suo-moto discount offered by vendor after Price Bid opening is also to be ignored while making Comparative statement. (1) Since the party has accepted for part order, his discount on full quantity seems to be conditional. (2) The matter is not split tender. If supply is not required during the currency of the contract, the discount may not be extended by the party since it seems to be conditional. 25. It will have to be borne in mind that though the principle of judicial review cannot be denied so far as exercise of contractual powers of Govt. bids are concerned, but it is entitled to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism and its exercise in the larger public interest or if the power is exercised for any co-lateral purpose. It is not within the permissible limits of interference for a Court, particularly when their has been no allegation of malice or ulterior motive and particularly when the Court has not found any mala fides or favouritism in the grant of contract in favour of the successful bidder (in this case, the respondent No. 3). 26. It is not within the permissible limits of interference for a Court, particularly when their has been no allegation of malice or ulterior motive and particularly when the Court has not found any mala fides or favouritism in the grant of contract in favour of the successful bidder (in this case, the respondent No. 3). 26. As has been held by the Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, before entering any tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, the following questions are required to be kept in mind :- (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; Or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. 27. If the answers to the above are in the negative, there cannot be any interference under Article226 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case, nothing could be shown by the petitioner that the decision making process to arrive at the decision to award the contract to the respondent No. 3 is founded on mala fide or arbitrary exercise of power. It is not for the Court to go to the arithmetical or mathematical precession as sought to be projected by the petitioner for getting the work order cancelled AND upon cancellation of the same, to issue the same in favour of the respondent No. 3. 28. It is settled law by a series of decisions of the Apex Court that violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of awarding of contract will have to be established in the touch stone of arbitrariness, unfairness or un-reasonableness or in the breach of obligations under public law. In the instant case, nothing of this sort could be projected by the petitioner. 29. In BECIL v. Arraycom India Ltd. & Ors. In the instant case, nothing of this sort could be projected by the petitioner. 29. In BECIL v. Arraycom India Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 139 , the Apex Court under somewhat similar circumstances and dealing with the scope of judicial review in the matter of awarding of contract, held that the awarding of the contract being on the basis of reasonable and possible interpretation, the High Court should not have intervened. As in the instant case, in the said case also, the respondents were at fault for giving ambiguous proposal. The authority dealing with the matter having taken a reasonable and possible interpretation, the Apex Court held that the High Court should not have interfered in the matter. Needless to say that in administrative matters, scope of judicial review is limited and the same will have to be exercised with judicial restraint as held by the Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 . 30. In the instant case, except the kind of interpretation sought to be projected by the petitioner, so as to contend that on a careful consideration of the matter, its bid value was much more attractive than the respondent No. 3, nothing else has been projected towards assailing the decision making process of the respondents. There is no allegation of any arbitrariness and/or mala fide excise of power. The manner and method in which the respondents have dealt with the matter and their projection of the case towards acceptance of the bid offered by the respondent No. 3 being reasonable, plausible and being based on possible interpretation, this Court will be reluctant to interfere with the impugned decision. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly it is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Consequently, the interim order passed on 29.9.2011, stands vacated.