JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. WP (C) No. 3065/2009, WP (C) No. 1709/2010, WP (C) No. 4153/2010 and WP (C) No. 550/2011 have been filed by Jayanta Kumar Bhattacharjee and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 has been filed by M/S East India Enterprise, represented by its sole proprietor, Md. Abdul Goni. The petitioner, Jayanta Kumar Bhattacharjee is a Class 1 C Contractor with the Assam Agricultural University and is also registered as a Class III Contractor in Assam Public Works Department (Roads). He has executed contract works in the year 1995 relating to digging of trenches for laying of optical fibre cable with Government of India, Department of Tele-communication, which has since been re-organized as a Government of India Enterprise under the name and style of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). For the last 10 years, he could not participate in tenders for similar nature of works due to his personal problems. 2. The petitioner, Abdul Goni is a 1st Class A Contractor under the Government of India, N.F. Railway and has executed works under various Government departments including B.S.N.L. in respect of trench laying, jointing and termination of 6-Quad cable and provision of telephone connection, provision of OFC and 4-Quad cable involving trenching, laying, jointing and their termination etc. 3. On 25.5.2009, the Respondent No. 4 had issued a notice inviting tender on behalf of the BSNL from the contractors registered with BSNL/State PWD/CPWD and Railways having experience of trenching and laying of O.F. Cable in BSNL for last three years for digging of trenches for laying of PLV/OH Pipes at specified depth and reinstatement of the same after laying, jointing of the protection pipes and pulling of Optical Fibre Cable through the pipes for 1) Guwahati-Hajo-Rampur-Barpeta Town - Barpeta Road and 2) Barengapara-Mahendraganj OFC Schemes, for 18 and 13 sub-sections, respectively. 4. WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 were filed praying for setting aside the said notice inviting tender dated 25.5.2009 and to adjudge and declare the clause "having experience of trenching and laying of O.F. Cable in BSNL for last three years" as illegal, unconstitutional and null and void. 5. 4. WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 were filed praying for setting aside the said notice inviting tender dated 25.5.2009 and to adjudge and declare the clause "having experience of trenching and laying of O.F. Cable in BSNL for last three years" as illegal, unconstitutional and null and void. 5. WP (C) No. 1709/2010 has been filed praying for setting aside and quashing a notice inviting tender dated 23.2.2010 issued by the Respondent No. 4 inviting tenders from contractors registered with BSNL/State PWD/CPWD/Railways and other Government organizations having experience of trenching and O.F. Cable laying works in BSNL/MTNL or other Central/State Government organizations including PSUs in the last three years for the work of trenching and laying of Optical Fibre Cable in the 1) Guwahati-Hajo-Rampur-Barpeta Town-Barpeta Road and 2) Barengapara-Mahendraganj O.F.C. routes, for 18 and 13 sub-sections, respectively, and for adjudging and declaring "having experience of trenching and O.F. Cable laying works in BSNL/MTNL or other Central/State Government organizations including PSUs in the last three years" as illegal, unconstitutional and null and void. 6. WP (C) No. 4153/2010 has been filed praying for setting aside and quashing a notice inviting tender dated 30.6.2010 issued by the Respondent No. 4 inviting tenders from contractors registered with BSNL/MTNL/DOT/Central Government/State Government/PSUs having experience of Optical Fibre Cable laying works in BSNL/MTNL/DOT/Central Government/State Government/PSUs in the last three years for the work of trenching and laying Optical Fibre Cable in the OFC schemes under USO Project, Kamrup SSA for Rangia RSU-Rangia Telephone Exchange, Goreswar Telephone Exchange-Kaurbaha BTS, Goroimari-Chamaria, Chaygaon-Aggumi-Arganda-Goroimari and to adjudge and declare the clause "having experience for optical fibre cable laying works in BSNL/MTNL/DOT/Central Government/State Government/PSUs in the last three years" as illegal and unconstitutional. 7. 7. WP (C) No. 550/2011 has been filed praying for setting aside and quashing a notice inviting tender dated 17.1.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 4 inviting tenders from the contractors registered with BSNL/MTNL/DOT/Central Government/State Government/PSU having experience of optical fibre cable laying works in BSNL/MTNL/DOT/Central Government/State Government/PSUs for an amount at least 30% of the estimated cost of the concerned sub-section in a single complete work in the last three years ending 31st March of last financial year, for digging of trenches/Micro tunneling for laying of PLB/GI Pipes at specified depth and re-instatement of the same after laying, jointing of the protection pipes and pulling of optical fibre cable through the pipes for the OFC schemes as indicated therein and for adjudging the clause 'having experience for optical fibre cable laying works in BSNL/MTNL/DOT/Central Government/State Government/PSUs for an amount at least 30% of the estimated cost of the concerned sub-section in a single complete work in the last three years ending 31st March of last financial year" as illegal and unconstitutional, with a prayer for a direction to the BSNL authorities to issue a fresh NIT after omitting the impugned clause. 8. While WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 were taken up for consideration, a submission was advanced by the counsel representing BSNL authorities that there was a re-thinking with regard to the requirement of stipulation of having experience of three years in BSNL as appearing in the NIT Dated 25.5.09 and a corrigendum was suggested to the effect: "The contractors should have experience of trenching and O.F. Cable link in BSNL or other reputed organizations" and the said suggested corrigendum had been accepted by the approving authority as evidenced by a communication dated 17.6.09. Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of by an order dated 28.1.2010 by directing the BSNL authorities to issue a fresh tender by incorporating the suggestion regarding experience as indicated in the communication dated 5.6.09. 9. The aforesaid orders dated 28.1.2010 passed in WP (C)No. 3065/2009 and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 were challenged by one Dhrubajyoti Borgohain and Dhanjit Kumar Pathak in Writ Appeal No. 55/2010 and Writ Appeal No. 56/2010. The aforesaid two appellants were not parties in the writ petitions but were tenderers in response to the NIT dated 25.5.2009, whose interest was adversely affected by the order dated 28.1.2010. 10. The aforesaid two appellants were not parties in the writ petitions but were tenderers in response to the NIT dated 25.5.2009, whose interest was adversely affected by the order dated 28.1.2010. 10. On 23.2.2010, NIT dated 23.2.2010, which is the subject matter in WP (C) No. 1709/2010 was issued for the same work as was covered by the NIT dated 25.5.2009. In Misc. Case No. 744/2010 filed in WA No. 56/2010, by an order dated 12.3.2010, it was directed that the process initiated by NIT dated 23.2.2010 shall not be finalized without leave of the Court and it was also observed that all the parties to the present proceeding may participate in the said tender process without prejudice to their rights in the proceeding. 11. By judgment dated 6.4.2010, the orders dated 28.1.2010 were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Single Bench for a decision on merit on the issues. The writ appellate Court had observed that though the writ petitions were founded on the allegation that a cartel had been formed by some contractors whose names were also revealed in the writ petitions and at whose instance the impugned clause was incorporated, the said persons as well as the tenderers who submitted tenders pursuant to the NIT dated 25.5.2009 were not made parties. It was also noted by the writ appellate Court that on the issue of corrigendum, a contrary stand was taken by the BSNL in appeal. By the said judgment, the writ petitioners were given liberty to implead the persons who had taken part in the process pursuant to the NIT dated 25.5.2009 in view of the fact that such tenderers would have a right to contest the proceeding. The interim order dated 12.3.2010, as noted earlier, was directed to govern the parties till the matters were heard and decided on merits. 12. Subsequently, the tenderers were impleaded as Respondent Nos. 5 to 20 vide order dated 28.7.2010 in MC No. 1428/2010 in WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and by order dated 28.7.2010 in MC No. 2332/2010 in WP (C) No. 3302/2009. 13. 12. Subsequently, the tenderers were impleaded as Respondent Nos. 5 to 20 vide order dated 28.7.2010 in MC No. 1428/2010 in WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and by order dated 28.7.2010 in MC No. 2332/2010 in WP (C) No. 3302/2009. 13. It is stated in WP (C) No. 3065/2009 that the writ petitioner having complained to the Respondent No. 3 with regard to insertion of clause of having experience of similar work in the BSNL for the last three years, the Respondent No. 3 had issued a corrigendum 2/3 days before the last date of submission of tender i.e. 19.6.2009, modifying the clause of past experience of three years in the BSNL by permitting the experienced contractors to submit tender with instruction to Respondent No. 4 to publish and circulate the same, which, however, was not done. It has further been stated that in view of the decision of the Respondent No. 3 to issue the corrigendum, the petitioner had submitted his tender for sub-section Nos. 5 and 7 of Barengapara-Mahendraganj OFC Scheme. On the basis of the NIT dated 23.4.2007, NIT dated 16.5.2009 and NIT dated 6.5.2009 issued by BSNL authorities in other divisions in respect of the similar nature of work, it has been asserted that no such clause regarding experience of three years in BSNL finds place in the said NITs. It has also been stated that his rates were lowest and while he had quoted rate at 11.88% and 18.25% above the estimated cost in sub-section 5 and 8, respectively, the other tenderers had offered rates at 60 - 80% above the estimated cost. 14. The writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 3302/09 had submitted Ms tender on the basis of the letter dated 17.6.2009 of the Respondent No. 3 on the subject of corrigendum in respect of sub-sections 02, 04, 06, 08 of Barengapara-Mahendraganj OFC Route. It has been stated that while his rate was lowest being 6% above the estimated cost, the rates of other tenderers were 60 - 80% above the estimated cost. It has also been stated that during the last three years, all the works of BSNL connected with trenching and laying of optical fibre cable had been awarded to the members of the cartel whose names were also disclosed. It has also been stated that during the last three years, all the works of BSNL connected with trenching and laying of optical fibre cable had been awarded to the members of the cartel whose names were also disclosed. It has been stated that in the preceding three years he had executed many works of even higher value in other departments but had not executed any work in BSNL because of other business commitments and threat perception from the cartel. 15. In the affidavits filed in the aforesaid two cases by the BSNL authorities, the allegations of existence of a syndicate and allotment of works at high rates were denied. It has also been stated that a good number of contractors had obtained tender documents and, therefore, issuance of a corrigendum on 17.6.2009, i.e. two days before scheduled date of opening of tenders would, have been irregular and at any rate, issuance of a corrigendum is an internal matter of the BSNL authorities. It has further been stated that the NIT was given wide publicity and police personnel was also deployed for smooth conduct of the tendering process. It has further been stated that in order to provide quality service, BSNL has introduced new and modern technologies and the experience of the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 3065/2009 dating 10 years back does not meet the requirement. 16. An affidavit was also filed by the Respondent No. 12 denying the allegations of the writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 3065/2009. In WP (C) No. 3302/2009, the Respondent No. 13 had filed an affidavit denying the allegations of the writ petitioner. 17. Heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner in all these writ petitions. Also heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 5, 8, 14, 15 and 19 in WP (C) No. 3302/2009 and for Respondent Nos. 7, 13, 14, 16 and 19 in WP (C) No. 3065/2009 as well as Mr. R. Dey, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 7, 9, 11, 13 and 16 in WP (C) No. 3302/2009 and for Respondent Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15 in WP (C) No. 3065/2009. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 10 and Respondent No. 9 in WP (C) No. 3302/2009 and WP (C) No. 3065/2009, respectively, has also been heard. Mr. 7, 9, 11, 13 and 16 in WP (C) No. 3302/2009 and for Respondent Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12 and 15 in WP (C) No. 3065/2009. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 10 and Respondent No. 9 in WP (C) No. 3302/2009 and WP (C) No. 3065/2009, respectively, has also been heard. Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Standing Counsel, BSNL is heard in all the writ petitions. 18. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel has advanced the lead argument on behalf of the private respondents and the other counsel appearing for the other private respondents have adopted his arguments. 19. Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all these cases, submits that the impugned clauses in the notice inviting tenders in question are arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has contended that such clauses are not incorporated in many other tender notices involving similar nature of work and such clauses are found in the notice inviting tenders issued from Gauhati because of existence of a cartel, in order to restrict competition so as to allot the work orders to the members of the cartel. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies on the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492 and Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa & Ors, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517. 20. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel has submitted that the terms of the invitation to tender is not open to judicial scrutiny because certain amount of flexibility is required in administrative decision making. He has submitted that the qualification prescribed in the impugned notice inviting tenders cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable. He has denounced the existence of a cartel and has submitted that such plea has been taken only to sub-serve the interest of the writ petitioner, more particularly, Jayanta Kumar Bhattacharjee, who does not have any experience of doing similar nature of work for last 15 years or so. The learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 . 21. Mr. The learned senior counsel relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 . 21. Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Standing Counsel, BSNL, submits that the allegations of showing favouritism to any tenderer is utterly misplaced. There is also no existence of any cartel and allotment of work has all along been given by following a transparent procedure by issuing notice inviting tenders and giving wide publicity. The petitioner, Jayanta Kumar Bhattacharjee, on his own showing, had done some work of similar nature way back in 1995 and it does not lie in his mouth to contend that stipulation of experience of three years as finding place in the notice inviting tenders is arbitrary and illegal. He has also submitted that over the years, new technology has been introduced from time to time. It is also his contention that the terms of notice inviting tenders is in tune with the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). He has relied on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Directorate of Education Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 756 and in the case of Air India Ltd Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 . 22. In Tata Cellular (supra), the Apex Court had examined the scope of judicial review in the case of a tender awarded by a public authority for carrying out certain work and the Apex Court had laid down certain principles which are as follows: (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 are view 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. (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 unbudgeted expenditure. 23. In Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court stated thus: 9. 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. These would be: (1) the price at which the other side is willing to do the work; (2) whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications; (3) whether the person tendering has the ability to deliver the goods or services as per specifications. When large works contracts involving engagement of substantial manpower or requiring specific skills are to be offered, the financial ability of the tender to fulfil the requirement of the job is also important; (4) the ability of the tenderer to deliver goods or services or to do the work of the requisite standard and quality; (5) past experience of the tenderer, and whether he has successfully completed similar work earlier; (6) time which will be taken to deliver the goods or services; and often (7) the ability of the tenderer to take follow-up action, rectify defects or to give post-contract services. 24. In Jagdish Mandal. (supra), the Apex Court at paragraph 22 observed thus; Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". 24. In Jagdish Mandal. (supra), the Apex Court at paragraph 22 observed thus; Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts will not, in exercise of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural evaluation or error in assessment of prejudice to tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor can always seek damages in a Civil Court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of mole hills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour some one; 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. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of state largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealership and franchise) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action. 25. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of state largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealership and franchise) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action. 25. In Air India (supra), the Apex Court observed: 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. 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, the Court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. 26. In Educomp(supra), the Apex Court observed thus: 12. It has clearly been held in these decisions that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny the same being in me realm of contract That the Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The Courts would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The Courts cannot strike down the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The Courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. 27. From the aforesaid judgments, it becomes clear that the award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction and the authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. It is also not open for the Courts to say whether the conditions prescribed in the tender under consideration could have been improved and made fairer. This is, however, not to be understood as if the superior Courts cannot, under any circumstances, strike down the terms of the tender. The cases under reference lay down that while there are inherent limitations in the exercise of power of judicial review but Courts can interfere if the terms are found to be arbitrary and discriminatory and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Courts may also interfere if the process adopted in the tendering process is actuated by mala fide and is intended to favour some one and also when it affects public interest. It is also apparent from the observations of the Apex Court in Raunaq that past experience of the tenderer and whether he has successfully completed similar work earlier can be an important consideration in the matter of award of contract. 28. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Apex Court, the Court will now proceed to consider the impugned clauses of the notices inviting tender under consideration. The notice inviting tender dated 25.5.2009 is challenged on the ground that experience of three years in similar work in BSNL is illegal and arbitrary and the same is designed to help members of a cartel. The office memorandum dated 17.12.2002 issued by the CVC lays down certain points to be kept in view while fixing the eligibility criteria for civil/electrical works. These are: A) For Civil/Electrical Works i) Average Annual financial turnover during the last 3 years, ending 31st March of the previous financial year, should be at least 30% of the estimated cost. The office memorandum dated 17.12.2002 issued by the CVC lays down certain points to be kept in view while fixing the eligibility criteria for civil/electrical works. These are: A) For Civil/Electrical Works i) Average Annual financial turnover during the last 3 years, ending 31st March of the previous financial year, should be at least 30% of the estimated cost. i) Experience of having successfully completed similar works during last 7 years ending last day of month previous to the one in which applications are invited should be either of the following :- (a) Three similar completed works costing not less than the amount equal to 40% of the estimated cost. or (b) Two similar completed works costing not less than the amount equal to 50% of the estimated cost. or (c) One similar completed work costing not less than the amount equal to 80% of the estimated cost. iii) Definition of 'similar work' should be clearly defined. In addition to above, the criteria regarding satisfactory performance of works, personnel, establishment, plant, equipment etc. may be incorporated according to the requirement of the Project. The guidelines also indicate that the purpose of any selection procedure is to attract the participation of reputed and capable firms with proper track record. There is another memorandum dated 7.5.2004 issued by the CVC on the subject of pre-qualification criteria. While noting that pre-qualification criteria specified in the tender document should neither be made very stringent nor very lax to restrict/facilitate the entry of bidders, it lays down that guidelines in the memorandum dated 17.12.2012 may be modified if considered necessary. The memorandum mandates that fair competition must be ensured. 29. In view of the aforesaid, laying down an eligibility criteria of experience of three years in similar work cannot be held to be arbitrary. Merely because in similar tenders issued by BSNL in some other sectors such clause of three years' experience is not incorporated, as a logical corollary, it does not automatically follow that insertion of clause of experience of three years results in arbitrariness and discrimination. The contention of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 that the suggested corrigendum dated 17.6.09, which did not insist on three years experience, would have taken care of their interest and, therefore, the authorities are bound to incorporate that said suggestion in the notices inviting temper cannot be accepted. The contention of the petitioner in WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 that the suggested corrigendum dated 17.6.09, which did not insist on three years experience, would have taken care of their interest and, therefore, the authorities are bound to incorporate that said suggestion in the notices inviting temper cannot be accepted. There was some ambivalence with regard to the corrigendum suggested as would be clear from a reading of the judgment dated 6.4.2010 passed in Writ Appeal No. 55/2010 and Writ Appeal No. 56/2010. This Court cannot issue a mandamus to incorporate a clause in a notice inviting tender in a particular manner and the function of the Court, as has been laid down in the cases cited by the learned counsel for the parties, is to examine as to whether a term of the notice inviting tender, as existing, is arbitrary and discriminatory. 30. No materials have been placed by the BSNL in justification of restricting tenderers with three years experience of similar work in BSNL only. There is no dispute that Railways/CPWD/many Central and State Government organizations are also carrying on similar nature of work. The notice inviting tender itself says that they could be registered with such organizations. Restricting the notice inviting tender only to contractors working in BSNL does not promote fair competition which every authority must try to ensure. Though the petitioners have not been able to establish that there is an existence of a cartel, insertion of such a clause limiting the eligibility criteria only to contractors having experience of similar work in BSNL, has favoured a class of tenderers to the exclusion of many others who had experience of similar work in other Government organizations, without any justifiable and reasonable basis. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the term of notice inviting tender dated 25.5.2009 requiring experience of trenching and laying of O.F Cable in BSNL for last three years is arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 31. In the result, WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 are allowed. The notice inviting tender dated 25.5.2009 is quashed. 32. In the notices inviting tender dated 23.2.2010, 30.6.2010 and. 31. In the result, WP (C) No. 3065/2009 and WP (C) No. 3302/2009 are allowed. The notice inviting tender dated 25.5.2009 is quashed. 32. In the notices inviting tender dated 23.2.2010, 30.6.2010 and. 17.1.2011, the eligibility criteria is not restricted to only those having three years experience in BSNL but extended to any tenderer having three years experience in similar work in any Government organizations, PSUs. Thus, a level playing field has been laid out; making the prescribed eligibility criteria broad-based and thus, ensuring fair competition. It is also noticeable that writ petitioner in WP (C) No. 3302/2009 which also alleged existence of a cartel, has not challenged the aforesaid notices inviting tender and the challenge is mounted only by Jayanta Kumar Bhattacharjee, whose experience dates back to 1995. This Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned clauses in the said notices inviting tender cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable or tailor made to suit the requirement of any particular class and, therefore, the challenge fails. In view of the aforesaid, WP (C) No. 1709/2010, WP (C) No. 4153/2010 and WP (C) No. 550/2011, are dismissed. The interim orders passed in all these cases stand vacated. No costs.