1. General Manager, J.&K. Region, Food Corporation of India floated Tender Notice bearing No. Stg./32(3)/JK/Tender/2011-12/3145, dated 21st of January, 2012, inviting tenders under “Two Bid System” from eligible business concerns for appointment as Road Transport Contractors for carriage of Food grains by road from FSD New Godown/FSD Chatha/Jammu to Srinagar and other destinations mentioned in the Tender Notice. 2. In terms of Tender Notice, tender was to be submitted in two parts i.e. (i) Technical Bid (ii) Price/Financial Bid, to be kept in two separate sealed envelops, super subscribed, ‘A’-Technical Bid and ‘B’-Price Bid. The two sealed bids were to be kept in another sealed envelop super subscribing the “number and destinations”, addressed to the General Manager J.&K. Region, Food Corporation of India-respondent No. 2 with name and address of the Tenderer. The Tenderer was also required to satisfy the other conditions, like deposit earnest money in the prescribed manner enclose list of requisite documents etc. Tender Notice also detailed eligibility criteria for participation in the tendering process in a Para titled, “Qualification Conditions for Bidding”. 3. M/s. Ladakh Road Lines-petitioner in OWP No. 466/2012 submitted its tender in two parts, as required under Tender Notice. M/s. Iqbal Motors Transport Services, M/s. Trumboo Trading Company and M/s. Durga Enterprises-respondent Nos. 5 to 7 in this petition also submitted their tenders. The respondent No. 5 was appointed transport contractor for destination Jammu to (i) Srinagar, (ii) Budgam, and (iii) Baramulla, respondent No. 6, was not appointed for any of the destinations though he figured as L-2 for destination Srinagar to Baramulla and respondent No. 7 was appointed as transport contractor for destination Jammu Chatha to (i) Rajouri and (ii) Kishtwar. 4. M/s. Vikas Transport Company-petitioner in OWP No. 475/2012, submitted its tender in prescribed formal and mode and manner delineated in the Tender Notice. The petitioner/company sought its appointment as transport contractor for destinations Jammu/Chatha to (i) Mir Bazar, (ii) Kupwara, (iii) Khellani, (iv) Leh, (v) Udhampur and (vi) Poonch. The petitioner company, however, was appointed as transport contractor only for destination Jammu/Chatha to Poonch. The respondent Nos. 11 to 13 in the petition i.e., M/s. Iqbal Motors Transport Services, M/s. Tramboo Trading Company and M/s. Durga Enterprises also submitted their tenders, Respondent No. 11-M/s. Iqbal Motors Transport Services was appointed as transport contractor for destination Jammu to (i) Mirpur Bazar (ii) Kupwara and (iii) Leh. The respondent Nos. 11 to 13 in the petition i.e., M/s. Iqbal Motors Transport Services, M/s. Tramboo Trading Company and M/s. Durga Enterprises also submitted their tenders, Respondent No. 11-M/s. Iqbal Motors Transport Services was appointed as transport contractor for destination Jammu to (i) Mirpur Bazar (ii) Kupwara and (iii) Leh. The respondent No. 13-M/s. Durga Enterprises was so appointed for destination Jammu to (i) Khellani and (ii) Udampur. 5. Petitioners in two writ petitions question appointments of private respondents as transport contractors for destinations mentioned above primarily on the ground that none of the private respondents fulfilled eligibility criteria laid down in the Tender Notice and had no right to participate in the tendering process much-less to be appointed as transport contractors. The petitioners insist that the certificates attached by the private respondents neither indicated that the contracts mentioned therein were “completed” nor that the contracts were “satisfactorily executed”. The petitioners refer to the show cause notices issued by the FCI dated 16th June, 2011 and 18th February, 2012 to indicate that the contract mentioned in the certificate used by the respondent No. 5/11 was not “satisfactorily executed”. It is further pleaded that the bidding envelope of respondent No. 7/13 in the writ petitions did not conform to Clause 8(b) of MTFRTC. It is pointed out that in view of the lack of experience and disregard of the conditions for bidding set out in the Tender Notice and MTFRTC, the bids submitted by private respondents (5/11 and 7/13) were to be summarily rejected. 6. It is pleaded that the official respondents after going through the Technical Bids submitted by private respondents and on finding that they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, ought to have stopped then and there and avoided to open the Price Bids muchless allotted the carriage contractors in their favour. The official respondents by opening the Price Bids unmindful of ineligibility of private respondents, according consideration to the offers made and making allotments of carriage contractors in favour of respondents are said to have violated the fundamental conditions of the Tender Notice. The petitioner in OWP No. 475/2012 also pleads mala fides on part of the respondents 2 to 9. The official respondents by opening the Price Bids unmindful of ineligibility of private respondents, according consideration to the offers made and making allotments of carriage contractors in favour of respondents are said to have violated the fundamental conditions of the Tender Notice. The petitioner in OWP No. 475/2012 also pleads mala fides on part of the respondents 2 to 9. It is insisted that the Tender Committee comprising of respondents 4 to 10 did not find private respondents eligible for the contract and only on intervention of respondents 2 and 3 - their superior officers and under their influence, they, notwithstanding their opinion, as regards ineligibility of private respondents and without any need for such an exercise were made to seek opinion of the law officer of the department and, thereafter, senior advocate. It is pleaded that as the private respondents were not on the face of their prequalification bids eligible for participating in the tendering process, the opinion rendered by the Law Officer or the Senior Advocate would not make them eligible inasmuch as there was no requirement for any interpretation of the terms of contract or MTFRTC. 7. The petitioners also take exception to reliance placed by the official respondents on legal advice tendered by their counsel. It is pointed out that the legal advice cannot make the private respondents eligible for allotment of the contracts for imparting legitimacy to the tendering process. It is insisted that the private respondents were found ineligible for participation in the tendering process and it was only under directions of respondents 2 and 3 that the respondents sought legal advice from senior counsel. The legal advice tendered, according to the petitioners, does not clear the doubts as regard eligibility of private respondents and should not have prompted the official respondents to ignore the fundamental conditions laid down in the Tender Notice. 8. The official respondents in their reply have controverted all the factual averments made in the petition. It is pointed out that as the petitioners have submitted their offers only for few of the destinations mentioned in the Tender Notice, they have no right or cause to throw challenge to the allotment of contracts in favour of private respondents for destinations other than the stations for which the petitioners have competed. It is pointed out that as the petitioners have submitted their offers only for few of the destinations mentioned in the Tender Notice, they have no right or cause to throw challenge to the allotment of contracts in favour of private respondents for destinations other than the stations for which the petitioners have competed. It is pleaded that the official respondents have applied identical criteria to the petitioners as well as private respondents and once the petitioners question the criteria applied, they cannot claim eligibility for participation in the tendering process. The official respondents also point to the huge difference between the rates quoted by petitioners and private respondents. It is stated that the rates quoted by the petitioners in respect of all the destinations put together exceed by more than 21 crore (21,42,47,256 crore to be exact) the rates quoted by the private respondents and that the respondent-corporation cannot bear such a huge loss when better offers are available to it. It is insisted that the Technical Committee appointed by the respondent-corporation has exclusive jurisdiction to evaluate the experience claimed by a Tenderer and evaluation is not open to challenge, as long as it is not made in violation of any statutory rules or actuated by mala fides or extraneous considerations. The official respondents downplay the claim made by the petitioners that the private respondents during the execution of the previous contracts were issued warnings more than once or conveyed displeasure for sluggish performance of the contracts vide Reference Nos. S&C-6/RTC/T.T.Co./Jmu-Lethpora/10-11 dated 16-6-2011 and SAC/1(1)/RTC/GC/2011-12/6506 dated 18-2-2012. It is pointed out that such warnings and displeasures are intended to prompt the contractors to speed up execution of contract and cannot be interpreted as punitive measures. It is pointed out that petitioners were also served such notices on 16th January, 2012 and 17th January, 2012 by the Area Manager of the respondent Corporation and conveyed deep concern for their failure to make available trucks in time. The disqualification conditions mentioned in Model Tender Form, according to respondents, relate to punitive action taken against the carriage contractors. 9. The official respondents deny that M/s. Iqbal Motors-respondent No. 11 in OWP No. 475/2012, was awarded contract for six destinations, unmindful of its satisfactory execution/completion of previous contracts awarded in its favour. The disqualification conditions mentioned in Model Tender Form, according to respondents, relate to punitive action taken against the carriage contractors. 9. The official respondents deny that M/s. Iqbal Motors-respondent No. 11 in OWP No. 475/2012, was awarded contract for six destinations, unmindful of its satisfactory execution/completion of previous contracts awarded in its favour. It is pointed out that in some cases, the previous contract was on day to day basis and in other cases, the execution of contract was delayed because of closure of the road. 10. The respondent No. 11-M/s. Iqbal Motors opposes the writ petition almost on the same grounds, it finds opposition from the official respondents. It is pointed out that as the petitioners competed for Mir Bazar, Kupwara and Leh, they have no right to question the allotment of contracts of Budgam, Srinagar and Baramulla for which they never submitted their offers. The respondent No. 11 denies that it was ever imposed any punishment by the respondent-corporation, so as to disentitle it from participating in the tendering process. 11. The stand taken by M/s. Durga Enterprises-respondent No. 13, is not different from one taken by respondents 1 to 10 and 11. It is insisted that the respondent No. 13 was allotted carriage contract for Khellani, Udhampur, Rajouri and Kishtwar only after it was found eligible for participating in the tendering process and the rates quoted to be lowest of the rates quoted by other contractors. The respondent No. 13 referring to case law on the subject pleads that the Court can interfere in a commercial transactions only where the decision taken by the contract allotted authority is actuated by mala fides, is intended to favour one of the competitors, adversely affects public interest or is of such a nature that it would not have been made by the responsible officer/authority acting reasonably and in accordance with rules. 12. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. It is admitted case of the parties that an aspirant for allotment of the carriage contract in question was to satisfy the “qualification conditions for bidding” set out in the “Model Tender Form for Road Transport Contracts” as reproduced in the Tender Notice dated 21st of January, 2012 floated by the respondent corporation. 13. It is admitted case of the parties that an aspirant for allotment of the carriage contract in question was to satisfy the “qualification conditions for bidding” set out in the “Model Tender Form for Road Transport Contracts” as reproduced in the Tender Notice dated 21st of January, 2012 floated by the respondent corporation. In view of the controversy involved, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion (Para 3) of Model Tender Form for Road Transport Contract (MTFRTC): “3. Qualification conditions for Bidding: (I) Tenderer should have experience of Transportation duly obtained from Manufacturer/PSU/Govt. Dept./Public Ltd. Company/Private Limited Company dealing in the field of Fertilizer, Food grains, Cement, Sugar, Coarse Grains or any other commodity. Tenderer should have executed in any of the immediate preceding five years work of value: (a) At least 25% of the estimated contract value in one single contract: (b) 50% of the estimated contract value in different contracts: (II) Experience certificate shall be produced from customers stating proof of satisfactory execution and completion of the contract(s) besides duly certifying nature, period of contract, and value of work handled. (III) Where the estimated contract value of Transport Contract is less than Rupees Five Crores, Tenderer without the requisite experience as mentioned above may also participate subject to providing an undertaking that an additional Performance Guarantee in the form of Bank Guarantee of 10% of the contract value from SBI & Its Associate Banks/the other Public Sector Banks will be given, if selected. The format of the Bank Guarantee to be provided in such cases is at Appendix-V. (IV) If the Tenderer is a partnership firm, there shall not be any re-constitution of the partnership without the prior written consent of the Corporation till the satisfactory completion of the contract. Note : The year for the purpose of experience will be taken as Financial Year (1st April to 31st March) excluding the financial year in which tender enquiry is floated.” 14. Note : The year for the purpose of experience will be taken as Financial Year (1st April to 31st March) excluding the financial year in which tender enquiry is floated.” 14. A closer look at the “qualification conditions for bidding” would reveal that a tenderer was to satisfy following conditions; (a) Tenderer was to substantiate on the basis of the certificate(s) that he had experience of transport of Fertilizer, Food Grains, Cement, Sugar, Coarse Grains or any other commodity; (b) The certificate pressed into service by the tenderer was to be obtained from Manufacturer/PSU/Government Department/Public Limited Company/Private Limited Company dealing with Fertilizer, Food Grains, Cement, Sugar, Coarse Grains or any other commodity; (c) Tenderer was to establish on the basis of certificate that he had in any of five years immediately preceding the date of tender notice, executed a similar contract amounting to at least 25% of the estimated contract value in a single contract or 50% of the estimated contract value in multiple contracts, i.e. where he claimed to have executed more than one contracts. (d) The certificate to be used of by the tenderers to substantiate conditions as regards execution of 25%/50% of the estimated contract value was to indicate that the contract was satisfactorily executed and further that the contract work was completed. (From FSDs) To (FSDs) Contract value (in crores) Period of Contract 25% of estimated contract value in one single contract in crores 50% of estimated contract value in one different contracts in crores Jammu/Chatha Mirbazar 26.42 2 years 6.605 13.21 Jammu/Chatha Srinagar 29.20 2 years 7.30 14.60 Jammu/Chatha Kupwara 10.78 2 years 2.695 5.39 Jammu/Chatha Budgam 6.65 2 years 1.6625 3.325 Jammu/Chatha Poonch 5.95 2 years 1.48 2.975 Jammu/Chatha Khelani 5.47 2 years 1.3675 2.735 Jammu/Chatha Rajouri 6.15 2 years 1.5375 3.075 Jammu/Chatha Baramulla 15.01 2 years 3.7525 7.505 Jammu/Chatha Kishtwar 5.02 2 years 1.255 2.51 Jammu/Chatha Udhampur 5.28 2 years 1.32 2.64 Jammu/Chatha Leh 13.59 2 years 3.3975 6.795 Jammu/Chatha Kargil 5.29 2 years 1.3225 2.645 Jammu/Chatha Kargil 6.03 1 year 1.5075 3.015 Jammu/Chatha Leh 6.80 1 year 1.70 3.40 Work experience of Iqbal Motors-respondent No. 5 in OWP No. 466/2012 and respondent No. 11 in OWP No. 475/2012. S. No. Period of Contract Contract with Product Handled Approximate Amount Single/Multiple contract 1. 2010-2011 FCI Food grains/Sugar Rs. 8.80,40,040 Crores Multiple 2. 2008-2009 LAHDC Cement Rs. 3.25 Crores Multiple 3. S. No. Period of Contract Contract with Product Handled Approximate Amount Single/Multiple contract 1. 2010-2011 FCI Food grains/Sugar Rs. 8.80,40,040 Crores Multiple 2. 2008-2009 LAHDC Cement Rs. 3.25 Crores Multiple 3. 2009-2010 JAKFED Chemical Fertilizers Rs. 25.40 Lacs Single 4. 2008-2009 J&K Cements Cement Rs. 14,80,993/- Multiple 5. 2008-2009 Army Cement Rs. 1,55 crores Multiple Work Experience of Durga Enterprises-respondent No. 7 in OWP No. 466/2012 and respondent No. 13 in OWP No. 475/2012. S. No. Period of Contract Contract with Product Handled Approximate Amount Single/Multiple contract 1. 2006-2007 Jaiprakash Associates Limited Cement Rs. 9,34,74,329.00 Crores Single 2. 2007-2008 Jaiprakash Associates Limited Cement Rs. 7,83,96,633.00 crores Single 3. 2008-2009 Jaiprakash Associates Limited Cement Rs. 4,66,53,283.00 crores Single 4. 2009-2010 Jaiprakash Associates Limited Cement Rs. 3,15,15,041.00 crores Single 5. 2010-2011 Jaiprakash Associates Limited Cement Rs. 22,45,357.00 lacs Single 15. There is also an agreement between the parties that only after the tenderer satisfied prescribed “qualification conditions for bidding”, his price bid was to be opened and considered together with other such price bids of the contractors, who satisfied the “qualification conditions for bidding”. 16. In the petitions on hand, the petitioners, as already pointed out, insist that the private respondents did not satisfy the “qualification conditions for bidding” inasmuch as they neither enclosed with their tender documents requisite experience certificates indicating that they had executed 25%/50% of the estimated contract value in a single/multiple contracts in any of the preceding five years and further that such contract(s) had been satisfactorily executed and the allotted work completed. They question the allotment orders made in favour of the private respondents primarily on the ground of their aforesaid ineligibility. 17. Having regard to the main plank of the petitioner’s case as disclosed in the two writ petitions, the focus is to shift to the experience certificates made use of by the private respondents to convince the corporation authorities that they had requisite experience. It would be appropriate in the first instance to tabulate contract value of each of the destinations and thereafter go to the work experience of each of the respondents. 18. It would be appropriate in the first instance to tabulate contract value of each of the destinations and thereafter go to the work experience of each of the respondents. 18. The respondent corporation out of fourteen proposed carriage contracts notified vide Tender Notice in question, allotted six contracts, i.e. (i) Jammu/Chatha to Mir Bazar, (ii) Jammu/Chatha to Srinagar, (iii) Jammu/Chatha to Kupwara, (iv) Jammu/Chatha to Budgam, (v) Jammu/Chatha to Baramulla and (vi) Jammu/Chatha to Leh to respondent No. 5/11 - M/s. Iqbal Motors having total contract value of Rs. 101.65 crores. The highest of the contracts allotted is Jammu/Chatha to Srinagar of the value of Rs. 29.20 Crores. The best of the five years preceding the Tender Notice for respondent No. 5/11 - M/s. Iqbal Motors was year 2010-2011. The respondent No. 5/11 claimed to have executed multiple contracts in the year 2010-2011 of the total value of Rs. 8,80,40,040 Crores, placed a certificate issued by Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Area Office - Jammu with his Tender Form to reinforce his claim of eligibility for allotment of the contracts notified by the respondent-corporation. The respondent-corporation treated the year 2010-2011 as the best year of performance for the respondent No. 5 having regard to the value of the contract executed and allotted the aforesaid carriage contracts in its favour. In terms of MTFRTC and Tender Notice, an aspirant for Jammu/Chatha to Mir Bazar, as above Table-1 would indicate, had to show that he had executed a similar contract of the value of Rs. 6.605 crores in case of single contract or Rs. 13.21 crores in case of multiple contracts to be eligible for participation in the tendering process. Similarly, in case of Jammu/Chatha to Srinagar, as above Table-1 would indicate, a tenderer had to show that he had executed a similar contract of the value of Rs. 7.30 Crores in case of single contract or Rs. 14.60 Crores in case of multiple contracts. 19. In the present case, the respondent No. 5/11 - M/s. Iqbal Motors claimed to have executed multiple contracts of the value of Rs. 8,80,40,040 Crores during 2010-2011. The respondent No. 5, therefore, was not eligible on his own showing for participation in tendering process for Jammu/Chatha to Mir Bazar and Jammu/Chatha to Srinagar. Even if, it is taken as a single contract, the end result would be same. 8,80,40,040 Crores during 2010-2011. The respondent No. 5, therefore, was not eligible on his own showing for participation in tendering process for Jammu/Chatha to Mir Bazar and Jammu/Chatha to Srinagar. Even if, it is taken as a single contract, the end result would be same. However, the conditions of 25%/50% contract work was satisfied as regards Jammu/Chatha to Kupwara, Jammu/Chatha to Budgam, Jammu/Chatha to Baramulla and Jammu/Chatha to Leh, not allotted in his favour. This, however, does not end the matter. 20. A bare look at the Tender Notice and MTFRTC (Para-3) would reveal that a tenderer to be eligible for participation in the contract was not only to show that he had executed a similar work of 25% or 50% of the proposed contract value in one of the preceding five years, i.e. 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 but also that the contract allotted to him had been “completed” and “satisfactorily executed”. The certificate issued by a Manufacturer/PSU/Government Department/Public Limited Company/Private Limited Company in terms of MTFRTC and the Tender Notice was to prove that the contract allotted to the tenderer was “satisfactorily executed” by him and “completed”. A tenderer might have executed the carriage work in case of single contract of more than 25% or in case of multiple contracts of more than 50% of the value of proposed carriage contract, the tenderer may still not be eligible for participation in the tendering process, much less allotment of the contract, in case, he has not “satisfactorily executed” or “completed” the contract. The expression “completed” in the context of a contract would imply that whatever work was required to be done under the contract has been completed and no part of the work is left unexecuted or is still to be executed. The expression “satisfactorily executed” would imply that not only the contract work has been completed but it has been executed to the satisfaction or to the expectations, wish or desire of the party awarding contract. In case, a person awarded a contract, though he completes the contract, does not execute it with the required dispatch or is required to be prodded and reprimanded for sluggish execution of the contract, he may be said to have not “satisfactorily executed” the contract. 21. To illustrate, an aspirant for the contract in question, allotted a carriage contract of the value of say Rs. 21. To illustrate, an aspirant for the contract in question, allotted a carriage contract of the value of say Rs. 50.00 Crores or to transport ‘X’ quantity of a commodity for 2010-2011, who has only completed half of the contract work, i.e. of the value of Rs. 25.00 Crores, may not be eligible for the contract as he has not completed the contract, though work executed is otherwise more than 25% or 50% of the proposed contract. Same would be true even where he has completed but not “satisfactorily executed” the contract. In the circumstances, the certificate issued by Manufacturer, etc., is to indicate with sufficient clarity that the contract was completed and was also “satisfactorily executed”. It follows that the contract completed may not be necessarily satisfactorily executed. It is in the said background that the MTFRTC and the Tender Notice places equal emphasis of completion of the previous contract as well as its satisfactorily execution. In case of respondent No. 5, the respondent-corporation has relied on the certificate issued by Area Manager, Food Corporation of India, Area Office-Jammu dated 1-2-2012 to declare the petitioner eligible for participation in the tendering process and to have crossed the pre-qualification barrier. The certificate dated 1-2-2012 does not certify that the respondent No. 5 M/s. Iqbal Motors had “satisfactorily executed” the contracts or that the contracts were “completed”. In other words, the “satisfactorily execution” and “completion of contracts” is not duly certified by the Certificate Issuing Authority. Same is true about the certificate dated 15-3-2010 issued by the District Superintending Engineer, PWD Circle, Leh in favour of respondent No. 5. The certificate rather indicates that the contract was not completed, inasmuch as, out of contract work of Rs. 3.80 crores only a part thereof of the value of Rs. 3.25 Crores was executed by the respondent No. 5. It again is true about the certificate dated 28th May, 2007 issued by State Manager (J.&K.), National Fertilizers Limited, during continuance of the contract, i.e. when contract was still under way to be completed by 16th August, 2007. The other certificates issued by the Deputy General Manager, JAKFED and Assistant Manager, Marketing and Sales, J.&K. Cements Ltd. relate to the work executed during 2008-09 and 2009-10 amounting to Rs. 25,40,000/- and Rs. 14,80,993/-. The works executed are not near 25% or 50% of the value of the proposed carriage contracts. The other certificates issued by the Deputy General Manager, JAKFED and Assistant Manager, Marketing and Sales, J.&K. Cements Ltd. relate to the work executed during 2008-09 and 2009-10 amounting to Rs. 25,40,000/- and Rs. 14,80,993/-. The works executed are not near 25% or 50% of the value of the proposed carriage contracts. The only certificate that satisfies the requirements of Tender Notice and MTFRTC is one issued by AE (Civ), ASW certifying that the respondent No. 5 was granted a contract of the value of Rs. 155.00 lacs in 2007-08 and that the contract was satisfactorily executed and completed in “due course”. The certificate would help the respondent No. 5 - M/s. Iqbal Motors to satisfy “qualification conditions for bidding” for Jammu/Chatha to Poonch, Jammu/Chatha to Khellani, Jammu/Chatha to Rajouri, Jammu/Chatha to Kishtwar, Jammu/Chatha to Udhampur not allotted to him and not for the contracts that were awarded in his favour. 22. Let us now have a look at the certificates appended by the respondent No. 7 - M/s. Durga Enterprises in OWP No. 466/2002 to find out whether the respondent No. 7 was rightly taken to have satisfied the pre-qualification conditions, allowed to participate in the tendering process and allotted the carriage contracts for destinations, i.e. Jammu/Chatha to Khellani, Jammu/Chatha to Rajouri, Jammu/Chatha to Kishtwar, Jammu/Chatha to Udhampur and Jammu/Chatha to Kupwara. Respondent No. 7 has relied upon the certificate issued by Resident Manager (Finance) of Jaiprakash Associates Limited wherein the respondent No. 7 is stated to have executed works of different amount in connection with a contract allotted vide Ref. No. JA:IXJ:KDS:572/02 dated April 09, 2002, during the period 1-4-2006 to 31-3-2011 with yearly break up. The respondent corporation has taken into account year 2006-07 during the period, the respondent No. 7 is certified that he has executed the work of worth Rs. 9,34,74,329/- and allotted the aforementioned contracts in his favour. The certificate again does not indicate that the contract allotted at the beginning of the financial year 2006-07 was satisfactorily executed and completed by the respondents. It merely certificates that the work done by the respondent No. 7 for Jaiprakash Associates Limited during the year 2006-07 without further indicating that this was the total value of the contract allotted to respondent No. 7 or was only a part thereof. It merely certificates that the work done by the respondent No. 7 for Jaiprakash Associates Limited during the year 2006-07 without further indicating that this was the total value of the contract allotted to respondent No. 7 or was only a part thereof. It may be stated at the cost of repetition that the Tender Notice and MTFRTC require a carriage contractor aspiring for the contract in question to submit “proof of satisfactory execution and completion of contract(s)” and such proof is to be in shape of a certificate from the Manufacturer, etc. for whom an aspirant for the contract claimed to have worked in any year during five years preceding the date of tender notice. 23. The effect of conditions laid down in a tender notice requiring the tenderer to show that he had “satisfactorily completed the contract work” of a similar nature immediately before the tender was floated, on the prospectus of a tenderer to cross the pre-qualification barrier came up for consideration in “IVRCL and SEW-JV v. State of J.&K. and ors.”, AIR 2006 J&K 39 . The Court, repelling the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner that expression “satisfactorily completed” did not mean “satisfactorily completed in all respects”, held; “19. In a work of this nature and magnitude where the bidders who fulfill pre-qualification alone are invited to bid the pre-qualification conditions must be scrupulously complied with otherwise it is bound to encourage and provide for discrimination, arbitrariness and favouritism which are totally opposed to rule of law. The very purpose of stipulating qualifications in the tender document is to ensure their compliance by strict adherence so that there is no scope left for discrimination, arbitrariness and bias. Relaxation or waive of condition by the State in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubt in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of the transparency and fairness and provide room for manipulation to suit the whims of the State in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contract as in the case of distributing bounty or charity. In the name of pedantic approach the criteria prescribed cannot be given a go by. In the name of pedantic approach the criteria prescribed cannot be given a go by. If the eligibility condition prescribes is ‘completed’ work then for acquiring eligibility the bidder has to show the completed work executed by him.” The Court while holding so, placed reliance on following observation of the Supreme Court in “Shapers Construction (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Airport Authority of India and Anr.”, 1996 (10) SCC 760 ; “The condition envisages that he shall have satisfactorily completed. The word ‘completed’ would indicate that as on the date of application for the tenders, he should have completed at least two runway/National Highway works, preferably rigid pavement works involving considerable earth filling. In other words, the completion of the work of at least two runway/National Highway is a pre-condition. On their own admission, they had not completed, though the major part of the work as professed by them is completed. Under these circumstances, the view taken by the High Court cannot be said to be unwarranted.” 24. The respondent Nos. 5 and 7, in the circumstances, did not satisfy the “qualification conditions forbidding” and could act cross the pre-qualification barrier. The respondent corporation, therefore, was not justified in opening the price bids submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 7, much less allotted the contracts in their favour. The legal opinion rendered by the Law Officer or the Senior Advocate would not change the complexion of the matter and brighten up the prospectus of private respondents. There is also a question mark on the claim of the respondent No. 5/11 to satisfactory execution of the contract not only because of failure of the certificate of issuing authority to certify that the contract was “satisfactorily executed” but also in view of repeated reprimands/show cause notices issued to respondent No. 5/11. There is also substance in the claim that the tenders submitted by the respondent No. 7/13 did not conform to Clause 8(b) of MTFRTC making them liable to be summarily rejected in terms of clause 8(d). 25. The petitioner in OWP No. 466/2012 claims to have submitted his bids for contracts of various destinations, i.e. Jammu/Chatha to Srinagar, Jammu/Chatha to Budgam, Jammu/Chatha to Rajouri, Jammu/Chatha to Baramulla and Jammu/Chatha to Kishtwar and to have deposited earnest money in respect of all the bids. 25. The petitioner in OWP No. 466/2012 claims to have submitted his bids for contracts of various destinations, i.e. Jammu/Chatha to Srinagar, Jammu/Chatha to Budgam, Jammu/Chatha to Rajouri, Jammu/Chatha to Baramulla and Jammu/Chatha to Kishtwar and to have deposited earnest money in respect of all the bids. The petitioner in OWP No. 475/2012 similarly claims to have submitted his bids for contracts of various destinations, i.e. Jammu/Chatha to Mirpur, Jammu/Chatha to Kupwara, Jammu/Chatha to Khellani, Jammu/Chatha to Leh, Jammu/Chatha to Udhampur and Jammu/Chatha to Poonch. The respondents, it may be recalled, question the petitioners’ right to challenge the contracts allotted to the private respondents 5/11 and 7/13 mentioned in the petitions on the ground that they did not submit their bids in respect of the some of the contracts allotted to them. The respondents stand, however, is belied not only by the averments made in the petitions but by the stand taken by them in their replies, where the respondents to show that the bids quoted by the petitioners were on the higher side and involved a huge difference of more than Rs. 21.00 crores, have detailed the offers made by the petitioners. The challenge to the writ petitions on that ground, therefore, cannot succeed. 26. Having said so, the question arises whether the Court can exercise power of judicial review in the matter. It is argued by learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petitions are not maintainable, inasmuch as, the transaction in question is a commercial transaction and the decision taken by the respondent-corporation to award contract to the respondents 5 and 7 is not amenable to judicial review. It is argued that only the Tender Committee of Corporation is competent to decide whether an offer satisfies the requirement of “qualification conditions for bidding” and the Court has neither expertise nor know-how to determine whether a particular tender has crossed the pre-qualification stage and deserved to be allowed to participate in the tendering process. Reliance in this regard is placed on laws laid down in “Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Ltd.” (2000) 2 SCC 617 : ( AIR 2000 SC 801 ), “Tata Cellular v. Union of India” (1994) 6 SCC 651 : ( AIR 1996 SC 11 ) and “Tejas Construction & International Pvt. Ltd. v. Municipal Council, Sendhwa & Anr.” 2012 (3) Supreme 376 . Learned counsel for the respondents, in particular, refer to following observation of Supreme Court in “Tejas Construction’s” case (supra); “13. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metcafe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 138 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2299 ) and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 where this Court laid down the following tests for judicial interference in exercise of power of judicial review of administrative action: 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 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. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226.” 27. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, argue that challenge in the petitions on hand is essentially not to the decision taken by the respondent-corporation but the decision making process. It is insisted that where decision making process is arbitrary, capricious or in conflict with mandate of rule of law, the Court is to step in and exercise its power of judicial review under Article 226, Constitution of India. It is argued that the respondent-corporation by ignoring the “qualification conditions forbidding” set out in the tender notice and MTFRTC, in case of respondents, has allotted carriage contract and extended public largesse to the tenderes, who were not eligible for the contract and while doing so, excluded similarly circumstances carriage contractors from the competition. It is argued that the respondent-corporation by ignoring the “qualification conditions forbidding” set out in the tender notice and MTFRTC, in case of respondents, has allotted carriage contract and extended public largesse to the tenderes, who were not eligible for the contract and while doing so, excluded similarly circumstances carriage contractors from the competition. Learned counsel for the respondents to buttress their arguments seek support from “Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors.” (1979) 3 Supreme Court Cases 489 : ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ), “Tata Cellular v. Union of India”, (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651 : ( AIR 1996 SC 11 ), “Global Energy Ltd. and another v. Adani Exports Ltd. and others” (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 435 : ( AIR 2005 SC 2653 ), “M/s. Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.” 2007 AIR SCW 6169 and “State of Kerala v. Zoom Developers Private Limited and others” (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 563 : (2009 AIR SCW 1976). 28. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty case, ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) where contract allotting authority departed from the conditions of eligibility and allotted contract to a tenderer not satisfying the conditions laid down in the tender notice, Supreme Court held that the standard of eligibility laid down in the tender notice for tenders cannot be departed arbitrarily as such departure would amount to denial of equality of opportunity to those who felt bound by the standard of eligibility and, therefore, did not submit their tenders. _________