JUDGMENT (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. The Petitioners have approached this Court praying for a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 not to in any manner, act in furtherance of the announcement and declaration of results on 11th December, 2013, that a consortium consisting of Respondent nos. 3 to 5 is the lowest bidder and further not to award the contract of providing beach life guarding and water safety services in Goa to the Respondent nos. 3 to 5 in terms of Tender dated 23/09.2013. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present Petition are as follows : The Department of the Tourism of State of Goa, had invited Tenders vide notice dated 23.09.2013. The Tender notice was by E-tendering mode only. The work in question was for development, deployment, management and operations of water safety patrol with all state of the art facilities/systems on turnkey basis at nominated water bodies for the Department of Tourism of the State of Goa. As per the tender notice, the date and time for application for issue of tender form was 18.10.2013. The last date of online issue of Tender documents was 21.10.2013. The date and time of online submission of duly filled tender documents was on 28.10.2013. A Pre bid conference was scheduled on 23.10.2013. It is the contention of the Petitioner that initially the date for submission of Tender was extended upto to 18.11.2013. It is contended that subsequently it was extended from 18.11.2013 to 22.11.2013 only in order to favour the Respondent no. 3. It is contended that after receipt of the bids of the other tenderers including the Petitioners, the bid of the Petitioners was intimated to the Respondent no. 3, who is already in the field so that he can submit a lower bid. It is submitted that on 11.12.2013, the Committee took a decision hurriedly of approving the tender to the consortium of Respondent nos. 3 to 5. The Petitioner, therefore, addressed a representation dated 13.12.2013 to the authorities to reconsider the tenders. Since the same has not been done, the Petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. 3 to 5. The Petitioner, therefore, addressed a representation dated 13.12.2013 to the authorities to reconsider the tenders. Since the same has not been done, the Petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2. 4. Shri S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has made following three submissions in support of the case of the Petitioners: (i) That the Respondent no. 3 did not have the requisite experience and he was illegally given five additional marks. (ii) The formula as provided under Clause 30 of the tender document was not properly followed. It is submitted that as per the formula, 60% marks were to be awarded on the basis of technical specifications and only 40 % as per the financial bids. It is submitted that if the 5 marks which were illegally given to the Respondent no. 3 are deleted, the Petitioners would be at number one. In any case, it is submitted that since the tender involves the saving of the lives the Respondent-Authority in view of clause 2.60 ought to have given additional preference to the Petitioners whose collaborator is having more than 100 years of experience in life savings from the water bodies. (iii) The extension from 18th to 22nd November has been granted malafidely by the Respondent-authorities in order to suit the convenience of the Respondent no. 3. Shri Desai, learned Senior Counsel further submits that since the question involves life saving which is important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, the State is required to act fairly and non-arbitrarily and if it fails to do so, this Court must step in to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondent nos. 1 and 2, on the contrary submitted that the decision has been taken by committee consisting of eight members who are high ranking officers of the State Government. The learned Advocate General further submits that the Committee has taken into consideration the documents of all the competent bidders before evaluating their tenders. He further submitted that after evaluation of technical bids, the financial bids have been opened in presence of all the parties. The learned Advocate General further submits that the Committee has taken into consideration the documents of all the competent bidders before evaluating their tenders. He further submitted that after evaluation of technical bids, the financial bids have been opened in presence of all the parties. It is submitted that the Petitioners have not taken objections prior to opening of the financial bids and only after finding him unsuccessful in the same, has approached this Court. 6. The law in question is no more res-integra. The Apex Court in the Judgment reported in 1994(6) SCC 651 in the case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, has observed at para 77 thus : “77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, “consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention”. 7. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, “consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention”. 7. Therefore, the limited inquiry that would be permissible for us whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is only as to whether the decision making process as adopted by the State suffers from arbitrariness, illegality and malafides or as to whether the decision making process has been done in a fair, transparent and non-arbitrary manner. 8. In order to consider the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made by the Petitioners, we had requested the learned Advocate General to place on record the original bid submitted by the Respondent nos. 3 to 5 and the original file of the Respondents whilst arriving at a decision to recommend the case of the Respondent nos. 3 to 5 for awarding of contract. The file is produced for our perusal by the Director of Tourism who is personally present in the Court. 9. We will deal now with the case of the Petitioners regarding extension of date first. It is the basic contention of the Petitioners that the last date of submission of forms was malafidely extended from 18.11.2013 to 22.11.2013 in order to suit or favour the Respondent no. 3. However, it is to be noted that firstly when the date was extended from 18.11.2013 to 22.11.2013, the Petitioners have not even raised a protest. Not only this but when the petitioner made a representation dated 13.12.2013, they could have very well raised this ground. There is not even a whisper to that regard, in the said communication. We find that having not raised that ground at the earliest opportunity available and having subsequently participated in the tender process, the Petitioners are now estopped to raise that ground at a belated stage. In any case, the financial bids were invited in a sealed envelope and which envelopes have been opened before the committee consisting of high ranking State Officers. Though it is sought to be argued that the date is extended so as to give information regarding the bid of competitors to respondent no.3 neither any of the officer who is alleged to have done that, has been impleaded as party respondent nor does the petition contain any averments with that regard. Though it is sought to be argued that the date is extended so as to give information regarding the bid of competitors to respondent no.3 neither any of the officer who is alleged to have done that, has been impleaded as party respondent nor does the petition contain any averments with that regard. In that view of the matter, it will not be permissible for us to even entertain an argument regarding the malafide exercise of powers. 10. It would be relevant to refer to clause 30 of the tender document. “30. Combined and Final Evaluation 30.1 The Selected Applicant shall be the Applicant having the highest combined score in accordance to the tender. The Second highest Applicant shall be kept in reserve and may be invited in its discretion for negotiations in case the first ranked Applicant withdraws, or fails to comply with the requirements specified in this tender, as the case may be. 30.2 Proposals will finally be ranked according to their combined technical (TS) and Financial (FS) scores as follows: S = (TS x TW) + (FS x FW) 30.3 Where, TW and FW are weights assigned to Technical Proposal and Financial Proposal that shall be a maximum of 0.6 and 0.4 respectively. 30.4 The Selected Applicant shall be the Applicant having the highest combined score. The Second highest Applicant shall be kept in reserve and may be invited in its discretion for negotiations in case the first-ranked Applicant withdraws, or fails to comply with the requirements specified in this tender, as the case may be.” The said clause would reveal that a selected Applicant will be having the highest combined score in accordance with the tender. The technical weightage and financial weightage to be assigned to technical proposal and financial proposal shall be in the ratio of 0.6 and 0.4 respectively. The paragraph 19, which can be found at page 150 and 151 of the tender document specifically provides for the criteria for allotment of marks. 11. It is the contention of the Petitioners that the Respondent no. 3 did not have experience of more than 9 years and he could not have been granted 15 marks and at the most he was entitled to 10 marks. We have perused the tender documents submitted by the Respondent no. 3 which have been taken into consideration by the authorities. The tender document would reveal that Respondent no. 3 did not have experience of more than 9 years and he could not have been granted 15 marks and at the most he was entitled to 10 marks. We have perused the tender documents submitted by the Respondent no. 3 which have been taken into consideration by the authorities. The tender document would reveal that Respondent no. 3 is having experience of development of safe operating procedures for maintenance and management of water safety services for any beach stretch or any water body, etc., right from March 2001. The work in question is executed on behalf of the Maharashtra Tourism Development which is an Corporation under the Government of Maharashtra. Various documents, including the aforesaid documents have been placed on record by the Respondent no. 3 for the period between 2001 till date showing their experience. Though Shri S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel, strenuously urged that the certificates are not the certificates as required under the tender document. Neither the learned Senior Counsel nor we possess an expertise in the field and it is best left to the technical expert. It is to be noted that the Committee consisted of following eight Senior Officers of the State of Goa. 1. Shri Parimal Rai, Pr. Secretary ( Tourism) Chairman 2. Shri S. T. Nadkarni, Chief Engineer, WRD Member 3. Shri Michael M. D'souza, Additional Secretary (Finance ) Member 4. Shri Levinson Martins, Director of STE/Member Secretary GCZMA Member 5. Shri Anand Sherkhane, Director PPP, Secretariat Member 6. Shri Francisco Braganza, President TTAG Member 7. Shri Nikhil Desai, Director of Tourism Member 8. Shri Octavio Rodrigues, representative for the Director, Captain of Ports Member It can thus be seen that the Committee consisted of Secretary, Tourism, Chief Engineer (WRD), the Secretary of Goa Coast Zone Management Authority, the President of the Travel and Tourism Association of Goa, the Director of Tourism and the Captain of Ports. It is to be noted that no malafides are attributed to either of the members of this Committee. We are of the considered view that the Committee which has evaluated the entire documents of all the bidders is presumed to have considered the validity of the experience certificates submitted by the rival bidders. Apart from that, we have ourselves seen the various certificates produced on record by the Respondent no. 3. We are of the considered view that the Committee which has evaluated the entire documents of all the bidders is presumed to have considered the validity of the experience certificates submitted by the rival bidders. Apart from that, we have ourselves seen the various certificates produced on record by the Respondent no. 3. In any case, the objections by the Petitioners regarding grant of more marks to the Petitioners has been taken after he failed in the financial bid and not when the marks were given on the bests of appreciation of the technical documents. 12. The perusal of the minutes of the Committee would reveal that the Petitioners have been given 57 marks out of 60 marks in so far as technical qualifications is concerned. Whereas, the Respondent no. 3 has been given 54 marks. The financial bid of the Petitioners is Rs.32,38,80,149.99 whereas that of the Respondent no. 3 is Rs. 28,30,00,000/-. In view of the financial bids, the Respondent no. 3 has been given 40 marks out of 40 and since the Petitioners bid is higher by more than four crores, he has been given 34.95 marks in the ratio arrived at by the authorities. It is pertinent to note that committee also consisted of an additional secretary of finance along with the other technical expert. It can thus be seen that the decision of the committee is based upon an expert opinion and at the cost of the petition we say that we do not possess expertise in such matter. On perusal of the material on record, we are of the considered view that it cannot be said that the decision of the respondent authorities is vitiated by unfairness, arbitrariness or non consideration of relevant material. 13. We find that the decision making process has been fair, transparent and in a non-arbitrary manner. In that view of the matter, we do not find that a case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.