Judgment 1. Shri Romesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Kamal Airen, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. They are heard. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is one of the unsuccessful bidders, is praying for the following reliefs:-- "7.1. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI or other appropriate writ calling for the records of the case from the respondent Nos. 1 to 5; 7.2 issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI/MANDAMUS or other appropriate writ quashing the entire tender process beginning with the opening of the financial bid till such stage as the said process may be at the time when the present petition is decided; 7.3 issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of MANDAMUS or other appropriate writ restraining the respondents from finalizing the tender of respondent No. 6 or if awarded restraining the respondents to execute the work; 7.4 award the costs of the present petition to the petitioner and 7.5 grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of case." Brief facts of the case are that on 3-9-2013, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Indore invited tenders vide NIT No./Mandi/Nirman/2013-14/2603 for Laying Hume Pipe and Construction of Culverts at Laxmibai Nagar Main Mandi Yard, Indore. The cost of project was 69.73 lakhs and stipulated time for completion of project was six months. The said tender was invited from the appropriate class of contractors registered in Office of the E.N.C. M.P. Public Works Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh (Centralized Registration Cell) in three cover system by Mandi Samiti Indore. The last date of submission of tender was 19-9-2013. The eligibility criteria as per Clause 3.3 and 3.4.1, 3.4.2 of the NIT read as under:-- "3.3 Cover 'B' shall be opened only if the earnest money deposit kept in cover 'A' is found in accordance with the prescribed mode as mentioned in Clause 3.1 of the NIT. Otherwise the tender shall be returned unopened to the tenderer; Cover 'C shall be opened of those tenderers only who technically qualify for the work. 3.4 Eligibility Criteria:-- A tenderer shall technically qualify for the work only if he fulfils the entire criterion mentioned hereunder:-- 3.4.1. Otherwise the tender shall be returned unopened to the tenderer; Cover 'C shall be opened of those tenderers only who technically qualify for the work. 3.4 Eligibility Criteria:-- A tenderer shall technically qualify for the work only if he fulfils the entire criterion mentioned hereunder:-- 3.4.1. Tenderer must have executed work costing twice the cost of this work in the last three years upto the date of issue of NIT. 3.4.2. Tenderer must have executed one work of similar nature which should not be less than 50% cost of this work in any of the last three years up to the date of issue of NIT. For this purpose value of the work shall be assessed on the basis of payment received by the contractor for the said work. Similar nature of work is clarified as under:-- (i) Building work - Construction of civil structures which will also include shed, godown, platform, boundary wall, RCC over head tank, etc. (ii) Road work - Construction of similar type and nature of roads. (iii) Electrification - All electric work. (iv) Bridge work - All bridge work." As a proof of value of the work executed details of payment received should be submitted in the following format: Description of work Work Order Number Name of Employer/Department Value of contract (Rs. In lakh) Date of issue of work order Stipulated period of completion Actual date of completion Gross Payment Received 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2. On 3-10-2013, the tender was opened and respondent No. 6 was declared qualified. After completion of due formalities, bid was sanctioned in favour of respondent No. 6 on 26-2-2014 and work order was issued on 3-3-2014. The present writ petition has been filed on 28-3-2014. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the tender was submitted by the respondent No. 6 as an individual but he has not submitted the documents which shows that he has executed one work of similar nature which should not be less than 50% cost of this work in any of the last three years upto the date of issue of NIT, however, he has been illegally and arbitrarily declared qualified. 4. 4. He placed reliance upon Annexure P-2, Certificate issued by the Madhya Pradesh State Agriculture Marketing Board and submitted that as per Clause 3 of the said registration form, status of the respondent No. 6 is an individual and name of the proprietor is shown as Deepak Yadav. He also submitted that as per Annexure R-3 filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 along with their replies dated 3-9-2014, the respondent No. 6 is sole proprietor of proprietorship concern -Deepak Yadav whereas he has submitted the experience certificate of partnership firm as is evident from income tax return of 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 has illegally and arbitrarily granted the work order to the respondent No. 6, who was not qualified to participate in the tender process and submitted that the entire process is vitiated and prays for quashment of the entire tender process, beginning of the opening of the financial bid by allowing the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that writ petition has been filed after about 5 months of the opening of the bid with an ulterior motive to cause loss to the respondent No. 6. The petitioner was participated in the process of tender and, however, was unsuccessful and could not stand at Serial No. 1 as his rate was higher than the respondent No. 6, he had no locus to challenge the same. 6. On merits, it is submitted that all the requisite documents including partnership deed was filed along with tender form in which the respondent No. 6 is shown as partner of the firm known as M/s. Deepak Yadav. He fulfilled all the eligibility criteria and, therefore, bid was sanctioned to him. The tender was submitted by the respondent No. 6 as a sole proprietor of the proprietorship concern as is evident from the affidavit R-3 filed along with the reply of the department. The respondent No. 6 is also having a partnership concern and the said partnership firm had executed the similar work not less than 50% of the cost of the work awarded to the respondent No. 6 in the last 3 years upto the date of issuance of NIT. The respondent No. 6 is also having a partnership concern and the said partnership firm had executed the similar work not less than 50% of the cost of the work awarded to the respondent No. 6 in the last 3 years upto the date of issuance of NIT. The rate of the petitioner was 12.69% and that of the respondent No. 6 was 7.86% and there was a huge difference that is why the tender had been allotted to the respondent No. 6. The award of the contract, whether it is by a private body, by a public body or the State is essentially a commercial transaction. In the present case, the authorities have not committed any illegality in awarding the contract to the respondent No. 6. There is no arbitrariness or favoritism and the award of contract is essentially commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations, which would include, inter alia, the price at which the party is willing to work whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications and whether the person tendering is of the ability to deliver goods or services as per specifications. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision and it is free to grant any relaxation for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. 7. Apart form above, at present the 80% of the work has been completed, in such circumstances, there is no such public interest which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise, which itself may be fallible. The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, 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 principles of reasonableness but also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. In other words, 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 principles of reasonableness but also must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. We, therefore, are of the opinion that learned authority has committed no error in awarding contract to the respondent No. 6. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.