Judgment A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. 1. The petitioner in W.P.(C).No.12613/2013 is the appellant before us. The challenge in the writ petition was against Ext.P4 communication issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent Airport Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'AAI'). By the said communication, the petitioner was informed that his tender, submitted in connection with a contract for operating the baggage wrapping machine at the departure area of the International Terminal Building in Thiruvananthapuram Airport, was rejected. He was further informed that the tender proceedings itself had been cancelled and it was decided by the AAI to retender the licence for operating baggage wrapping machine at the International Terminal of Thiruvananthapuram Airport. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows: The appellant had responded to a Notice Inviting Tender, (hereinafter referred to as 'NIT'), floated by the AAI for grant of licence to operate a baggage wrapping machine in the departure area of the International Terminal Building at the Thiruvananthapuram Airport. As per the terms of the NIT, the bid was to be submitted in two separate envelops containing the technical bid and financial bid respectively. According to the appellant, the bids were opened and after finding the bid of the appellant to be technically qualified, the financial bid was also opened and the appellant was found to be the highest bidder. Accordingly, Ext.P3 letter dated 01.02.2013 was issued to him whereby he was informed of the fact that he was the highest bidder and that the bid submitted by him had been forwarded to the competent authority for approval as also for recommendation to award the tender to the highest bidder. It is the case of the appellant that thereafter, by Ext.P4 letter dated 09.05.2013, he was informed of the rejection of his bid and cancellation of the tender itself. Since the reasons stated in Ext.P4 were not factually correct and also legally untenable, the appellant preferred the writ petition challenging Ext.P4 communication. 3. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition found in favour of the appellant on the issue of validity of cancellation of the tender. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is borne out at paragraph 5 of his judgment, which is extracted herein below: “5. The contention raised by the respondents is that the tender documents are not transferred. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge is borne out at paragraph 5 of his judgment, which is extracted herein below: “5. The contention raised by the respondents is that the tender documents are not transferred. On a perusal of Exts.R3(a) and R3(b) one cannot form an opinion that the tender documents were transferred by Baggage Wrapping Services to Sri. P.A. Musthafa. The Baggage Wrapping Services is only the name of a concern in which Sri. P.A. Musthafa is the proprietor and merely on account of the fact that Sri. P.A. Musthafa has used the letter head of Baggage Wrapping Services, a proprietary concern, it does not mean that the tender was purchased by Baggage Wrapping Services. The proprietor of the concern cannot be differentiated with the name of the concern. Therefore even if it is purchased by Baggage Wrapping Services, it can only be termed as a purchase by Sri. P.A. Musthafa. Therefore the reasons stated in Ext.P4 for cancelling the tender is apparently not justifiable.” 4. The learned Judge however found that the appellant was not entitled to a further direction to the respondents to proceed further with the tender proceedings as, according to the learned Judge, the appellant did not have a right to demand the award of work to him more so when the AAI had, in public interest, decided to proceed for retender. It is challenging the subsequent finding of the learned Single Judge, as regards the absence of a right in the appellant to demand the award of the work to him, that the appellant is before us in this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri. Abraham Vakkanal on behalf of the appellant and Adv. Sri. V. Santharam on behalf of the respondents. 6. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the AAI had to necessarily stand by the reasons stated in Ext.P4 for rejecting the bid of the appellant and it could not seek to justify the rejection of a bid on the basis of reasons not expressly mentioned in Ext.P4. V. Santharam on behalf of the respondents. 6. Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the AAI had to necessarily stand by the reasons stated in Ext.P4 for rejecting the bid of the appellant and it could not seek to justify the rejection of a bid on the basis of reasons not expressly mentioned in Ext.P4. He would rely on a number of judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and in particular the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others ( (1978) 1 SCC 405 ), wherein it has been held that the orders passed by administrative and judicial authorities must be supported on the strength of reasons contained therein and it is not permissible to supplement those reasons with other reasons spelt out in affidavits that are subsequently filed in the course of legal proceedings. The decision Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others ( (2013) 10 SCC 95 ) is cited as a recent decision that follows the reasoning in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra). Learned Senior counsel would further contend that the right of a person submitting a tender is for a fair consideration in the tender process and to the extent that he was not heard prior to the decision taken by the AAI to cancel the tender proceedings and opt for a retender, the decision of the AAI is legally flawed. He would also point out that on a perusal of the reasons, subsequently made available by the AAI through their counter affidavits filed in the writ petition, it is clear that there was a decision to change the specification in respect of the baggage wrapping machine and this amounted to a change of specification in the midst of a tender process that was initiated on the basis of another specification. He would also contend that going by Ext.R3(c)(3) produced by the AAI along with their counter affidavit, it was apparent that the Executive Director (Commercial) had on 22.04.2013 directed the tender to be proceeded with and indicated that procedural improvements that were contemplated could be made in future tenders that were floated by the AAI. He would also contend that going by Ext.R3(c)(3) produced by the AAI along with their counter affidavit, it was apparent that the Executive Director (Commercial) had on 22.04.2013 directed the tender to be proceeded with and indicated that procedural improvements that were contemplated could be made in future tenders that were floated by the AAI. Despite this however, on the basis of a decision arrived at by the Regional Commercial Advisory Committee (RCAC) at the meeting held on 08.05.2013, Ext.P4 dated 09.05.2013 was issued to the appellant. This act of the AAI was wholly illegal and vitiated by arbitrariness and mala fides in law is the contention. Alluding to Annexure R3(c) Circular dated 07.03.2014 issued by the AAI and produced by them in the writ appeal, he would argue that the approval by the Corporate Advisory Board of the decision to amend the eligibility criteria and special conditions in the NIT was, at any rate, one that could have only prospective effect. To substantiate his contentions, reliance is placed on the following decisions: [Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR (39) 1952 SC 16), The Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India and Another ( (1976) 2 SCC 981 ), Mohinder Singh Gill and Another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others ( (1978) 1 SCC 405 ), Harminder Singh Arora v. Union of India and Others ( (1986) 3 SCC 247 ), Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. v. State of U.P. and Others ( AIR 1991 SC 537 ), Union of India and Others v. E.G. Nambudiri ( (1991) 3 SCC 38 ), Tata Cellular v. Union of India ( AIR 1996 SC 11 ), M/s. Zoom Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others (2008 (4) KHC 934 (DB)), State of Kerala v. Zoom Developers Private Limited and Others ( (2009) 4 SCC 563 ), Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and Others ( (2011) 6 SCC 508 ), Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others ( (2013) 10 SCC 95 ) and Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited and Others ( (2013) 1 SCC 524 )]. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. 7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri. V. Santharam appearing for the respondents AAI would contend that the appellant as a bidder in a tender process had no right other than a right to a fair consideration of his bid along with the bids submitted by other tenderers. It is pointed out that in the instant case, while the appellant was, no doubt, the highest bidder in the tender and this fact was intimated to the Regional Head Quarters for approval, the RCAC, had, pursuant to complaints received from various quarters regarding the suitability of the baggage wrapping machines installed in various Airports and other matters, considered the issue of bringing about a modification in the specifications to be incorporated in the NIT floated by the AAI. It was in this backdrop that the RCAC, at its meeting held on 08.05.2013, came to the conclusions that were drawn up in Ext.R3(c)(3). The relevant portion of Ext.R3(c) that reveals the decision arrived at by the RCAC is as follows: “RCAC decision: After deliberation of Mangalore and Trivandrum cases the following are decided. Mangalore Airport W.A.No.439/2014 8 As per DOP, APD Mangalore is delegated to award upto 50 lakh p.a. As complaints were received from both participants and reference made to Hon'ble Minister of State for Civil aviation/Chairman, the clarification was sought from RHQ by APD, ML for taking further necessary action with regard to opening of financial bid. Though the technical tender documents was not received by RHQ, after RCAC deliberation on 27.02.13, the case was forwarded to CHQ for advice and direction. CHQ advised to follow NIT provision and laid down procedures in commercial manual for processing and awarding the contracts. On a comprehensive review, observed that Technical Evaluation including eligibility criteria has two parts, NIT para 3 details the eligibility criteria to participate, which relates to Wrapping Machine. Whereas envelope (A) tender condition para 3 elaborate about the other documents to be submitted to qualify firm for price bid opening. Documents related to eligibility requirement of Wrapping Machine is not figuring under general conditions para 3. Since machine parameters is a part for eligibility determination and this aspect of technical evaluation has not been done properly by the Station, as per the evaluation note, RCAC concluded that the tender and its process are defective and hence be scrapped to recall with proper specification, terms, requirement of documents etc. Since machine parameters is a part for eligibility determination and this aspect of technical evaluation has not been done properly by the Station, as per the evaluation note, RCAC concluded that the tender and its process are defective and hence be scrapped to recall with proper specification, terms, requirement of documents etc. Trivandrum Airport The price bids after due process received at RHQ for acceptance, whereas complaints were received from both parties, under reference made to Hon'ble Minister of State for Civil Aviation and Chairman regarding the tenders submitted by them. On comprehensive review, the following are observed. a) Observation of wrapping machine eligibility related parameters similar to sub para of Mangalore Airport above. b) RCAC observed that Sh. P.A. Mustafa has purchased the tender documents in the name and style of Baggage Wrapping Services wheras participated in the name and style of P.A. Mustafa (PAM). Whereas General Conditions para 1 clearly states that tender documents are not transferrable. As per Legal view, tender document purchased was transferred from Baggage Wrapping Service to P.A. Mustafa. This transfer cannot be allowed as per NIT condition 1 General Information. Hence, RCAC endorses the above legal view and tender process to be scrapped in view of the above as well as technical observation related to Wrapping Machine which were not evaluated by Station as observed in notes. RCAC place in record that various observation by Commercial and RED is to be brought to CHQ to finalize the eligibility criteria on Machine related parameters and requirement of documents. The mandatory documents required for qualification to be clearly spelt out to make the party qualify for price bid before recall of tender. GM(Comml) shall make a reference at the earliest. Recall of NIT may take a little more time as CHQ has to process and approve machine and document related parameters. Hence, APD, TV, ML shall examine further for taking action for continuation of the contract the validity is over. May take further action accordingly.” On the basis of the said recommendations of the RCAC, the Executive Director (Commercial) was also informed vide communication dated 10.05.2013 of the proposal to incorporate new terms regarding specifications in the future NIT's and also the decision that extension of contract periods would be provided to existing operators of the baggage wrapping machines functioning in various Airports. He would point out that in this view of the matter, it was clear that there was no mala fides or extraneous consideration that formed the basis of the decision in Ext.P4. It was also clear that the decision to cancel the tender process and opt for retender was one that was taken in public interest and to render the services through operation of baggage wrapping machines at various Airports, more passenger friendly. He would further point out that Ext.P4 letter sent to the appellant only contained the particular reasons that weighed with the authority for rejecting the bid submitted by the appellant and the officer concerned of the AAI did not deem it necessary to expressly mention the reasons for the policy change taken by the AAI, in the said communication that was issued to the appellant. In the absence of any arbitrariness, mala fides and nepotism in the matter of rejecting the tender of the appellant it is submitted that there is no scope for interfering with the decision of the AAI to go in for retender. It is also pointed out that this is not a case where the contract was awarded to anyone at all. Reliance is also placed by him on the following decisions: [Rajasthan Housing Board and Another v. G.S. Investments and Another ( (2007) 1 SCC 477 ), Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others ((2007) 14 SCC 517), Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and Others ( (2012) 8 SCC 216 ), Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited v. RDS Projects Limited and Others ( (2013) 1 SCC 524 ), Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Others v. Om Prakash Sharma ( (2013) 5 SCC 182 ) and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority (2013 (4) KLT SN 7 (C.No.3))]. 8. We have gone through the matter. The rights accruing to a bidder participating in a tender process have been spelt out in many decisions of the Supreme Court. It may be apposite to refer to just one here. 8. We have gone through the matter. The rights accruing to a bidder participating in a tender process have been spelt out in many decisions of the Supreme Court. It may be apposite to refer to just one here. In the case of Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and Another – 2009 (6) SCC 171 – the content of the right of a bidder was explained as follows: “The bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right to equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation of competitive bids offered by interested persons in response to notice inviting tenders in a transparent manner and free from bidden agenda. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the above stated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations. It is so well settled in law and needs no restatement at our hands that disposal of the public property by the state or its instrumentalities partakes the character of a trust. The methods to be adopted for disposal of public property must be fair and transparent providing an opportunity to all the interested persons to participate in the process. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the Authority's action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favouritism.” 9. In this case we are essentially called upon to determine the scope and content of the rights, if any, that accrued to the appellant, in the course of the proceedings initiated by the respondent AAI for finalizing the tender for the license to operate a baggage wrapping machine in the International Terminal of the Thiruvananthapuram Airport. As already noted, the appellant had been declared the highest bidder in the tender proceedings but the tender itself was subsequently cancelled and the appellant informed of the said decision vide Ext.P4. As already noted, the appellant had been declared the highest bidder in the tender proceedings but the tender itself was subsequently cancelled and the appellant informed of the said decision vide Ext.P4. The relevant portion of Ext.P4 reads as follows: “Please refer to your letter dated 12.12.2012 regarding submission of tender cost for participating in the baggage wrapping tender at Trivandrum Airport and also this office letter dated 4.1.2013. On further evaluation of documents submitted by Shri. P.A. Musthafa, it is observed that, a) Shri. P.A. Musthafa has purchased the tender documents in the name and style of Baggage Wrapping Services where as participated in the name and style of P.A. Musthafa (PAM) whereas General Conditions para 1 clearly states that tender documents are not transferable. b) As per Legal view, tender document purchased was transferred from Baggage Wrapping Service to P.A. Musthafa. This transfer cannot be allowed as per NIT condition 1 General Information. In view of the above, the Competent Authority has decided to cancel and re-tender the licence for operating baggage wrapping machine at the International Terminal at Trivandrum Airport.” On a perusal of Ext.P4 communication, impliedly it could be said that it contains two decisions taken by the AAI. The first is the decision to reject the tender of the appellant on the ground of noncompliance with a procedural condition of the NIT. This decision of the AAI was found to be illegal by the learned Single Judge. The other decision contained in Ext.P4 is the dec0ision to cancel the tender proceedings itself in view of the decision to reject the tender of the appellant. This latter decision is distinct and different from the former and in turn, appears to be based on a policy decision taken by AAI pursuant to the recommendations of the RCAC. We have thought it fit to clarify this aspect only because the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, contended that the non-citing of the reasons for cancellation of the tender proceedings in Ext.P4 communication would vitiate the decision of AAI on the principles enunciated in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra) which principle has been adverted in the context of a contractual matter as well in the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another v. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others ( (2013) 10 SCC 95 ). It appears, as contended by the respondent, that on 08.05.2013 a decision [Ext.R3(c)] was taken by the RCAC to scrap the tender process, in view of what is stated in Ext.P4. However, as is apparent from the decision itself, it was also in view of the technical observations relating to the machine that they were evaluating. 10. The legality of the decision of AAI has to be tested on the touchstone of non-arbitrariness, rationality and fairness and, if it is found to satisfy these requirements, there is no scope for a judicial interference with the said decision. The principles that have to be borne by a Court exercising judicial review in matters relating to exercise of contractual power by bodies that answer to the description of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India have been clearly enunciated in the case of Tata Cellular (supra) as follows: “The principles deducible from the above are: (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 a review 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 of 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 fairplay 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. 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.” These principles have been reiterated more recently in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Limited (supra), as follows: “(a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities; (b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and the courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by courts is very limited; (c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted; (d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and (e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. 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”? and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected ? If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226. As observed earlier, the Court would not normally interfere with the policy decision and in matters challenging the award of contract by the State or public authorities. In view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the same was contrary to public interest and beyond the pale of discrimination or unreasonable. We are satisfied that to have the best of the equipment for the vehicles, which ply on road carrying passengers, the 2nd respondent thought it fit that the criteria for applying for tender for procuring tyres should be at a high standard and thought it fit that only those manufacturers who satisfy the eligibility criteria should be permitted to participate in teh tender. As noted in various decisions, the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the courts would interfere. The courts cannot interfere with 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. In the case on hand, we have already noted that taking into account various aspects including the safety of the passengers and public interest, CMG consisting of experienced persons, revised the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these two conditions regarding pre-qualification criteria and the evaluation criteria. In the case on hand, we have already noted that taking into account various aspects including the safety of the passengers and public interest, CMG consisting of experienced persons, revised the tender conditions. We are satisfied that the said Committee had discussed the subject in detail and for specifying these two conditions regarding pre-qualification criteria and the evaluation criteria. On perusal of all the materials, we are satisfied that the impugned conditions do not, in any way, could be classified as arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide.” By applying the principle aforesaid, to the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the appellant cannot have a right to insist on the award of a contract in his favour, more so when the AAI has taken a policy decision not to go ahead with the tender procedure based on the terms contained in the present NIT. 11. Alternatively, we will also look at it in the following way. We have already referred to Ext.P4 dated 09.05.2013 and Ext.R3(c) dated 08.05.2013. Apparently, Ext.P4 is premised on Ext.R3(c) which we have extracted. As far as Ext.R3(c) is concerned, there is reference to complaints received from both sides. Thereafter, there is reference to (a) observation of wrapping machine eligibility relating to parameters similar to sub paragraph – Mangalore Airport. In regard to the Mangalore Airport, reference is made to documents relating to eligibility requirement of wrapping machine not figuring under general conditions in paragraph 3. It is found that therefore, evaluation is not done properly by the station as per the evaluation note. RCAC concludes that tender and its process are defective and hence be scrapped to recall with proper specifications, terms, requirement of documents etc. 12. As far as the aforesaid ground is concerned, it is true that it is not mentioned in Ext.P4. It is also contended by the appellant that this also amounts to reopening the technical evaluation which was already done, as evident from Ext.P2 wherein the appellant was informed that the appellant is qualified in the technical bid process, which was based on the documents submitted in envelope (A). The reopening of the technical evaluation by RCAC is done when what was sent up to it in terms of the manual was consideration of the financial bid. The reopening of the technical evaluation by RCAC is done when what was sent up to it in terms of the manual was consideration of the financial bid. Thereafter there is a reference to the ground taken in Ext.R3(c) and it is mentioned that the tender process has to be scrapped in view of what is stated in relation to the flaw in the tender as well as technical observations relating to wrapping machine which was not evaluated by the station as observed in the notes. It would appear that in terms of the principle enunciated in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra) and Rashmi Metaiks Limited's case (supra), it may amount to supplementing the reasons given in Ext.P4. It may also amount to giving a reason for cancellation and retender for which tenable reasons may not have been made out in what was communicated to the appellant. 13. To examine whether the non-communication of the latter reasons infringed any right of the appellant, however, it is apposite that we also refer to and extract the observations of RED on Trivandrum Airport contained in Ext.R3(c). RED's Observation on TVM Airport The pre-Notes of GM(Comml), DGM(Law), Finance Dte. Stated, examination related purchase of tender document and technical bid was not carried out earlier by RHQ. In this regard, question arises, whether the tender which was purchased under the style of Baggage Wrapping services and payment of tender cost made therein, subsequent submission of tender in different name and style [P.A. Mustafa) (Pam)] is legally valid or otherwise. Moreover, as per general information of guidelines in para(1), tender documents are not transferable. Even though it is a proprietorship concern, the individual cannot transfer the tender document purchased in one style to another style without the approval of AAI. Hence, it amounts to transfer of documents. Hence, I agree with legal view that the tender is to be rejected. In addition to the above, an abstract review reveals that as per NIT para 3(b), party should have owned/leased machine and the baggage wrapping machine should not occupy space not more than 1.5 sq.m, manufactured by reputed company and machine should be of battery operated. Hence, I agree with legal view that the tender is to be rejected. In addition to the above, an abstract review reveals that as per NIT para 3(b), party should have owned/leased machine and the baggage wrapping machine should not occupy space not more than 1.5 sq.m, manufactured by reputed company and machine should be of battery operated. It is observed from the tender scrutiny note, the technical evaluation in respect of machine related particulars, namely owning of the machine, safety, type of power source for operation appears to have not been clearly done by the airport officials during technical bid stage, as the tender scrutiny note does not reveal such evaluation. In view of the above, the tender process is incomplete. Moreover, it is not appropriate to call any additional informations from the parties, at this stage. Hence the tender process is to be rejected. Incidentally, market survey was done through internet on the availability and type of baggage wrapping machine. Comparative information on salient specification is placed opposite along with downloaded documents which reveals that out of 6 companies, 5 companies baggage wrapping machine operation is with 220v AC system. Whereas one particular company has twin driven type (A/C and battery operation option). Demanding or specifying only battery operated type machine favouring party Moreover, it is not appropriate on the part of AAI, as it amounts to restricting to one particular type of machine and also not good for healthy competition. This point need to be brought to CHQ to redraw specification before recall. Even in case of twin driven type machine, standard power source is 220v A/C, None of the bidders may qualify if AAI insist Battery operated Machine AAI objective is to provide baggage wrapping service. Hence Machine features should be left to the bidder's choice. Moreover observed as per NIT Party to own or to have lease agreement for the Wrapping machine. Determination of eligibility for participation based on this NIT condition is not appropriate, as NIT provides certain period for commencement of service after award/gestation period. Moreover insisting lease agreement or purchase of a particular type (battery) of Machine, will restrict the choice of bidders to purchase/have lease agreement and also some time for trade reason the same or limited manufacturer may not offer that particular (battery) type Machine to other bidders resulting monopoly, restrictive participation in tender. Moreover insisting lease agreement or purchase of a particular type (battery) of Machine, will restrict the choice of bidders to purchase/have lease agreement and also some time for trade reason the same or limited manufacturer may not offer that particular (battery) type Machine to other bidders resulting monopoly, restrictive participation in tender. In such a situation AAI may not be able to optimizing revenue. Hence it is of view AAI to more concentrate on monitor/realization of quoted License fee as per agreed terms even if delay in commencement of business and deal the contract as per terms of tender, rather than insisting document proof on owning or lease agreement which are in the domain of contractor. Not providing Machine or service timely will primarily affect the earning of the contractor and not to AAI. Moreover it is of view that the machine size, or area its occupy should not be a criteria for eligibility/rejection as the area/size of Machine is only indicative and AAI calculated license fee takes into account the nominal space rent. It is proposed to have a check list on documents to be attached as part of technical bid - envelope 1, namely mandatory document and additional documents. Mandatory documents are those documents based on which eligibility and statutory obligation are to be met. Hence after opening technical bid no mandatory documents shall be accepted. Whereas AAI can seek clarification as well as receive updated or latest additional documents. The NIT approving authority shall make known mandatory document and additional documents check list in clear manner as part of Tender. In view of the above, there is no alternative except to reject and recalled tender with proper specification, clarity of terms and conditions and eligibility particulars, etc. 14. Even proceeding on the basis that Ext.P4 falls foul of the principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill's case (supra), we must pose the question as to what is the right available to the appellant. It is not a case where the contract has been awarded to anyone else. The appellant cannot contend that the appellant must be awarded the contract. There is a right available to cancel and retender. In the ultimate analysis, we must understand the decision in the context of the rights available to the parties. It is not a case where the contract has been awarded to anyone else. The appellant cannot contend that the appellant must be awarded the contract. There is a right available to cancel and retender. In the ultimate analysis, we must understand the decision in the context of the rights available to the parties. More importantly, we are bound to consider whether there is overwhelming public interest in favour of our interfering in the matter. We would think that if the decision appears to have been one taken in larger public interest, namely, that the tender conditions are amended so as to incorporate conditions which would allow for greater participation and greater competition by having tender conditions so as to make available the right kind of machine, we must defer to the decision of the AAI. 15. It must be appreciated that the decision was also one that was taken with a view to having increased participation in the tender process as also to ensure that the facility of baggage wrapping, that was ultimately made available in the various airports, was more passenger friendly. It could not be said that the AAI had, in taking the decision that it did, chosen to disregard material facts or taken into account facts that were not germane to the issue. It was also not a decision taken to favour any particular individual or body as this is not a case where the contract has been awarded to anyone at all. There is thus no mala fides – either factual or legal – established in this case. We therefore find that the decision of the AAI was not vitiated by any of the factors that would affect its legality and consequently, the same cannot be interfered with in judicial review proceedings. Resultantly, we see no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned single judge in the impugned judgment. This Writ appeal is hence dismissed but without any order as to costs.