ORDER R. Kantha Rao, J. 1. The 2nd respondent issued Tender Notice dated 9.2.2015 inviting tenders for the works relating to transportation of food grains, pulses or any other commodities from various places within and outside the district to various places, within and outside the district under Stage-1 excluding the transportation to fair price shop points for the year 2015-16. In response to the said notification, the petitioner submitted online bid. The 2nd respondent opened the technical bids on 24.2.2015 and financial bids on 26.2.2015. Out of the 3 tenders, the tender in respect of New Nagendra Transport was disqualified and the petitioner's tender was considered to be the lowest i.e., L1 and Y. Srikanth Transport was L2. As per Clause 16 of the Tender Conditions, the lowest rate received in the tender will be treated as L1. As per Clause 31, in case L1 tenderer is backed out, the 2nd respondent-CCS and Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Hyderabad (the Corporation, for short) reserves the right to call the L2 tenderer. The petitioner quoted flat rate at 14.28% whereas Y. Srikanth quoted 15.35%. According to the petitioner, the petitioner being the lowest tenderer, he is entitled for award of the contract. It is submitted by the petitioner that after opening the technical bid on 24.2.2015 and financial bid on 26.2.2015 respectively, he was informed that he was the lowest tenderer and he was asked to attend the office of the 2nd respondent-Corporation on 28.2.2015 to finalise the tender. When he went to the office and enquired about the award of tender, he was informed that they wanted to take a decision in couple of days for awarding tender. He submits that to his utter surprise, the 2nd respondent-Corporation issued Re-Tender Notice dated 28.2.2015 and the same was published in Times of India Newspaper on 1.3.2015 inviting online tenders for Warangal, Medak, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Nizamabad Districts in the State of Telangana. It is contended by the petitioner that having informed that he is the lowest tenderer i.e., L1, the action of the respondents-Corporation in not awarding the contract for transportation of food grains for the year 2015-16 in Warangal District without any reasons is highly arbitrary and illegal. It is contended by the petitioner that having informed that he is the lowest tenderer i.e., L1, the action of the respondents-Corporation in not awarding the contract for transportation of food grains for the year 2015-16 in Warangal District without any reasons is highly arbitrary and illegal. He further submits that the 2nd respondent-Corporation has not given any notice to him informing about cancelling the Tender Notice dated 9.2.2015 and also has not given any reasons for not awarding contract to him in respect of transportation of food grains etc., in Warangal District for the year 2015-16 after opening the technical and financial bids though the petitioner is the lowest tenderer. According to him, he has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the Tender Notice and he is the lowest tenderer and his technical and financial bids were accepted. Obviously, without the knowledge of the petitioner and without awarding contract, issuing the Re-Tender Notification for the same work is said to be highly arbitrary, bad and illegal. He pointed out that the Tender Notification was given on 9.2.2015 in respect of 10 districts in the State of Telangana and tenders relating to technical and financial bids were opened in respect of all districts but Re-Tender Notice was given only in respect of 5 districts for which no reasons were given. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in not awarding the contract to the petitioner, who is the lowest tenderer and issuing Re-Tender Notification dated 28.2.2015 for the same work as arbitrary and illegal and to pass necessary orders. 2. The respondents-Corporation filed counter-affidavit contending, inter alia, as follows: "(a) The petitioner was evaluated as L1 tenderer is admitted. The fact that the technical and financial bids were opened is also admitted. It is submitted by the respondents that as per Clause 31(b) of the Tender Conditions, there shall not be any negotiations with any tenderer at any level by the Corporation and therefore, the Corporation need not put on the petitioner or any other tenderer on notice before issuing Re-Tender Notification. It is submitted by the respondents that as per Clause 31(b) of the Tender Conditions, there shall not be any negotiations with any tenderer at any level by the Corporation and therefore, the Corporation need not put on the petitioner or any other tenderer on notice before issuing Re-Tender Notification. It is further submitted that as per Clause 31(d) of the Tender Conditions, the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the Corporation reserves the right to reject any of the tenders without assigning any reason whatsoever and the decision of the CCS and Managing Director in this regard shall be final and binding on the tenderers and the same cannot be called in question. The reason for issuing the Re-Tender Notification seems to be that the rate quoted by the petitioner with an increase of 14.28% compared to the rate of previous year is not competitive and therefore, the Corporation in its wisdom has decided to call for re-tenders and as such Re-Tender Notice was issued. It is submitted that the Corporation has taken a decision to re-tender in as many as 5 districts where the rates received by the 1st Tender Notice was above 10% and Warangal District is one of such districts apart from Hyderabad, Medak, Ranga Reddy and Nizamabad Districts. (b) Nextly, it is submitted that the re-tender of the tenderer M/s. New Nagendra Lorry Transport is evaluated as L1 and rates quoted by M/s. New Nagendra Lorry Transport is with increase of 11.83% on the existing rates. However, it is stated that in view of the interim orders passed by this Court staying the finalization of tenders, the Corporation has not taken any decision to award the tender for Warangal District. Thus, according to the respondents, the Tender Committee examined the rates received and as the rates in respect of 5 districts were non-competitive, re-tenders were called for in the 5 districts. It is said that pursuant to the Re-Tender Notification, all the tenderers who participated in the 1st tender also participated in the Re-Tender except the petitioner and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the tenderers. It is said that pursuant to the Re-Tender Notification, all the tenderers who participated in the 1st tender also participated in the Re-Tender except the petitioner and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the tenderers. It is contended that since the rates quoted by the tenderers in the 1st tender not being competitive, the Corporation has a right to cancel the tenders, no tenderer has a right to question the cancellation of the tenders as the filing of the tender is only an offer and the tenderer has no right to insist that the tender be awarded in his favour on the ground that his bid is the lowest. (c) Contending as above, the respondents-Corporation sought to dismiss the writ petition." 3. WPMP No. 12152 of 2015 is filed by 7 contractors, who were the transport contractors under the Unified Transport System for Warangal District for the previous year, contending that their representation to continue them as contractors under Unified Transport System for the year 2015-16 was not considered before finalizing the tender for the year 2015-16. They based their contention on the order passed by this Court in WP No. 3271 of 2015 wherein this Court directed to consider their representation dated 28.2.2015 and continue them under Unified Transport System before finalizing the tender process for the year 2015-16. The said implead petition is allowed and they came on record as respondents 4 to 10. 4. I have heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for the State of Telangana appearing for the 1st respondent, Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3-Corporation and Sri Kishore Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the impleaded parties-respondents 4 to 10. 5. The question requires determination in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner, who is the lowest tenderer, has any right to question the issuance of Re-Tender Notification by the respondents 2 and 3-Corporation. 6. Obviously, the petitioner did not ask any relief in the writ petition to evaluate the tender. His grievance is that even though he is the lowest tenderer, his technical and financial bids were opened and found to be in order, not awarding the contract in his favour cancelling the 1st tender and issuing Re-Tender Notification is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. His grievance is that even though he is the lowest tenderer, his technical and financial bids were opened and found to be in order, not awarding the contract in his favour cancelling the 1st tender and issuing Re-Tender Notification is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the Supreme Court explained the scope of judicial review in Government Contracts/Tenders. The Supreme Court took the view that the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision is review able as the Court does not sit as appellate Court while exercising the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court took the further view that while the Court cannot interfere with the Government's freedom of contract, invitation of tender and refusal of any tender which pertain to policy matter, but whether the decision/action is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality, irrationality or 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' i.e., when decision is such as no reasonable person on proper application of mind could take or procedural impropriety, can be looked into by the Court. The test is whether wrong is of such a nature as to require intervention. If so the Court would set right the decision-making process. But, it would not substitute its own opinion for that of experts. According to the Supreme Court, the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution of India have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. 8. In F.C.I v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71 , the Supreme Court held as follows: "7. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action'..........To satisfy this requirement of non-arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review." 9. In New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 : 1995 (1) ALD (S.C.S.N.) 52-3, the Supreme Court took the view that the State action should be in consonance with standards or norms which should not be arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. Terms and conditions of the tender should be construed from the standpoint of a prudent businessman. With reference to the facts before it, the Supreme Court pointed out that non-consideration of the appellant's tender on the ground that experience of its constituents was not the same as that of the appellant and acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 4 which offered a much lower amount as royalty was arbitrary and irrational. 10. The petitioner contended in the present writ petition that the action of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in issuing Re-Tender Notification is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that only in 5 districts, Re-Tender Notification was issued and in other districts despite the fact that the tenderers quoted the rate more than 10%, Re-Tender Notification has not been issued. According to the petitioner, obviously issuing Re-Tender Notification is to favour some tenderers. It is also contended that only in 5 districts, Re-Tender Notification was issued and in other districts despite the fact that the tenderers quoted the rate more than 10%, Re-Tender Notification has not been issued. According to the petitioner, obviously issuing Re-Tender Notification is to favour some tenderers. It is also contended that as the technical and financial bids were opened, the prices quoted by the tenderers were leaked out to enable the tenderers to quote much lesser price in the bid relating to Re-Tender Notification. The fact that even though the lowest tenderers quoted the price more than 10% in the other districts were awarded contracts is not denied by the 2nd respondent-Corporation. Therefore, it is not open for the 2nd respondent-Corporation to assert that the Re-Tender Notification was issued only for the purpose of benefiting the Corporation. Further, there is no tender condition indicating that tender will not be accepted if the tender quotes more than 10%. As the tender conditions do not contain any such stipulation, cancellation of the first tender is not in accordance with the tender conditions. Re-Tender Notification was issued only in 5 districts including Warangal District and the tenders which quoted more than 10% were accepted in the other districts. Therefore, the Corporation has not adopted any uniform approach in all the districts. 11. Though one of the tender conditions lays down that the Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of the 2nd respondent-Corporation reserves the right to reject any of the tenders without assigning any reason whatsoever and the decision of the CCS and Managing Director shall be final and binding on the tenderer and cannot be called in question, it cannot be understood to mean that the action cancelling the tender need not confirm to the test of reasonableness. 12. The petitioner is L1 Tenderer. His technical and financial bids were opened and were accepted. The petitioner being the lowest tenderer, in normal course, he would legitimately expect that his tender would be accepted and the contract would be awarded to him. 13. In Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries's case (supra), the Supreme Court pointed out that every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. According to the Supreme Court, if the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate, the same has to be necessarily considered. 14. 13. In Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries's case (supra), the Supreme Court pointed out that every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a fair decision making process. According to the Supreme Court, if the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate, the same has to be necessarily considered. 14. In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Supreme Court pointed out the following 3 instances wherein the interference in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review is permissible: (i) the process adopted or decision made is mala fide or intended to favour someone, or (ii) the same is so arbitrary and irrational that no responsible authority acting under law could have arrived at it, or (iii) it affected the public interest. 15. In the instant case, as none of the tender conditions stipulate that the tenders which quoted above 10% would not be accepted and more particularly, in view of the fact that the contracts were awarded to the tenderers who quoted above 10% price in some districts, the decision of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in cancelling the first tender and issuing Re-Tender Notification is arbitrary and illegal. It is not open for the 2nd respondent-Corporation to contend in the facts and circumstances of the present case that the Re-Tender Notification was issued as the bid offered by the petitioner is not competitive. Even in the Re-Tender Notification, the lowest bid quoted is with increase of only 11.83% which is slightly more than the rate in the previous year. The contention of the petitioner is that only to favour some of the tenderers, Re-Tender Notification was issued in 5 districts. The circumstances under which Re-Tender Notification was issued probablise the contention of the petitioner. The reason assigned by the 2nd respondent-Corporation for issuing Re-Tender Notification is not convincing and acceptable. According to the ratio laid down in Tata Cellular's case (supra), this Court can interfere with the freedom of contract of the 2nd respondent-Corporation if it is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality or irrationality. Normally this Court will not issue any direction to award contract in favour of a particular tenderer. But, in the present case, the contract was denied to the petitioner arbitrarily and illegally and in violation of Article14 of the Constitution of India. Normally this Court will not issue any direction to award contract in favour of a particular tenderer. But, in the present case, the contract was denied to the petitioner arbitrarily and illegally and in violation of Article14 of the Constitution of India. On the pretext of getting the best quotation, the 2nd respondent-Corporation cannot go on issuing Re-Tender Notifications by infringing the rights of lowest tenderer. The tender submitted by the petitioner is the lowest, his technical and financial bids were opened and were found to be in order. 16. In the facts and circumstances, which have been narrated herein above, this Court sees no reason as to why the contract was not awarded to the petitioner. In the present case, the merits of the decision of the 2nd respondent-Corporation is not the subject-matter of judicial review but the decision making process itself. Therefore, this Court can set aside the Re-Tender Notification. Since the rejection of the tender of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal, this Court would certainly interfere with the decision of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in issuing the Re-Tender Notification. 17. Insofar as the implead petition i.e., WP MP No. 12152 of 2015 is concerned, though this Court in WP No. 3271 of 2015 issued a direction to consider their representation dated 28.2.2015, the said direction does not vest the implead petitioners with any right to question the Tender Notification issued by the 2nd respondent-Corporation since their contract period admittedly came to an end. Therefore, they are entitled for no relief in the present writ petition. For what all stated herein above, the Re-Tender Notification dated 28.2.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent-Corporation is set aside. The 2nd respondent-Corporation is directed to award contract to the petitioner pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 9.2.2015 for the year 2015-16 of Warangal District in the State of Telangana. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.