ORDER : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the respondent LIC be directed to treat the petitioner firm qualified in a technical bid to participate in the financial bid. 2. Briefly stated, the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India, published a notice dated 8.6.2016 in the newspaper inviting tenders for taking on rent premises for storage of docket. It was stated in the Notice Inviting Tenders that total 19000 sq.fts. Carpet area was required with permissible difference of (+)(-)5% on either side. It is further stated in the advertisement that the premises should be situated within radius of 30 kms from Jaipur. All the persons interested to give bid were required to submit tender between 8.6.2016 to 28.6.2016. The technical bid was to be opened on 29.6.2016. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is having one plot bearing F-96 situated at Road No. 7, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, measuring 2193 sq.mtrs. and the lease of the said plot has been executed in favour of the petitioner by Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (hereinafter called as 'RIICO'). It is further averred that the petitioner company had constructed godown over the said plot and same was suitable to be taken by the respondent LIC on rent. The petitioner entertained an apprehension that his bid is not being considered by the respondent LIC, therefore, he approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Praveen Balwada, being Caveator appeared for the respondents. Mr. Balwada sought time to file reply. Consequently, reply has been filed. 5. Much emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the petitioner on the letter (Annexure-3) i.e. Notice Inviting Tender (in short 'NIT'). The relevant column of the NIT, reads as under:- Hkou dk miHkksx Hk.Mkj.k@xksnke@okf.kfT;d 6. Mr. Anand Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that between the words 'storage, godown and commercial' in the NIT 'slash (/)' has been inserted, so it has to be inferred that the premises is required by the respondent LIC either for storage or godown or for commercial purposes. Whereas, Mr. Praveen Balwada on instructions from Mr. Naresh Sharma, Estate Manager, LIC, has submitted that storage/godown/commercial is to be understood that the premises is required for all the three purposes. 7. Whereas, Mr. Praveen Balwada on instructions from Mr. Naresh Sharma, Estate Manager, LIC, has submitted that storage/godown/commercial is to be understood that the premises is required for all the three purposes. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner is having existing office in the area of RIICO and since RIICO has not permitted them to use it commercially, therefore, another building is required by the respondent LIC. In the reply filed, it is stated that the building required by the respondent Corporation is to be used for all the three purposes i.e. storage/godown/commercial. It is contended that LIC intend to perform commercial functions from the building to be taken on rent. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the LIC always need an area where not only things are stored but is also used for carrying functions of its branch. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner to controvert the above submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents has referred to letter (Annexure-16) annexed with the rejoinder. He has submitted that the said letter was issued by Senior Divisional Manager, and in the same it has been specifically stated that permission be sought by the petitioner from RIICO to the effect that premises can be used for purposes of godowning. It is further submitted that in pursuance of the letter dated 7.9.2016 (wrongly mentioned as 7.8.2016), issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, permission had already granted by RIICO in favour of the petitioner, hence, premises to be let out by the petitioner is complaint for godowning. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that NIT should be understood in the manner in which it is being interpreted by the respondent inviting tenders. It is for the LIC to safeguard its best interest. If from premises used for storage and godown, LIC can run its commercial venture to enhance business potential by opening its branch rights of the respondent cannot be eclipsed, merely because notice inviting tender is to be read in the manner in which it is being read by the petitioner. Therefore, this Court cannot direct the respondents to lower their bench mark to accommodate the petitioner. Therefore, this Court cannot direct the respondents to lower their bench mark to accommodate the petitioner. Even otherwise, in the matters of contract, as held in M/s. Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka (SC), 2012 (8) SCC 216 , the power of this court to hold judicial review is very limited. The court can only invoke power of judicial review if respondent oust petitioner in manner which is arbitrary, irrational or same is laced with malice. Interpretation pressed into service to secure commercial interests of the LIC, cannot be held to be arbitrary and irrational. No malice on the part of the respondent is discernible and thus, the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.