JUDGMENT : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. The petitioner seeks a writ declaring the time-limit for completion of the contract entered into between the parties to be invalid. At the hearing, an order was sought directing the respondents to constitute a committee for stipulating the norms for fixing the period of construction contracts. 2. Clause 4.3 of the contract in question stipulates the conditions for the bidders to be qualified for the award of the contract. Clauses 4.3 C(a) and 4.4 read as under:- “4.3 To qualify for award of the contract, each bidder in its name should have: …… ……. …… ……. C In addition to above, each bidder to be eligible or qualify should have submitted/attached with his technical bid- (a) an undertaking that his available bid capacity, calculated as per clause 4.4 below, is more than the estimated value of the project/work (as specified in BDS). 4.4 Bid Capacity The bid capacity of the prospective bidders will be calculated as under: Assessed Available Bid Capacity = (A*N*2-B) Where A = Maximum value of Civil Engineering works executed in any one year (year means Financial year) during the last five years (updated to the price level of the Financial year in which bids are received at a rate per year as indicated in the BDS) taking into account the completed as well as works in progress. N = Number of years prescribed for completion of the Project/Works for which these bids are being invited (e.g. 7 months = 7/12 years) B = Value (updated to the price level of the year indicated in BDS) of existing commitments (only allotted works) on the last date of submission of bids as per bidding document and on-going works to be completed during the period of completion of the Project/Works for which these bids are being invited. Note: The statement showing the value of existing commitments and on-going works as well as the stipulated period of completion remaining for each of the works listed should be attached along with certificates duly signed by the Engineerin- Charge not below the rank of an Executive Engineer or equivalent.” 3. The formula is not challenged. The petitioner’s grievance is that the period of the contract ought to be fixed rationally and on valid criteria. 4. The formula is not challenged. The petitioner’s grievance is that the period of the contract ought to be fixed rationally and on valid criteria. 4. There can be no dispute that all the parameters including the period of the contract must be fixed in a rational and reasonable manner and not arbitrarily. There is no reason, however, to believe that the authority that stipulates the tender conditions always acts irrationally, arbitrarily and unjustly. The parties inviting tenders normally undertake a detailed process for fixing the terms and conditions of the tenders. At times, the terms and conditions may be defective for a variety of reasons not necessarily mala fide. Very often it is a case of trial and error. So long as the process is undertaken fairly and rationally, there can be no grievance. 5. Whether the terms and conditions of a tender have been fixed properly or unfairly would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Normally, absent any mala fides or any totally illogical or irrational action, it is the party inviting tenders that must decide the terms and conditions thereof. Courts do not sit in judgment over the decisions of the parties inviting tenders who may have undertaken the exercise with the assistance of experts either in-house or through other consultants and advisers. 6. We do not find it necessary or proper to compel the every agency or instrumentality of the State or the State itself to form a committee to determine the manner in which the period of a contract must be fixed. It would indeed be an almost impossible task. Each contract and, in any event, each type of contract would require an elaborate exercise while fixing the terms and conditions of the notice inviting tenders and the terms and conditions of the contract itself. The variables would be innumerable. There may be any number of variables even in similar contracts. Only some variables may be common in some contracts and not all. It is difficult for a single committee to fix the parameters by a common formula for all the contracts entered into by the State or its agencies or instrumentalities. Nor do we see any reason to compel each and every party inviting tenders to constitute a committee for the purpose of fixing the terms and conditions of each tender. It is difficult for a single committee to fix the parameters by a common formula for all the contracts entered into by the State or its agencies or instrumentalities. Nor do we see any reason to compel each and every party inviting tenders to constitute a committee for the purpose of fixing the terms and conditions of each tender. The party inviting tenders is free to adopt any reasonable method for the purpose of fixing the terms and conditions of the tenders. They may rely upon experts or consultants. They may rely upon in-house expertise or may seek the assistance of other consultants. Whether a committee is to be formed for this purpose or not is a matter for the party inviting tenders to decide. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the clarification that a party aggrieved by the terms and conditions of a contract must challenge the same. The validity of the challenge would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.