JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner for quashing the conditions contained in the tender document inviting tenders, issued by the Electrical Division No-II, Shimla, I-G-M-C- and to direct the respondents/State of Himachal Pradesh to allow the petitioner and other similarly situated persons to participate in the tender process without adhering to the conditions contained in the tender document (Annexure P-6), and also to quash the conditions contained in the tender document. 2. Briefly stating, as per the petitioner, he is a government contractor and is working as such since long under the name and style M/s Bhardwaj Electrical Company, registered in the name of Puran Chand Bhardwaj Proprietor M/s Bhardwaj Electrical Company and it is further submitted that he is A Class contractor licencee and his licence has been issued under Indian Electrical Rules, 1956, particularly Rule 45. As per the petitioner, he has been debarred from participating in a bare tender process by the respondents by incorporating certain conditions in the tender document, which are unreasonable and the petitioner, though entitled to get any work, is debarred from participating in the tender process. The conditions incorporated in the tender document (Annexure P-6) are reproduced as under: “1. Contractor Enlistment: - Eligible bidder shall mean a Registered Electrical Contractor of HPPWD in appropriate class and discipline, with valid contractor enlistment on the date of opening of bid. Proof to be uploaded as PDF. 2. Annual Turnover: - Minimum average annual turnover of the bidder during last three years ending 31st march of the previous financial year should be at least 30% of the estimated value of present work. 3. Minimum Work done condition: - Minimum two similar work done each of amount not less than 30% (Thirty percent) of the estimated cost or one similar work done of amount not less than 50% (fifty percent) (without Liquidated Damage or compensation) in last five years. The term “Similar Work” shall mean INTERNAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WORKS. 4. Registration with Sales Tax and Income Tax is essential.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier also the respondents incorporated such type of conditions in the tender document and thereafter writ petition was filed and the respondents did not adhere to those conditions, consequently writ petition was withdrawn. 4. Registration with Sales Tax and Income Tax is essential.” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that earlier also the respondents incorporated such type of conditions in the tender document and thereafter writ petition was filed and the respondents did not adhere to those conditions, consequently writ petition was withdrawn. The petitioner has relied upon the letter of respondent No. 2, whereby officers of the respondents were directed not to attach unnecessary conditions in the tender forms. As per the petitioner, as far as D Class contractors are concerned, tendering limit has been curtailed up to Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lac), for C Class contractors the tendering limit is curtailed up to Rs.10,00,000/- (rupees ten lac), for B Class contractors the tendering limit is curtailed up to Rs.25,00,000/- (rupees twenty five lac) and for A Class contractors there is no tendering limit. 4. As per the petitioner, he is A Class Contractor and he can participate in any tender of any amount for allotment of work to him, i.e., he can make an offer on the basis of invitation to offer of any limit of work to be executed by the respondents. It is further submitted that petitioner is regular contractor from the year 1983 and has executed many works with the respondents. As per the petitioner, conditions No. 1 to 3 of tender document (Annexure P-6) are contrary to the licence issued to the petitioner, wherein he has been licenced to work without any condition and up to any limit. The petitioner has further submitted that the electrical work will start only after completion of the building and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents in case they are directed to start the tendering process afresh without any conditions, which now finds mention in the tender document. The petitioner has further submitted that in other tenders, invited by the Electrical Circle, Shimla, such unnecessary conditions have been incorporated. However, no such conditions have been incorporated in the tenders invited in Dharamshala region. It is further submitted that conditions incorporated in the tender document are contrary to Annexures P-1 and P-3 and the same are unreasonable. By incorporating such like conditions, respondents are trying to stop individuals to participate in the tender process. However, no such conditions have been incorporated in the tenders invited in Dharamshala region. It is further submitted that conditions incorporated in the tender document are contrary to Annexures P-1 and P-3 and the same are unreasonable. By incorporating such like conditions, respondents are trying to stop individuals to participate in the tender process. The petitioner also alleges mala fides against the respondents that only two to three contractors have executed big works in the previous years and now they, in connivance with the authorities concerned, got incorporated conditions in the tender document which are contrary to Annexures P-1 and P3, just to curtail healthy competition and in absence of healthy competition, ultimately the State Exchequer will be put to loss. As per the petitioner, such unnecessary conditions are contrary to the spirit of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, wherein equality of work has been provided. There is no reasonable relation and nexus sought to be achieved by incorporating such conditions and, therefore, the conditions are liable to be set aside. 5. As per the petitioner, the conditions are arbitrary, without application of mind and highly illegal. The petitioner was having legitimate expectation of getting the work and executing the contract after giving his offer, as he is A Class Contractor, but the action of the respondents by incorporating the conditions in a mala fide manner in the tender document, debarred the petitioner and other similarly situated persons, therefore, the writ petition may be allowed. 6. Reply to the writ petition was filed by respondents No. 1 to 5 through respondent No. 4. As per the replying respondents, the petitioner is A Class Contractor in H.P. Public Works Department (Electrical Wing). Succinctly the petitioner wants to get the conditions, contained in tender document (Annexure P-6), quashed which are contrary to Annexures P-1 and P-3 relating to eligibility criteria. Replying respondents also contended that the petitioner is also seeking direction qua grant of tender to him and other similarly situated persons, who have been enlisted in higher grade before issuance of the Enlistment Rules, dated 08.06.2015 (Annexure P-3) and also to allow the petitioner to participate in tenders of any category or bids by striking down eligibility criteria. 7. It is the case of the replying respondents that eligibility criteria condition of tender document is not part of new Enlistment Rules, 2015. 7. It is the case of the replying respondents that eligibility criteria condition of tender document is not part of new Enlistment Rules, 2015. The above clause is not new to the tender documents and the same is in application to the tender process. Standard Bidding Document also contains the above clause. Similar nature of works to the extent of 40% is also being demanded from the contractors by various department/agency such as NRRDA/PMGSY, CPWD, MORTH as well as in C.V.C. guidelines. These pre-condition imposed by the various Departments in their respective documents are shown as under: NRRDA/PMGSY 4.4A to qualify for award of the Contract, each bidder should have in the last fiver years (5 years immediately preceding the year, in which the bids are invited, year means financial year); (a) Achieved in any one year a minimum financial turnover as mentioned in Bid Data Sheet (as certified by Chartered Accountant, and at least 50% of which is from Civil Engineering construction works). The estimated cost of the work would not include maintenance cost for 5 years and the turnover will be indexed at the rate of 8% per year. (b) Satisfactorily completed, as prime contractor, at least one similar work equal in value half of the estimated cost of work (excluding maintenance cost for five years) for which the bid is invited. CPWD 15.2 Tender for normal works 15.2.1 Tenders for works costing up to Rs. 20 Crores *(Modified as per OM DG/MAN/246 dt. 18.4.2012) (1) The tender documents for works costing up to Rs. 20 crores* shall be invited only from the contractors registered in the CPWD in the appropriate category and class. (2) However, the Additional Director General of the Region may relax this provision for works costing up to Rs.20 crores* for specific Division(s)/Circle(s)/Zone(s) in his Region for a specific period that he may consider it necessary, and may allow sale of tenders for such works to contractors registered with the Railways/MES/BSNL, State PWD’s (B&R) or the departments of state government dealing with (B&R) in appropriate classes (for CPWD works within that state). Non CPWD registered contractors shall have to fulfill the criteria of satisfactory execution of works as given below. Non CPWD registered contractors shall have to fulfill the criteria of satisfactory execution of works as given below. (i) Three similar works, each of value not less than 40% of the estimated cost put to tender, or (ii) two similar works, each of value not less than 60%(Modified as per OM/CON/261) of the estimated cost, or (iii) One similar work of value not less than 80% of the estimated cost, all amounts rounded off to a convenient full figure, in the last 7 years ending on the last day of the month previous to the one in which the tenders are invited. (3) “Similar work” shall be properly defined and appropriately indicated in the tender documents by the NIT approving authority. (4) For work costing about Rs.5 crore but up to Rs.20 crore, when tenders are also invited from non CPWD contractors with approval of ADG, tender shall also be open to Class II contractors of CPWD provided they have successfully executed 3 similar works each of value not less than 40% of estimated cost or two similar work each of value not less than 60% of estimated cost or one work of value not less than 80% of estimated cost (rounded to nearest Rs. 10 lac) in last 7 years ending previous day of last date of submission of tenders. (*The figure of Rs.5 Crore and Rs.20 Crores is for Civil/Composite works. For other categories i.e. electrical, horticulture, furniture it shall be the tendering limit of Class-II and Class-I contractors respectively of each discipline.) MORTH (Ministry of Road Transport & Highway) 4.5.3 General Experience The applicant shall meet the following minimum criteria: (a) average annual turnover (defined as billing for works in progress and completed in all classes of civil engineering construction works only) over the last five years of 40% of the value of contract/contracts applied for. (b) Experience in successfully completing or substantially completing at least one contract of highway (road and/or bridge works) airport runway of at least 40% of the value of proposed contract within the last five years. The works may have been executed by the applicant as prime contractor or as a member of joint venture or sub contractor. As such contractor, he should have acquired the experience of execution of all major items of works under the proposed contract. The works may have been executed by the applicant as prime contractor or as a member of joint venture or sub contractor. As such contractor, he should have acquired the experience of execution of all major items of works under the proposed contract. In case a project has been executed by a joint venture, weight age towards experience of the project would be given to each joint venture in proportion to their participation in the joint venture. Substantially completed works means those works which are at least 90% completed as on the date of submission (i.e. gross value of work done up to the last date of submission is 90% or more of the original contract price) and continuing satisfactorily. For these, a certificate from the employer shall be submitted along with the application incorporating clearly the name of the work, contract value, billing amount, date of commencement of works, satisfactory performance of the contractor and any other relevant information. 8. Replying respondents further submit that on the basis of the above provisions, which are in force throughout the country, the “eligibility Criteria”, which is under challenge in this petition deserves rejection, as the said conditions fall within reasonable restrictions. 9. The replying respondents further submit that work of providing patient care in new OPD Block at Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, and electrical installation therein, with an estimated cost of Rs.1,86 crore in 13 storeyed building of which first floor slab has already been laid, is esteemed work and tenders for the above work were invited on 24.05.2014, through e-procurement system. In all, three contractors uploaded their bids in two cover systems, i.e. technical bid and financial bid and the status of these three contractors is enumerated as under: Sr.No. Name of contractor Class 1. M/s Ratwan Light House, Ghumarwin Distt. Bilaspur. A 2. Sh. D.S. Ranta, Elect. Contractor Shimla. A 3. M/s. Sharma & Co. Hamirpur. A The technical bids and not the financial bids of the above mentioned contractors were opened and technical bid with work done condition is to be evaluated by the Tender Scrutiny Committee on 08.06.2015 headed by the replying respondents, thereafter out of these three, whoever will be found fit fulfilling technical conditions, only his financial bid shall be opened. Hamirpur. A The technical bids and not the financial bids of the above mentioned contractors were opened and technical bid with work done condition is to be evaluated by the Tender Scrutiny Committee on 08.06.2015 headed by the replying respondents, thereafter out of these three, whoever will be found fit fulfilling technical conditions, only his financial bid shall be opened. Manifestly, petitioner being A Class contractor, did not participate in the tendering process nor he has uploaded his bid, therefore, he has no right to challenge the conditions. If he has participated in the tendering process, only then he had right to challenge the conditions of the tender document. 10. On merits, the replying respondents admitted that the petitioner is A Class Contractor registered with them, but among these A Class Contractors, the respondent-department needs to scrutinize the eligible contractor and for that financial and technical capacity of the contractor is to be ascertained. Technical Qualification Criteria (for short “TQC”) has been evolved and same cannot be said to be unjust under the ambit of law. Eligibility criteria for the works above Rs.50 lac, as per the General Rules and Directions contained in the standard bidding document, could be outlined in terms of work done certificate for previously executed works by the contractor. Condition 28.2(b) mandates that minimum one similar work done of the amount not less than 40% of the estimated cost (without liquidated damage or compensation) in the past five years has been defined. The sweep of eligibility criteria has been widened by the respondents-department, whereby they allowed two similar works done of 30% or one similar work of 50%. CVC guidelines also mandate a provision for fixing the qualifying criteria of electrical works vide O.M. 12-02-1-CTE-6, dated 17.12.2002. The above provision is being adopted by CPWD vide CPWD Works Manual, 2014. 11. The replying respondents denied that earlier tenders were being invited without any condition and in fact for general E.I. works pre-qualifying criteria was always there for the works above Rs.50 lac. The petitioner is referring to a tender of HPPWD Electrical Division, Una, wherein the amount of tender was Rs.40,08,500, i.e. below Rs.50 lac and for this reason no TQC was fixed. The electrical work is to be carried out simultaneously with civil work. The petitioner is referring to a tender of HPPWD Electrical Division, Una, wherein the amount of tender was Rs.40,08,500, i.e. below Rs.50 lac and for this reason no TQC was fixed. The electrical work is to be carried out simultaneously with civil work. As the tendering process has already been delayed due to sanctions from different authorities, further delay will hamper the work and will be against the public interest. It has further been contended by the replying respondents that the tenders were invited through e-procurement system on the department’s website and same were widely published in newspapers and the respondent-department has no alternative way to assess the financial and technical capacity of bidding of a contractor. TQC is the only mechanism to assess the capability of a contractor that he has handled such projects in previous years or not. Lastly, the replying respondents pray for dismissal of the petition. 12. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5, wherein he has refuted the averments made by them and has reasserted the contents of the petition. The petitioner has also averred that as the conditions are contrary to the rules and arbitrary, the same may be set-aside. 13. Respondent No. 6 has also filed reply to the petition separately, wherein it is admitted that the petitioner is A Class Contractor. Rest of the contents have been denied, being not related to the replying respondent. 14. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate General for the respondents and gone through the record in detail. 15. The only question, involved in the present case, is whether the conditions as imposed through Annexure P-6, i.e., the tender document are arbitrary, unreasonable or issued with malice and are liable to be set-aside for the reasons that the petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons could not participate in the tender process or the conditions are just reasoned and makes a reasonable classification among A Class Contractors, requires determination in the present case. 16. The Technical Qualification Criteria (TQC) contains four conditions and the same are reproduced as under: “1. Contractor Enlistment: - Eligible bidder shall mean a Registered Electrical Contractor of HPPWD in appropriate class and discipline, with valid contractor enlistment on the date of opening of bid. Proof to be uploaded as PDF. 2. 16. The Technical Qualification Criteria (TQC) contains four conditions and the same are reproduced as under: “1. Contractor Enlistment: - Eligible bidder shall mean a Registered Electrical Contractor of HPPWD in appropriate class and discipline, with valid contractor enlistment on the date of opening of bid. Proof to be uploaded as PDF. 2. Annual Turnover: - Minimum average annual turnover of the bidder during last three years ending 31st march of the previous financial year should be at least 30% of the estimated value of present work. 3. Minimum Work done condition: - Minimum two similar work done each of amount not less than 30% (Thirty percent) of the estimated cost or one similar work done of amount not less than 50% (fifty percent) (without Liquidated Damage or compensation) in last five years. The term “Similar Work” shall mean INTERNAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING WORKS. 4. Registration with Sales Tax and Income Tax is essential.” 17. There is no dispute viz-a-viz conditions No. 1 and 4, as the petitioner fulfills the same. The only dispute revolves around conditions No. 2 & 3. As per the petitioner, by incorporating condition No. 2, i.e., “Annual Turnover” and condition No. 3, i.e., “Minimum Work done condition”, the respondents want to debar the entry of the petitioner and similarly situated persons, but as per the respondents these conditions have been incorporated in the tender document with an intent to make a class within A Class Contractors, so that there is possibility that the work is executed and the person participating is having the ability to complete the work. In Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of H.P. & another, CWP No. 429 of 2016, decided on 01.04.2016, Hon’ble Division Bench of this High Court has held as under: “11. The only ground for assailing Rule 8.1 of the Enlistment Rules is that no such condition was prescribed in these Rules prior to 12.3.1993 or in the standard tendered document and further that this condition is arbitrary, irrational and not enforceable and seeks to put an unreasonable restriction and restraint on the petitioners and similarly situated contractors to participate in the tender or make bid in a tender. By doing so, the petitioners are not able to make an effort for a tender or bid of less than Rs.40 lacs as they cannot put tender less than Rs.40 lacs i.e. one step below entitlement class which they are registered because they only eligible to put the tender above Rs.80 lacs due to 40 percent eligibility criteria in respect of the building works and can only submit tender of road work up to Rs.40 lacs to Rs.1 crore in respect of roads. Likewise, some of the other petitioners cannot make bid or participate in the tender in view of these clauses. 12. We find no merit in the contention of the petitioners rather it is evident from the record that it is after about 50 years that the respondent-department changed the rules for enlistment of contractors which were initially framed as far as back in the year 1967. Obviously, these Rules were changed taking into consideration the changed circumstances in the State. In terms of the Rules for Enlistment of contractors in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, 2015 which came into effect from the date of its publication i.e. 26.05.2015 as against ‘A’ class contractors or ‘B’ class contractors being eligible to participate in tendering process in any class under 1967 Rules, can now participate only their own class or in one class below their original enlistment class. As a result of this now ‘A’ class contractor can file bid in work of more than 2 crore up to unlimited amount and can also participate in the tendering process of a work below 2 crores up to Rs.80 lacs. Similarly, a ‘B’ class contractor, who is eligible to participate in tendering process of work between Rs.80 lacs to Rs.2 crores can also participate in ‘C’ class category up to 30 lacs. Similarly, ‘C’ class contractor, who is eligible to make bid up to the work valuing Rs. 80 lacs can participate in ‘D’ class category works also which are up to 30 lacs. 13. We entertain no doubt in our minds that all this has been one with the sole aim and objective to ensure that the big contractors now confine themselves to ‘A’ and ‘B’ class and do not barge into the contracts otherwise reserved for ‘C’ and ‘D’ class. 13. We entertain no doubt in our minds that all this has been one with the sole aim and objective to ensure that the big contractors now confine themselves to ‘A’ and ‘B’ class and do not barge into the contracts otherwise reserved for ‘C’ and ‘D’ class. This would not only bring about a healthy competition amongst the equals and would also ensure that these equals may also gain sufficient experience of work so that after gaining work done experience, they are also upgraded to higher class to minimize monopoly of ‘A’ and ‘B’ class contractors on work done basis. 14. We cannot ignore the fact that the contractors belonging to ‘C’ and ‘D’ categories are mostly unemployed educated youth, who are unable to compete with the ‘A’ and ‘B’ contractors. Therefore, the aforesaid provision would at least ensure that every enlisted category of contractor would only have to face a healthy competition as per his enlisted class thereby not only providing him an opportunity to earn his livelihood but would also provide him an opportunity to upgrade his class.” In terms of judgment (supra) the condition that even a contractor of higher grade cannot participate in a tender of the grade wherein the lower category contractors are to participate was held to be a reasonable condition. 18. The petitioner, in order to support his contentions, has relied upon the following judgments: 1. M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & another, (1975) 1 SCC 70 ; 2. Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ; 3. M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & another, (1980) 4 SCC 1 ; 4. Ajay Hasia & others vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & others, (1981) 1 SCC 722 ; 5. Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana & others, (1985) 3 SCC 267 ; 6. M/s Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons vs. Board of Trustees of The Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293 ; 7. Mahabir Auto Stores & others vs. Indian Oil Corporation & others, (1990) 3 SCC 752 ; 8. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & others vs. State of U.P. & others, (1991) 1 SCC 212 ; 9. Delhi Science Forum & others vs. Union of India & another, (1996) 2 SCC 405 ; & 10. Mahabir Auto Stores & others vs. Indian Oil Corporation & others, (1990) 3 SCC 752 ; 8. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & others vs. State of U.P. & others, (1991) 1 SCC 212 ; 9. Delhi Science Forum & others vs. Union of India & another, (1996) 2 SCC 405 ; & 10. Association of Registration Plates vs. Union of India & others, (2005) 1 SCC 679 . 19. On the other hand, the respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2011) 9 SCC 340 . 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & another, (1975) 1 SCC 70 , has held as under: “20. Blacklisting has the effect of preventing a person from the privilege and advantage of entering into lawful relationship with the Government for purposes of gains. The fact that a disability is created by the order of blacklisting indicates that the relevant authority is to have an objective satisfaction. Fundamentals of fair play require that the person concerned should be given an opportunity to represent his case before he is put on the blacklist.” 21. In the present case, the petitioner is not blacklisted, but the respondents have imposed reasonable conditions and it has been held vide para 18 of the judgment that “The State can impose reasonable conditions regarding rejection and acceptance of bids or qualifications of bidders.” 22. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others, (1979) 3 SCC 489 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “9. That takes us to the next question whether the acceptance of the tender of respondents 4 was invalid and liable to be set aside at the instance of the appellant. It was contended on behalf of respondents 1 and 4 that the appellant had no locus to maintain the writ petition since no tender was submitted by him and he was a mere stranger. The argument was that if the appellant did not enter the field of competition by submitting a tender, what did it matter to him whose tender was accepted; what grievance could he have if the tender of respondents 4 was wrongly accepted. The argument was that if the appellant did not enter the field of competition by submitting a tender, what did it matter to him whose tender was accepted; what grievance could he have if the tender of respondents 4 was wrongly accepted. A person whose tender was rejected might very well complain that the tender of someone else was wrongly accepted, but, it was submitted, how could a person who never tendered and who was at no time in the field, put forward such a complaint? This argument, in our opinion, is misconceived and cannot be sustained for a moment. The grievance of the appellant, it may be noted, was not that his tender was rejected as a result of improper acceptance of the tender of respondents 4, but that he was differentially treated and denied equality of opportunity with respondents 4 in submitting a tender. His complaint was that if it were known that non-fulfillment of the condition of eligibility would be no bar to consideration of a tender, he also would have submitted a tender and competed for obtaining a contract. But he was precluded from submitting a tender and entering the field of consideration by reason of the condition of eligibility, while so far as respondents 4 were concerned, their tender was entertained and accepted even though they did not satisfy the condition of eligibility and this resulted in quality of treatment which was constitutionally impermissible. This was the grievance made by the appellant in the writ petition and there can be no doubt that if this grievance was well founded, the appellant would be entitled to maintain the writ petition. The question is whether this grievance was justified in law and the acceptance of the tender of respondents 4 was vitiated by any legal infirmity.” 23. However, the facts of the present case are entirely different from that of the judgment (supra), as the respondents are not relaxing the conditions after the tenders are submitted, but they had already incorporated the conditions and the same were notified to the public by issuance of a tender document, i.e., invitation of offer, so this judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 24. 24. In M/s. Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & another, (1980) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “So far as the first limitation is concerned, it flows directly from the thesis that, unlike a private individual, the State cannot act as it pleases in the matter of giving largess. Though ordinarily a private individual would be guided by economic considerations of self-gain in any action taken by him, it is always open to him under the law to act contrary to his self-interest or to oblige another in entering into a contract or dealing with his property. But the government is not free to act as it likes in granting largess such as awarding a contract or selling or leasing out its property. Whatever be its activity, the government is still the government and is; subject to restraints inherent in its position in a democratic society. The constitutional power conferred on the government cannot be exercised by it arbitrarily or capriciously or in an unprincipled manner; it has to be exercised for the public good. Every activity of the government has a public element in it and it must therefore, be informed with reason and guided by public interest. Every action taken by the government must be in public interest; the government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. If the government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other larges, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid.” In the case in hand, the respondents have invited tenders by e-procurement notice and the same was widely published in the news papers, therefore, it cannot be said that the tender notice did not get wide publicity. The judgment is not applicable to the case in hand as the facts of the present case are different. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Hasia & others vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & others, (1981) 1 SCC 722 , has held that any arbitrary or unreasonable action of an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ajay Hasia & others vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi & others, (1981) 1 SCC 722 , has held that any arbitrary or unreasonable action of an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, in this case, the petitioner has failed to show how the action of the respondents is arbitrary or unreasonable. As there is no negation of equality by the action of the respondents and the respondents have incorporated only reasonable conditions and in case the petitioner fulfills those conditions, he would be entitled to participate in the tender process. By incorporating the conditions, the respondents have made a reasonable classification and thus their action cannot be termed as arbitrary. Therefore, the judgment (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 26. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana & others, (1985) 3 SCC 267 , has held as under: “In an auction of minor mineral quarries in respect of a particular plot the appellant’s bid of Rs.3,87,000 for a period of 3 years was the highest. The Presiding Officer conducting the auction accepted the appellant’s bid but the State Government in exercise of power under rule 30(2)(4) of the Haryana Minor Mineral Concession Rules declined to confirm the same as the highest bid did not represent the market price. Respondent 4, a participant in the auction, then wrote a letter to the Chief Minister complaining that the bidders at the auction had formed a syndicate in order to monopolize the business at uneconomical rates and had cornered a party like respondent 4 with the help of goondas and anti-social elements and offered to pay Rs.4,50,000 per year if the contract were for a period of 5 years. The Chief Minister promptly accepted the offer. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court against the action of the Chief Minister but the Court dismissed the petition on the preliminary ground that the appellant had not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him. The Chief Minister promptly accepted the offer. The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court against the action of the Chief Minister but the Court dismissed the petition on the preliminary ground that the appellant had not exhausted the alternative remedy available to him. In the special leave appeal, on the asking of the Supreme Court, the appellant made an affidavit before the Court stating that if the highest bid at a re auction fell short of Rs.4,50,000 the appellant would undertake to accept the contract at the value of Rs.5,50,000. Respondent 4 was given opportunity to raise his offer. As a result of the competitive offers made by the parties, the last offer of respondent 4 came out to be Rs.22 lacs whereas that of the appellant was Rs.25 lacs. Allowing the appeal on merits, setting aside the order granting quarry lease to respondent 4 and directing the State Government to grant the contract to the appellant at the rate of Rs.25 lacs per year for 5 years” As the facts of the present case are entirely different as that of the judgment, referred to hereinabove, therefore, the same is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 27. In M/s Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons vs. Board of Trustees of The Port of Bombay, (1989) 3 SCC 293 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “The appellant had been a tenant of a portion of a plot of land for over 40 years of the respondent statutory corporation constituted under the Major Ports Act. Premises that stood on the land were used a part of a rice mill. In pursuance of the Town Planning Scheme of 1957, the plots were reconstituted and the Trust framed a policy to let out the reconstituted plot to the person who occupied the major portion of the plot. So the respondent Board of trustees of the Bombay Port Trust initiated eviction proceedings against the appellant by giving one month notice, sometime in October 1977. The decision to allot the full plot to the major portion holder had been taken in 1973 to the knowledge of the appellant. The respondent filed suit in the Small Causes Court in December 1977. the appellant pleaded mala fides and favouritism and that the one month notice was bad in law as the letting was for manufacturing purpose. The decision to allot the full plot to the major portion holder had been taken in 1973 to the knowledge of the appellant. The respondent filed suit in the Small Causes Court in December 1977. the appellant pleaded mala fides and favouritism and that the one month notice was bad in law as the letting was for manufacturing purpose. The Trial Court dismissed the suit on ground of improper notice and did not go into the question of mala fide. The appellate Court reversed the decision upholding the validity of the notice and also held that the question of mala fide or arbitrariness was not relevant on the legality of the eviction proceedings in writ proceedings under Article 227 the High court concurred with the appellate Court. In appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court the appellant pleaded that the action of the respondent terminating the appellant’s contractual tenancy had a public law character and hence was subject to judicial review. The Trust was ‘State’ within Article 12 and so subject to Article 14. Its action in the field of contract or any other field must be reasonable and taken upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. The eviction was not in public interest, nor permissible by the policy of the Rent Act and was arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. Contra to the above noted policy it was pleaded that the established policy was to offer the reconstituted plot to existing tenants as joint tenants.” However, in the case in hand, as the petitioner has failed to show how the conditions are unreasonable, the judgment, referred to hereinabove, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 28. In another judgment titled Mahabir Auto Stores & others vs. Indian Oil Corporation & others, (1990) 3 SCC 752 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “administrative action is open to judicial review on the ground of ‘malice in law’”. But in the present case, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any malice on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the judgment, referred hereinabove, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & others vs. State of U.P. & others, (1991) 1 SCC 212 , has held as under: “21. Therefore, the judgment, referred hereinabove, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & others vs. State of U.P. & others, (1991) 1 SCC 212 , has held as under: “21. The Preamble of the Constitution of India resolves to secure to all its citizens Justice, social, economic and political; and Equality of status and opportunity. Every State action must be aimed at achieving this goal. Part IV of the constitution contains ‘Directives Principles of State Policy’ which are fundamental in the governance of the country and are aimed at securing social and economic freedoms by appropriate state action which is complementary to individual fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III for protection against excesses of State action, to realize the vision in the Preamble. This being the philosophy of the constitution, can it be said that it contemplates exclusion of article 14–non-arbitrariness which is basic to rule of law–from State actions in contractual field when all actions of the State are meant for public good and expected to be fair and just? We have no doubt that the constitution does not envisage or permit unfairness or unreasonableness in State actions in any sphere of its activity contrary to the professed ideals in the Preamble. In our opinion, it would be alien to the constitutional scheme to accept the argument of exclusion of Article 14 in contractual matters. The scope and permissible grounds of judicial review in such matters and the relief which may be available are different matters but that does not justify the view of its total exclusion. This is more so when the modern trend is also to examine the unreasonableness of a term in such contracts where the bargaining power is unequal so that these are not negotiated contracts but standard form contracts between unequals. 22. There is an obvious difference in the contracts between private parties and contracts to which the State is a party. Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest. Private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions, acts indubitably, as is expected of it, for public good and in public interest. The impact of every State action is also on public interest. This factor alone is sufficient to import at least the minimal requirements of public law obligations and impress with this character the contracts made by the State or its instrumentality. It is different matter that the scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes. However, to the extent, challenge is made on the ground of violation of Article 14 by alleging that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable, the fact that the dispute also falls within the domain of contractual obligations would not relieve the State of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14. To this extent, the obligation is of a public character invariably in every case irrespective of there being any other right or obligation in addition thereto. An additional contractual obligation cannot divest the claimant of the guarantee under Article 14 of non-arbitrariness at the hands of the State in any of its actions.” In the case in hand, the respondents have given reasons that in order to see the economic condition of the contractors to execute the work, the conditions have been imposed. We find that it is a reasonable classification and there is no arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the judgment, referred to hereinabove, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 30. In Delhi Science Forum & others vs. Union of India & another, (1996) 2 SCC 405 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “An authority which has been empowered to attach such conditions, as it thinks fit, must have regard to the relevant considerations and has to disregard the irrelevant ones. The authority has to genuinely examine the applications on their individual merit and not to promote a purpose alien to the spirit of the Act. The authority has to genuinely examine the applications on their individual merit and not to promote a purpose alien to the spirit of the Act. In this background, the courts have applied the test of a reasonable man i.e. the decision should not be taken or discretion should not be exercise in a manner, as no reasonable man could have ever exercised. Many administrative decisions including decisions relating to awarding of contracts are vested in a statutory authority or a body constituted under an administrative order. Any decision taken by such authority or a body can be questioned primarily on the grounds: (i) decision has been taken in bad fair; (ii) decision is based on irrational or irrelevant considerations; (iii) decision has been taken without following the prescribed procedure which is imperative in nature. While exercising the power of judicial review even in respect of contracts entered on behalf of the Government or authority, which can be held to be State within meaning of Article 12 of the constitution, courts have to address while examining the grievance of any petitioner as to whether the decision has been vitiated on one ground or the other. The onus to demonstrate that such decision has been vitiated because of adopting a procedure not sanctioned by law, or because of bad faith or taking into consideration facts which are irrelevant, is on the person who questions the validity thereof. This onus is not discharged only by raising a doubt in the mind of the Court, but by satisfying the Court that the authority or the body which had been vested with the power to take decision has adopted a procedure which does not satisfy the test of Article 14 of the constitution or which is against the provisions of the statute in question or has acted with oblique motive or has failed in its function to examine each claim on its own merit on relevant considerations. Under the changed scenarios and circumstances prevailing in the society, courts are not following the rule of judicial self-restraint. Under the changed scenarios and circumstances prevailing in the society, courts are not following the rule of judicial self-restraint. But at the same time all decisions which are to be taken by an authority vested with such power cannot be tested and examined by the Court.” In the present case, the conditions imposed are reasonable, as the respondents wanted to ensure that only those A Class contractors, who have experience in successfully completing or substantially completing at least one contract of highway (road and/or bridge works) airport runway of at least 40% of the value of proposed contract within the last five years, should participate in the tender process. So, it cannot be said that the conditions are arbitrary and thus the judgment, referred to hereinabove, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 31. In Association of Registration Plates vs. Union of India & others, (2005) 1 SCC 679 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “Article 14 of the Constitution prohibits the Government from arbitrarily choosing a contractor at its will and pleasure. It has to act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract. At the same time, no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the government. All that he can claim is that in competing for the contract, he should not be unfairly treated and discriminated against, to the detriment of public interest. Undisputedly, the legal position which has been firmly established from various decisions of the Supreme Court is that government contracts are highly valuable assets and the court should be prepared to enforce standards of fairness on the Government in its dealings with tenderers and contractors.” However, in the present case, the respondents have invited tenders from the eligible persons and there are three persons who have made offer on the basis of invitation to offer by way of tender, so it cannot be said that the respondents are choosing any particular contractor, therefore, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 32. On the other hand, respondents have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2011) 9 SCC 340 , “45. Mr. 32. On the other hand, respondents have relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in Shagun Mahila Udyogik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit vs. State of Maharashtra & others, (2011) 9 SCC 340 , “45. Mr. Patwalia further submits that the appellant is trying to mislead the Court by relying on an Analysis Certificate dated 25th December, 2009, which shows that the appellant had manufactured fortified blended sukhadi premix on 12th December, 2009. Since the appellant did not have a manufacturing unit, the certificate is clearly procured for the purposes of this case. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. 46. In reply to the submissions, Mr. Rohtagi submitted that the appellant is concerned only with transparency which must be observed in any tender process. The appellant is only desirous of getting an opportunity to participate in the tender process. 47. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the considered opinion that the writ petition has been rightly dismissed by the High Court after examination of the entire issue. The High Court concluded that the appellant failed to satisfy the eligibility criteria as contained in Condition 6, as noticed earlier. The aforesaid Condition requires that the tenderer should have produced the specified food for the last three consecutive years and supplied the same to Anganwadis in ICDS. Since the appellant did not possess a suitable manufacturing unit, the appellant would be rendered ineligible on this score alone. 48. As pointed out by Mr. C.U. Singh, the appellant admitted in terms in its pleadings in IA. No. 1 of 2010 that it does not satisfy conditions 6, 7 and 8. We could have, therefore, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the appellant had made a voluntary admission by which it was bound. However, keeping in view the importance of the issues involved, i.e., the provision of supplementary diet to a segment of the Indian population, which is either severely undernourished or in need of extra calories, we have chosen to examine the entire matter to ensure that the Scheme is being implemented in its letter and spirit by all the participating agencies. 49. 49. In our view, the High Court also correctly observed that the validity of the eligibility criteria contained in Condition 6 of the tender dated 7-12-2009 has already been upheld by the Division Bench whilst dismissing the Writ Petition No. 2588 of 2009. The High Court also correctly negated the submissions of the appellant that in spite of not having a unit of its own, the appellant ought to be declared eligible. The High Court also found that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was only respondents 4 to 6, who were suitable for grant of contract. 50. We are also unable to accept the submission of Mr. Rohtagi that the original Government decision had limited the period of contract to one year. In fact, as demonstrated by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the Government decision as well as the tender condition clearly stipulated that the contract would be initially for one year. Upon completion of one year, the work of the successful candidate would be reassessed. In case, it is found that the performance has been satisfactory, the tender shall be extended for a period of two more years. 51. We are also of the considered opinion that the food, which is to be supplied to the recipients as a part of the supplementary nutrition programme has to be prepared in the manner prescribed by the Government for safety and nutrient composition of the food. It can not be left to uncertainties of the machinery available with individual manufacturers. The successful supplier is duty bound to necessarily comply with all the specifications laid down by the Government in its norms. Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr. Patwalia, in our opinion, by referring to the various documents, have clearly demonstrated that the appellant is not eligible at all to be even considered in the tender process. It has also been pointed out that all the objections raised by the appellant and other Mahila Mandal/Mahila Sanstha/Mahila Bachat Gat etc. were duly considered by the Government. This is evident from the letters dated 22-2-2010 and 23-2-2010. 52. We are also not impressed by the submission of Mr. Rohtagi that the condition of having Rs.1 crore over the three previous consecutive years, is either arbitrary or whimsical. Mr. were duly considered by the Government. This is evident from the letters dated 22-2-2010 and 23-2-2010. 52. We are also not impressed by the submission of Mr. Rohtagi that the condition of having Rs.1 crore over the three previous consecutive years, is either arbitrary or whimsical. Mr. C.U. Singh by making detailed reference to the counter affidavit has shown that in the State of Maharashtra, there are 34 districts having an annual value in terms of at least Rs.1.7 crores per district. Therefore, the condition of asking for minimum Rs.1 crore turn over for the last three years can not be said to be arbitrary. In fact, the condition would be of utmost importance. 53. We also find substance in the submission of Mr. C.U. Singh and Mr. Patwalia that EOI had deliberately stressed on the need of precise measurements for the preparation of the food. The supplier is required to provide a fine mix of all kinds of ingredients including the revised intake of proteins and calories to the precise level. In fact, the level of precision is earmarked for each kind of food. The concept behind the same can not be permitted to be demonized by referring to it as food prepared by "automated machines". The procedure adopted is necessary to ensure that there is "zero infection" in the food which is going to be consumed by infants and the children who are already undernourished. 54. It cannot be over emphasized that, since the beneficiaries of the Dense Energy Food and Fortified Blended Mixture are infants from the age group of 6 months to 3 years and pregnant and lactating mothers, it was all the more desirable to have fully automated plans. Such procedure avoids the use of human hands in processes like handling, cleaning, grinding, extrusion, mixing etc., all of which are done automatically. 55. We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid considerations can not be said to be extraneous to the purpose for which EOI was floated.” The above judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, therefore, taking this into consideration the above judgment, this Court comes to the conclusion that the conditions 2 and 3, mentioned above, which are in dispute, cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary. 33. 33. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 1971 of 2015, titled Inder Singh Chauhan vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 28.05.2015, has held, in the similar circumstances, as under: “2. The brief facts as stated are that the petitioner is a Class A contractor duly enlisted with the respondents. The respondents on 24.2.2015 floated with the tenders for various road works. The last date for submission of bid was fixed on 16.3.2015, where after the technical bids were to be carried out on 17.3.2015. The petitioner submitted his bid for the work of ‘Kaina Kot Jubbal Road’ an up gradation of ‘Mural Kelvi Dadot Dhapli Battar Road’. The petitioner deposited the earnest money as also the cost of the tender document. After opening of the technical bids on 17.3.2015, it was revealed that four persons had submitted their bids for the aforesaid works. After the valuation of the technical bids, the financial bids were to be carried out on 21.3.2015 but for some reasons the same was not to be carried out on 21.3.2015 and it is alleged that the respondent No.3 orally informed the petitioner to submit document qua “works related to the road” done by him of amount not less than 40% (forty percent) of the estimated cost (without liquidated damage or compensation) in last five years in order to consider his bid. It is this condition of the tender that has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, void and smacks of colourable exercise of the power on the part of the respondents. It is alleged that there is no legal sanction behind such condition. It is further contended that the respondents are bent upon ousting the petitioner by invoking the aforesaid illegal and arbitrary condition, even though, the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be considered for awarding of the tender. 3. In response to the petition, the respondents have filed the reply wherein it is stated that since the petitioner has failed to comply with condition No. 28.2 (b) i.e. minimum one similar work done of amount not less than 40% of the estimated cost (without liquidated damages or compensation) in the last five years, therefore, his case cannot be considered. 7. 7. That apart, it would be seen that the petitioner admittedly had not done one similar work of amount not less than 40% (forty percent) of the estimated cost as required under Clause 28.2 (b) of the tender document. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the performance certificate qua civil work of Judicial Court Complex, Jubbal completed in the sum of Rs.1,21,74,904/- and having worked on different stretches of Theog–Hatkoti Highway, the cumulative work together of which accounts to more than Rs.1,00,00,000/-(one crore) is totally misplaced because the tender clearly stipulates that the work has to firstly relate to the road and secondly, the work must be “one similar work” and not multiple works of similar nature.” 34. The judgment referred to hereinabove was thereafter upheld in LPA No. 33 of 2016, titled Inder Singh Chauhan vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 19.05.2016. The law, as settled in the Civil Writ Petition and upheld in the LPA, squarely covers the present lis. 35. It would be seen that the petitioner admittedly not having minimum annual average turnover during last three years ending 31st March of the previous financial year 30% of the estimated value of present work and had not done minimum two similar works each of the amount not less than 30% of the estimated cost or one similar work of the amount not less than 50% (without Liquidated Damage or compensation) in last five years and therefore he was not eligible to participate in the said tender process. 36. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the inescapable conclusion is that the conditions imposed by the respondents in the tender document (Annexure P-6), inviting offers of the interested contractors are legal, just, reasonable and within the confines of legitimacy. The petition, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. 37. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, as also pending applications, if any.