ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner M/s. Vivek Pharmachem (India) Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, through its Director Mr. Navdeep Gupta, assailing order dated 30.05.2016 by which the bid submitted by it in response to the tender notice dated 01.01.2016, for award of a two year rate contract cum supply and empanelment of drugs and medicines ending on 31.03.2018, was declared non-responsive, and also the order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the first appellate authority rejecting the appeal there against and the order dated 14/21.07.2016 passed by the second appellate authority, upholding decisions of the competent authority and the first appellate authority. Prayer has also been made to quash and set aside the notice to all concerned responsive bidders for rate match dated 21.07.2016 and to declare the price bid submitted by the petitioner to be responsive and to direct that in case its bid is found to be lowest, the contract be awarded to it. 2. The Rajasthan Medical Service Corporation Limited (for short, 'the RMSCL') floated a tender/ebid contract on 01.01.2016 for two year rate contract cum supply and empanelment of drugs and medicines ending on 31.03.2018. Petitioner submitted its bid in response to the said tender notice along-with prescribed bid fee. The respondents, while technically evaluating the bid submitted by the petitioner, issued a letter dated 10.05.2016, seeking its clarification regarding (i) Performance Statement Undertaking not submitted; (ii) WHO-GMP (World Health Organization – Good Manufacturing Practices) not valid on bid opening date. The petitioner was required to submit its response between 4:00 PM on 11.05.2016 and 11:00 AM on 16.05.2016, failing which the bid would be treated as non-responsive. On receipt of the said letter, the petitioner replied to the respondent no.2 vide letter dated 16.05.2016. According to the petitioner, it enclosed therewith the (i) performance statement undertaking, and (ii) WHO-GMP certificate, but the respondent no.2 on 24.05.2016 issued tentative list of bidders declared responsive/non-responsive and required the affected parties to submit their objections with further stipulation that if no objection is received till 26.05.2016, the said list would be treated as final. According to the petitioner, it enclosed therewith the (i) performance statement undertaking, and (ii) WHO-GMP certificate, but the respondent no.2 on 24.05.2016 issued tentative list of bidders declared responsive/non-responsive and required the affected parties to submit their objections with further stipulation that if no objection is received till 26.05.2016, the said list would be treated as final. Name of the petitioner was indicated in the list at serial no.120 amongst those whose bid was declared non-responsive and the reason that was cited was that it submitted WHO-GMP certificate issued after the bid opening date i.e. 16.05.2016 and previous certificate expired on 30.06.2010 and thus both certificates are not in continuation. The petitioner then sent detailed representation on 26.05.2016 raising its objection to the tentative list dated 24.05.2016, seeking an opportunity of personal hearing. However, the respondents not accepting the objections raised by the petitioner, issued final list of bidders, whose bid was declared responsive/non-responsive, on 30.05.2016, wherein name of the petitioner has been shown at serial no.120 with its bid being declared as non-responsive on the same premise as indicated above. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner earlier approached this court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7523/2016 – M/s. Vivek Pharmachem (India) Limited Vs. Managing Director, Rajasthan Medical Service Corporation Limited and Others, which was decided by this court vide order dated 03.06.2016 after hearing both the parties. This court required the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 38 of the Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012, and the same was directed to be decided within seven days. This court further directed that in the event the stay application filed along-with the appeal be addressed within two days of its filing. The appeal filed by the petitioner, however, was dismissed by the first appellate authority vide order dated 30.06.2016. Thereafter the petitioner filed second appeal, which too was dismissed by order dated 14.07.2016. 4. Mr. Vivek Dangi, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that the premise on which bid of the petitioner was declared non-responsive was that the WHO-GMP certificate submitted by the petitioner was of a date issued after the bid opening date 16.05.2016, is wholly unsustainable. Thereafter the petitioner filed second appeal, which too was dismissed by order dated 14.07.2016. 4. Mr. Vivek Dangi, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that the premise on which bid of the petitioner was declared non-responsive was that the WHO-GMP certificate submitted by the petitioner was of a date issued after the bid opening date 16.05.2016, is wholly unsustainable. Clause 5 of the tender notice pertains to technical bid and its sub-clause (l) and Note.1 below that, provides that WHOGMP certificate issued by the licensing authority must not be older than one year from the due date of bid submission in the case where validity is not mentioned in the certificate. The bidder shall also furnish an undertaking in the format given in Annexure-VII declaring that the bidder complies with the requirements of WHO-GMP. Note (1) given thereunder contains the clarification regarding submission of document, which stipulates that the documents such as non-conviction certificate, WHO-GMP certificate and MSC shall be accepted if they have been issued after bid submission but submitted to tendering authority when asked to do so in the form of clarification/short fall documents. Thus, it is evident that it was not mandatory condition of bid document that all requisite documents, particularly the WHO-GMP certificate could not be furnished after the date of bid submission. In fact, they could be submitted when asked by the bid inviting authority in the form of clarification/short fall documents. The petitioner duly submitted WHO-GMP certificate on 16.05.2016 in response to the clarification sought by the competent authority on 10.05.2016 within stipulated time. Action of the respondents in declaring the bid submitted by the petitioner as non-responsive is therefore wholly illegal. 5. Mr. Vivek Dangi, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that ground of declaring bid of the petitioner non-responsive by the respondent on the ground that the WHO-GMP certificate of the petitioner expired on 30.06.2010 and the same was renewed only on 16.05.2016, is baseless and contrary to the tender conditions. There does not exist any condition anywhere in the bid document, which mandates that there has to be “continuity” between the last valid WHO-GMP certificate of the bidder and the renewed certificate. What is indicated is that in case where the validity is not mentioned in the WHO-GMP certificate, the same must not be older than one year from the due date of bid submission. What is indicated is that in case where the validity is not mentioned in the WHO-GMP certificate, the same must not be older than one year from the due date of bid submission. Evidently, the WHO-GMP certificate furnished by the petitioner does not indicate any validity thereon but the same was issued on 16.05.2016. Therefore, it is certainly not older than one year from the date of bid submission i.e. 18.03.2016. Objection of “continuity” therefore would not be available in this situation. Moreover the certificate submitted on 16.05.2016 was renewed certificate and therefore has to be construed as certificate in continuity and therefore would be valid even on the date of submission of bid dated 18.03.2016, particularly when the petitioner had applied for the same on 25.06.2010 before expiry thereof on 30.06.2010. This is evident from the letter dated 23.07.2010 issued by the Drug Controller, Rajasthan, sent to the Drug Controller of India on 25.01.2010 for conduction of joint inspection. The Drug Controller, Rajasthan, issued another validity certificate on 03.01.2016 stating that the application for renewal dated 25.01.2010 was pending and was not rejected. It is therefore that the letter was issued by the Deputy Drugs Controller, Government of India, to the petitioner on 22.02.2016 regarding renewal of its WHO-GMP certificate. The joint inspection report regarding WHO-GMP certificate was conducted on 13.05.2016 and 14.05.2016. Then the petitioner's WHOGMP certificate was renewed on 16.05.2016, which would be valid for all purposes. 6. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner cannot be held responsible and made to suffer, for the bureaucratic delay, red tapism or laxity on the part of the respondent-authorities in issuing certificate nor can it be deprived of the benefit to which it is otherwise entitled to merely because the concerned authorities took long time in deciding the application. The respondents themselves admit in Annexure-CA/5 enclosed with the counter affidavit that the effective date of new WHO-GMP certificate is from the date next to the expiry of the previous valid certificate and therefore the certificate issued to the petitioner on 16.05.2016 would be deemed to be renewed on 25.06.2010/30.06.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments in Shamamma and Another Vs. Ramachander Rao and Others – MANU/AP/0062/1974 (Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh), Life Line Medical Store (Day & Night) Vs. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied on the judgments in Shamamma and Another Vs. Ramachander Rao and Others – MANU/AP/0062/1974 (Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh), Life Line Medical Store (Day & Night) Vs. All India Institute of Medical Science – MANU/OR/0207/2014 (High Court of Orissa), Public Prosecutor Vs. Dhanuskodia Pillai and Another – MANU/TN/0204/1950 (Madras High Court), A.V.M. Theatre, represented by its Licensees M.V. Gnanagurusamy and Others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu – MANU/TN/0987/1996 (Madras High Court) and that of the Supreme Court in ONGC Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai – (2006) 7 SCC 40. 7. Mr. Alok Garg, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition and argued that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. Petitioner had already filed Civil Suit with regard to tender dated 24.06.2015 for procurement of various drugs. In that civil suit, the petitioner sought the relief of declaring the mandatory condition for the tenderer to have WHO-GMP certificate as illegal and prayed for injunction to consider the bid submitted by the petitioner by ignoring the aforesaid condition and if the petitioner's bid is found to be acceptable, issue orders of supply of drugs to it. The civil suit filed by the petitioner was still pending before the court of Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. The petitioner also filed application for temporary injunction with the main suit, wherein the prayer for interim injunction was made but the same was rejected vide order dated 03.08.2015. The petitioner there against filed S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.321/2015 before this court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2015. Therein it was observed that this court fully concurs with the reasoning assigned by the trial court in the impugned order and found no perversity, arbitrariness or capriciousness. It was held that the trial court rightly concluded that when private and public interests are pitted against each other, public interest ought to be given primacy and supremacy. Disclosure about that litigation was not made by the petitioner in the present petition. 8. It was held that the trial court rightly concluded that when private and public interests are pitted against each other, public interest ought to be given primacy and supremacy. Disclosure about that litigation was not made by the petitioner in the present petition. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents also invited attention of the court towards the copy of the reply in that suit and submitted that therein the petitioner has nowhere mentioned even a single word that application for WHO-GMP certificate dated 13.01.2010 was still pending before the authority. Learned counsel for the respondent, in support of the argument, has cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Kishore Samriti Vs. State of U.P. - (2013) 2 SCC 398 , wherein it has been held that the courts have over the centuries, frowned upon litigants, who with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts and come to the courts with “unclean hands”. Such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor are entitled to any relief. The Supreme Court in that case dismissed the petition with costs of Rs.5.00 lacks. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Moti Lal Songara v. Prem Prakash - (2013) 9 SCC 199 , wherein it was held that when the order has been obtained by practicing fraud and suppressing material facts before the court of law to gain advantage, such order cannot be allowed to stand. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India - (2010) 14 SCC 38 wherein it was held that a person who does not come with clean hands before a court of law is neither entitled to be heard on merits of his grievances nor entitled for any relief. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa & Others – (2007) 14 SCC 517 and Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 , wherein it has been held that the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tender or award of contract, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and award of contract are essential commercial function. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and award of contract are essential commercial function. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona-fide and is in pubic interest, courts will not exercise the judicial review to interfere, even if a procedural abbreviation or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. It is argued that adherence to the conditions of tender have to be scrupulously ensured particularly considering that the tender in question has been issued for a two years rate contract cum supply and empanelment of drugs and medicines to public at large at free of costs under Chief Minister's Free Medicines Scheme. Learned counsel argued that even otherwise, the WHO-GMP Certificate dated 13.01.2010 produced by the respondents clearly shows that the period of this certificate was extended for six months i.e. 30.06.2010 and thereafter there was no extension. 9. Learned counsel submitted that even as per the standing instructions issued by the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (North Zone), Government of India, dated 20.11.2007, it has been specifically directed by the Directorate General of Health Services that the validity of GMP Certificate/COPP is valid only for a period of two years from the date of grant. This period may be extended by two consecutive period of six months each, which means the validity of COPP cannot exceed three years. The argument of the petitioner that issuance of such certificate to the petitioner would relate back to the date of expiring of earlier certificate, cannot be accepted. Second Appellate Authority in this behalf has rightly held that on expiry of renewal of first six months, second extension could not be granted without joint inspection and the application dated 23.07.2010 for renewal was liable to be dismissed and no order was required to be passed thereon. The petitioner thereafter submitted fresh application with copy of the order dated 16.05.2016 and therefore this new certificate should be treated as fresh certificate and not a certificate in continuity of the earlier certificate. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 11. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant part of Clause No.5 of the E-Bid for Rate Contract cum Supply and Empanelment of Drugs and Medicines (two years Rate Contract ending on 31.03.2018), which reads as under:- “5. TECHNICAL BID The Bidder should furnish the following in technical bid:- (a) xxxxxxx (b) xxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxx (d) xxxxxxx (e) xxxxxxx (f) xxxxxxx (g) xxxxxxx (h) xxxxxxx (i) xxxxxxx (j) xxxxxxx (k) xxxxxxx (l) WHO-GMP (WHO – Good manufacturing practices Certificate) Certificate issued by the Licensing Authority. The WHO-GMP certificate must not be older than one year from the due date of Bid submission in the case where validity is not mentioned in the certificate. The WHO-GMP certificate of all the manufacturing plants, of which products have been quoted, should be submitted. The Bidder shall also furnish an undertaking in the format given in Annexure-VII point no.8 declaring that the Bidder complies with the requirements of WHO-GMP. The Importer should produce WHO-GMP/COPP of the manufacturing firm or a certificate which is at par with WHO-GMP issued by exporting countries like US-FDA approval, etc. In the case of imported drugs, labels and product literature of all quoted products must be submitted. .... .... Note:- 1. Clarification regarding submission of documents It is found that some of the documents are sometimes not valid on the exact date of bid opening; the firm has submitted slightly older documents in the bid as it has not been able to get the new/renewed certificate issued from the concerned department till bid submission. Documents such as Non-conviction certificate, WHOGMP certificate & MSC shall be accepted if they have been issued after bid submission but submitted to Tendering authority when asked to do so in the form of clarification/short fall documents. But such documents shall be considered only if it is proved that the competence as certified by the competent authority regarding the required documents existed with the bidder on the date of submission of bid.” 12. But such documents shall be considered only if it is proved that the competence as certified by the competent authority regarding the required documents existed with the bidder on the date of submission of bid.” 12. Conjoint reading of the afore-quoted Clause 5(l) and the Note.1 would clearly show that submission of WHO-GMP certificate issued by the Licensing Authority is a mandatory requirement and that such certificate must not be older than one year from the due date of bid submission, in the case where validity is not mentioned in the certificate. Here it should be clear that this clause only intends to convey that if validity of the certificate is not mentioned therein, then what is required is the date of issue of certificate should not be older than one year from the date of issue of bid. In other words, the certificate must have been issued within last one year counting backwards from the date such bid is submitted by the bidder. Condition No.5(l) also mandates that bidder shall furnish an undertaking in the format given in Annexure-VII point no.8 declaring that the Bidder complies with the requirements of WHO-GMP guidelines. This supplies additional emphasis to the requirement of WHO-GMP certificate. It further states that the importer should produce WHO-GMP/COPP of the manufacturing firm or a certificate which is at par with WHO-GMP issued by exporting countries like US-FDA approval etc. This again highlights the great amount of significance attached to the WHO-GMP certificate even to those who import the drugs. Indisputably the WHO-GMP certificate issued to the petitioner vide No.379 dated 01.08.2008 was extended up to 30.06.2010. The petitioner even applied for extension of the said certificate through its letter dated 25.06.2010. But in fact neither such certificate was renewed nor any fresh certificate was issued. The fact is that the day on which bid was opened on 18.03.2016, the petitioner did not have any valid WHO-GMP certificate issued to it as per the relevant guidelines. 13. The stand of the petitioner that the Drug Controller had not rejected his renewal application and that its application was pending, as conveyed by letter dated 23.07.2007 and 03.02.2016, and was still under consideration and was not rejected, does not in any manner dilute the mandatory requirement of having a valid WHO-GMP certificate on the date of bid submission. 13. The stand of the petitioner that the Drug Controller had not rejected his renewal application and that its application was pending, as conveyed by letter dated 23.07.2007 and 03.02.2016, and was still under consideration and was not rejected, does not in any manner dilute the mandatory requirement of having a valid WHO-GMP certificate on the date of bid submission. Faced with this situation, when the second appellate authority called upon the Drug Controller to clarify, he vide letter dated 04.07.2016 confirmed that the WHO-GMP certificate of the petitioner firm was extended up to 30.06.2010 and valid certificate with regard thereto was issued to the petitioner on 23.07.2010. As per the WHO-GMP guidelines, further extension without joint inspection by the team of Drug Controller of the State and the Drug Controller of India, could be granted only for a maximum period of six months. Since no inspection was carried out within that period, further extension was not legally permissible. Therefore, application for grant of extension beyond the period of initial six months was in any case liable to be treated infructuous and no decision was required to be taken on such application. Mere fact that the Drug Controller could be persuaded to issue a certificate to the petitioner on 30.10.2016 in continuation of his earlier communication dated 23.07.2010 that application for WHO-GMP certificate to the petitioner was under consideration for renewal and has not been rejected, therefore, does not improve the case of the petitioner. 14. The clarification given under Note-1 below Clause 5 of the tender document also does not in any manner help the petitioner. The aforesaid clarification merely notes that some of the documents are sometimes not valid on the exact date of bid opening as the tenderer has not been able to get the new/renewed certificate issued from the concerned department till bid submission. It is in this context that further clarification has been made that documents such as non-conviction certificate, WHO-GMP certificate and MSC shall be accepted if they have been issued after bid submission but submitted to tendering authority when asked to do so in the form of clarification/short fall documents. It is in this context that further clarification has been made that documents such as non-conviction certificate, WHO-GMP certificate and MSC shall be accepted if they have been issued after bid submission but submitted to tendering authority when asked to do so in the form of clarification/short fall documents. But this clarification has also to be read with subsequent riders which are contained in the clarification Note.1 itself, namely, that the firm has submitted 'slightly older documents', because it has not been able to get the new/renewed certificate till bid submission and secondly that such documents shall be considered only if it is proved that the competence as certified by the competent authority regarding the required documents existed with the bidder on the date of submission of bid. But, here in this case, it has been demonstrated by the respondent that as per the WHO guidelines, the extension of the originally granted certificate, can be, without inspection, given for a maximum period of six months and thereafter no further extension can be granted in law without joint inspection. Even if, therefore, the application of the petitioner for extension was to be treated as pending, and a new certificate of extension now came to be issued by the Drug Controller of Rajasthan, that could in any manner remove the deficiency in the bid of the petitioner with regard to mandatory requirement as to submission of valid WHO-GMP certificate with the bid documents of the petitioner as on the date of bid submission. 15. The Supreme Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , has laid down six golden principles for ascertaining the power of judicial review of the court in contractual matters, which still holds the field. Those principles, as contained in para 94 of the report, are reproduced hereunder: "(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 to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. 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 to 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 fair play 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. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure." 16. In Meerut Development Authority Vs. Association of Management Studies & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 171 , the Supreme Court expressed that a limited judicial review may be available in cases where it is established that the terms of the invitation to tender were so tailor made to suit the convenience of any particular person with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the biding process. But in that case, it was also held by their Lordships that 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 hidden agenda. They, however, cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on above stated ground. 17. In Union of India Vs. Dinesh Engineering Corporation & Another, AIR 2001 SC 3887 , a tender was floated by the Railways for supply of spare parts to be used in GE Governors and tender of the petitioner was rejected by Railway by taking policy decision in the context of sophistication, precision etc. without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was supplying such spare parts for over seventeen years. without taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was supplying such spare parts for over seventeen years. Petitioner was excluded from consideration for the supply of spare parts to the GE Governors on the sole ground that it does not manufacture governors by itself, whereas the company, which was allotted the work, also did not manufacture GE-Governors. The Railways were found to be making purchases without any tender on a proprietary basis only from the said company which, was in flagrant violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. The Supreme Court in Association of Registration Plates Vs. Union of India & Others, (2005) 1 SCC 679 , was dealing with the scope of judicial review with regard to validity of pre condition/pre qualification of a tender which stipulated that for awarding work of supplying high security registration plates, which require certain level of experience, the bidders would have certain level of experience for award of such work. The Supreme Court held that such condition did not, in any manner, discriminate against indigenous manufacturers of high security registration plates. Merely because few manufacturers did not qualify to submit the tender, the terms and conditions of the tender cannot be said to be discriminatory. In the present matter, case of the petitioner stands on much weaker footings because it is not even a bidder directly, nor it can directly submit its tender. It is up to the successful bidder to decide as to wherefrom it procures supply of DI pipes and other material and on what rates. Therefore, contention that the competitive bids/price would not be available, cannot be accepted. Moreover, the tender in the present case is for turnkey project wherein the contract price is for the entire work, which also includes operation and maintenance for a period of ten years from the date of successful completion. It would be burden of the tenderers to offer competitive pricing bid for the entire scope of work including operation and maintenance as one, single and unified project. The argument that the successful bidder would have to pay more transportation charges if the supply is procured from the factory of Respondent No. 3 situated in the State of West Bengal cannot be accepted for the same reason. 19. In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. The argument that the successful bidder would have to pay more transportation charges if the supply is procured from the factory of Respondent No. 3 situated in the State of West Bengal cannot be accepted for the same reason. 19. In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka & Others, (2012) 8 SCC 216 , the Supreme Court held that in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities. Unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by the Court is not warranted. In Jagdish Mandal (supra), the Supreme Court held that evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance in such matters. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere, even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out. It was held by their Lordships that power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest or to decide contractual disputes. In Puravankara Projects Ltd. Vs. Hotel Venus International & Others, (2007) 10 SCC 33 it was held by the Apex Court that tender terms are contractual and it is the privilege of the Government which invites tender and the Courts do not have jurisdiction to decide which conditions should be framed. 20. In Directorate of Education and Others Vs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. And Others – (2004) 4 SCC 19 , the Supreme Court held that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The courts can scrutinise the award of the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The courts can scrutinise the award of the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. It is entitled to pragmatic adjustments which may be called for by the particular circumstances. The courts cannot strike down 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. 21. Judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners, also do not in any manner help the petitioner being distinguishable on facts. 22. Conclusion therefore would be that after expiry of the first renewal period of six months and till submission of the bid and even on the date on which the bid was opened, the petitioner did not have any valid WHO-GMP certificate and thus was not eligible to participate in the bid process. His bid therefore was rightly declared non-responsive. 23. In the light of findings afore-noted, this court does not find any infirmity in this decision taken by the respondent, which has been affirmed by the first appellate authority and the second appellate authority. 24. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Stay application is also dismissed.