JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. By way of present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “a). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to produce on record the letter, vide which premises of respondent No.4. have been taken on lease for the purpose of opening the branch of the Bank, as the petitioner, despite all his best efforts could not lay his hands on the same and the said offer/letter may very kindly be quashed and set-aside with directions to the respondents to adhere to the tender process strictly in accordance with its conditions and so also to take the premises of the petitioner on lease, in the interest of law and justice; b) That respondents, particularly respondent No.3, whose name petitioner could not find out despite his best efforts, may very kindly be summoned, proceeded against and punished suitably in accordance to upkeep the majesty of law in high esteem” 2. Close scrutiny of documents available on record suggests that respondent No.3-Bank vide advertisement (Annexure P-1) published in the various newspapers, invited bids in sealed cover on prescribed format for leasing out ready built commercial premises, having about 1200 to 1500 sq. ft. rentable floor area, at Jaurbar (Ujhe Khas) Tehsil Jaswan, District Kangra, H.P., preferably on ground floor, from the owners/landlords. Respondent No. 3 provided complete details as well as prescribed format of application on its website and the last date for receipt of offer in the office of respondent No. 3-Bank was up to 4 pm on 27.1.2014. The petitioner, respondent No.4 and five other bidders applied on the prescribed format offering their premises in terms of advertisement (supra). It also emerges from the record that premises of respondent No.4 were taken on lease by the respondent-Bank being suitable for housing their branch. The petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the respondent-Bank, whereby bid of the petitioner was not accepted and premises owned by respondent No.4 were taken on lease, approached this Court by the medium of instant petition, praying reliefs as referred above. 3. Mr. The petitioner being aggrieved with the action of the respondent-Bank, whereby bid of the petitioner was not accepted and premises owned by respondent No.4 were taken on lease, approached this Court by the medium of instant petition, praying reliefs as referred above. 3. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that premises of respondent No. 4 were wrongly taken by the respondent-Bank on lease because he was not eligible to participate in tender process as he was not resident of Ujhe Khas Panchayat but resident of Mohal Bhater Parli, Tehsil Amb, District Una, H.P. Mr. Sharma further contended that whole of tender process and taking premises of respondent No.4 on lease by respondent No. 3-Bank is the result of favouritism and nepotism because bare perusal of advertisement clearly suggests that premises were required at Jaurbar (Ujhe Khas) Kangra, HP and respondent No.4 being resident of another Panchayat was not competent to participate in bidding process. Mr. Sharma strenuously argued that respondents No. 1 to 3 decided to take premises of respondent No. 4 on lease without adhering to the tender process because at no point of time, tenders submitted by other bidders including present petitioner, were opened before awarding tender in favour of respondent No.4. As per Mr. Sharma, Respondents No. 1 to 3 while discharging public functions were expected to act in most transparent manner but in the present case, information supplied under Right to Information Act, 2005, (In short ‘RTI’) clearly suggests that in total, seven bids were received by respondent No.3-Bank for hiring of the premises for the proposed branch at Jaurbar (Ujhe Khas) but as per information supplied under RTI, these bids were not opened at all, meaning thereby, only bid of respondent No.4 was opened unilaterally that too without informing other tenderers/bidders. 4. Per contra, Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 supported the action of respondent No.3-Bank of taking the premises of respondent No.4 on lease in terms of the advertisement issued by the Bank. Mr. Gupta while refuting the aforesaid submission having been made by Mr. Ajay Sharma, argued that petition is not competent nor maintainable because the petitioner has no vested right regarding leasing out his premises for opening of the proposed branch of Bank as advertised in the Newspapers. Mr. Mr. Gupta while refuting the aforesaid submission having been made by Mr. Ajay Sharma, argued that petition is not competent nor maintainable because the petitioner has no vested right regarding leasing out his premises for opening of the proposed branch of Bank as advertised in the Newspapers. Mr. Gupta further contended that premises offered by the petitioner for leasing out to the Bank were not found suitable for opening a branch of the bank by the Committee constituted by the Bank for accepting the bids received from various contenders. Mr. Gupta while refuting the submissions having been made by the counsel for the petitioner that no procedure and rules were followed by the respondent-Bank, forcefully contended that bids given by respective bidders were duly considered by the Committee constituted for the purpose. He further contended that all the technical bids were opened in the presence of the petitioner and other bidders and as such, there is no force in the aforesaid contention of the counsel for the petitioner. 5. Mr. Gupta, invited attention of this Court to Annexure R-1 annexed with the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 to demonstrate that all technical bids received from 6-7 bidders including present petitioner were duly opened by the Committee constituted in this regard in presence of all the tenderers. Perusal of Annexure R-1 suggests that during aforesaid process, the petitioner was also present, who also appended his signature on the minutes of meeting of the Committee held on 22.3.2014. Mr. Gupta while making prayer for rejection of present petition strenuously argued that replying respondents have not violated any rule/condition as has been alleged by the petitioner, rather premises of the present petitioner was not found suitable by the Committee constituted for evaluating the tenders filled in by various tenderers. He argued that suitability of the premises is to be seen from the point of view of the Bank and not from the point of view of the petitioner or any independent person as alleged. Mr. Gupta forcefully contended that the Committee while accepting the bid of respondent No.4 has taken care of everything including commercial locality and as such, no fault, if any, can be found with the decision of the respondent-Bank as far as hiring of premises of respondent No.4 is concerned. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Gupta prayed for dismissal of the present petition with costs. 6. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Gupta prayed for dismissal of the present petition with costs. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well carefully gone through the record. 7. Perusal of Annexure P-1 placed on record by the petitioner nowhere suggests that only resident of Jaurbar (Ujhe Khas) could participate in the tender process, rather close scrutiny of advertisement clearly suggests that respondent-Bank had invited tenders in sealed covers, on prescribed format, for leasing out ready built commercial premises preferably on ground floor at Jaurbar (Ujhe Khas) District Kangra, HP. Hence, this Court sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.4 was not eligible to participate in tender process since he was not resident of the said place. Documents placed on record by the petitioner especially Annexure P-4 i.e. details furnished by respondent No.4 in terms of tender notice, clearly suggest that property offered in terms of advertisement notice is situated at Jaurbar and as such same was rightly considered by the Committee along with other properties offered by other six bidders. Since property offered by respondent No.4 was strictly in consonance with the place mentioned in the advertisement (Annexure P-1), this Court sees no force in the contention put forth on behalf of the petitioner that respondent Bank gave undue weight-age to respondent No. 4 while selecting his premises for housing branch of the bank concerned. 8. This Court, solely with a view to examine the genuineness and correctness of the arguments having been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that only bid of respondent No.4 was opened, perused Annexure P-2 i.e. information supplied under RTI. Undoubtedly, plain reading of para-1 of information suggests that seven bids were received by the respondent-Bank for hiring the premises for the proposed branch at Jaurbar and only one price bid out of seven bids was opened. But careful perusal of para-3 clearly suggests that six bids, received vide aforesaid advertisement notice, were not found suitable and as such, same were not considered at the time of opening the financial bids. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) where-along terms and conditions have also been provided, which clearly suggests that bidders were required to furnish two separate bids in two envelopes containing technical bid as well as price bid. At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) where-along terms and conditions have also been provided, which clearly suggests that bidders were required to furnish two separate bids in two envelopes containing technical bid as well as price bid. Clauses 10 and 11 of the terms and conditions clearly suggest that technical bids were required to be opened in the presence of owners/landlords and after opening/screening of technical bids and subsequent site inspection, the price bids of the bidders found suitable in technical bid were to be opened. It would be relevant to reproduce herein below clauses 10 and 11 of the terms and conditions contained in notice inviting tender:- “B). Terms & Conditions:- 10. The Technical Bids will be opened in the presence of owners/landlords who will be present at the centre of proposed branch. All owners/landlords are to be present in their own interest on the fixed date, time and venue (to be advised by the above office) for opening of the Technical bids. 11. After opening/screening of technical bids and subsequent site inspection, the price bids of the offers considered to be suitable for the Bank shall alone be opened. The owner/landlords shall obtain approvals from the local authorities as applicable, especially Completion/Occupation certificate before opening of price bids. Offers without the approval of local authorities be disqualified and the price bid shall not be opened for further processing. In places where Completion/Occupation certificate are not issued by the local authorities, the Bank may consider such offers if otherwise fulfills all other terms and condition and identified as suitable Technical Bid.” Perusal of aforesaid clauses clearly suggests that technical bids furnished by the respective parties were to be opened in the presence of the all the participants but financial bids of only those persons could be considered, who were found suitable in technical bid. In the present case, as has been specifically informed under RTI that six bids were not found suitable by the Committee based on suitability, security and business angle and as such, this court sees no illegality in the action of respondent-bank whereby it only considered financial bid of respondent No.4, whose premises were found most suitable by the Committee after evaluating the technical bids furnished by all the bidders including present petitioner. It would be apt to reproduce following paras of reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3:- “3. That the contents of para-3 of the petition are admitted to the extent that a notification inviting tenders for hiring of premises for Jaurbar (Ujay Khas) Branch of State Bank of Patiala was published on 6th January, 2014 in ‘Divya Himachal’ and ‘The Tribune’. Tenders were also uploaded on the banks Website. The petitioner was one of the bidders alongwtih other bidders who offered their premises for hiring by the Bank for its branch to be opened at Jaurbar (Ujay Khass). It is wrong & denied that the premises which was taken from respondent No.4 has been taken on lease by the replying respondents is not a resident of Ujay Khass Panchayat. Even otherwise, it was not a condition precedent of the notification inviting the tenders that the person whose premises are to be taken on lease should be a resident of Ujhe Khass Panchayat. The complete details have been given in the reply to preceding para of the petition above. The respondent No. 4 alongwith his application for offering premises on lease had given his original address of Village Jaurbar. It is further denied that the process of tender was the result of favourtism and nepotism. It is further denied that the replying respondent was determined to take premises of respondent No. 4 on lease. The petitioner has failed to assign any reasons for his apprehensions and or to supporting the allegations made by him in this para of the petition. Proper procedure was followed after receiving the tenders. A committee was constituted by DGM, Respondent No.2 consisting of five members including the Architect called ZLPC. The ZLPC members met on 22nd March, 2014 and technical bids offered by the bidders were opened in the presence of the respective bidders including the petitioner and after visiting the sites of the bidders from various points found the premises of respondent No.4 suitable for opening of branch of Bank and as such all other technical bids were rejected. The presence of the bidders was duly recorded in the minutes of meeting under their signatures. The true photocopy of the same is attached as Annexure R-1 to the reply.” “4&5. That the contents of paras-4 &5 of the petition, as stated, are not admitted to be correct and hence denied. The presence of the bidders was duly recorded in the minutes of meeting under their signatures. The true photocopy of the same is attached as Annexure R-1 to the reply.” “4&5. That the contents of paras-4 &5 of the petition, as stated, are not admitted to be correct and hence denied. It is denied that the premises of respondent No. 4 has been taken without adhering to the tender process. It is pertinent to mention here that as per Annexure P-1, interested persons were required to submit their offer in the specified performa in two envelope systems i.e. technical bids (‘Envelop-1’) and price bid (‘Envelop-II’). The technical bids were required to contain notice inviting orders, general terms & conditions & the detail of the offer as per the specified Performa. The envelope was to be superscripted as “technical bid for leasing of premises at Tarkwari District Hamirpur H.P.” The price bid was to contain the monthly rent and other charges as per the specified Performa. The envelope containing technical bids were required by opened first and thereafter the envelope containing the price bid was to be opened only relating to the bidders whose technical bid was accepted, the condition was also mentioned in terms & condition of notice for tender at point 11. Since the technical bids of the petitioner and other bidders not found suitable and were rejected, the bid given by respondent No.4 was accepted after getting the information regarding the rent from the other banks, it was decided to negotiate for the rent with the respondent No.4 and thereafter letter Annexure R-2 was issued to the respondent No.4 and the copy of the same was also supplied to the counsel for the petitioner vide letter dated 19th November, 2014. It is wrong & denied that respondent No.4 had given wrong address in the application form. However, on the contrary, he had submitted the documents in support of the address given by him and the Sajra Kistwar and Jamabandi will not prove the address of respondent No.4. The said averments however are to be properly answered by the respondent No.4. It is further submitted that as per the documents submitted by the respondent No.4 such as the copy of the service record and the photocopy of Bank Pass book, shows the respondent No.4 to be the resident of village Jaurbar, Post Office Tapri, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. The said averments however are to be properly answered by the respondent No.4. It is further submitted that as per the documents submitted by the respondent No.4 such as the copy of the service record and the photocopy of Bank Pass book, shows the respondent No.4 to be the resident of village Jaurbar, Post Office Tapri, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. As submitted in the preliminary objection above, there was not a condition of the tender that the person offering the bid should be the resident of the same village where the premises are to be taken on lease. It is specifically denied that the premises of respondent No.4 have been taken on lease without adhering to the tender process. The respondents No. 1&2 were not the Member of ZLPC who have selected the premises, and as such, they have been unnecessarily impleaded as party to the petition. The petitioner has alleged malafide against the ZLPC as such, the Members of ZLPC were required to be impleaded as parties in their personal capacity. The respondent No.3 has also not been properly sued as malafide has been alleged against a particular person.” 9. It clearly emerges from the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 that technical bids furnished by all the bidders including the petitioner were duly considered by the Committee constituted for evaluating the bids and there was no requirement for respondent No. 4 to be a resident of Jaurbar (Ujhe Khas) for participating in tender process. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion as well as detailed reply filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3, this Court sees no force in the averments contained in the writ petition as well as submissions having been advanced by the counsel representing the petitioner. This Court is of the view that suitability of the premises could only be adjudged by the respondent-bank and not from the point of view of the petitioner or any other person. This Court is of the view that suitability of the premises could only be adjudged by the respondent-bank and not from the point of view of the petitioner or any other person. Since in the present case, Committee constituted for the purpose specifically furnished its report after visiting the site that premises offered by respondent No.4 is suitable, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner, that too, after participating in the tender process, to state that respondent-bank acted in an arbitrary manner and without resorting to fair process, awarded tender in favour of respondent No.4, rather, careful perusal of material placed on record by respondent-Bank clearly suggests that Committee, while accepting the bid of respondent No.4, took care of everything including commercial locality around the premises offered by respondent No.4 and as such, this Court is of the view that premises of respondent No.4 were rightly taken on lease by the respondent-Bank that too strictly in accordance with the tender process. It clearly emerges from the pleadings available on record that before approaching this Court by way of present petition, the petitioner himself participated in tender process and now after failing in the said process, has approached this Court which action of the petitioner cannot be held to be justifiable in any manner. 11. In view of the above, we have no hesitation to conclude that present petition is not maintainable at all solely on the ground that the petitioner approached this Court after participating in tender process pursuant to Annexure P-1. Once the petitioner participated in tender process, he has no right, whatsoever, to challenge any terms and conditions contained in tender notice. The petitioner has only come to the court when he failed to procure lease in question in terms of tender notice issued by the respondent bank. Had the bank taken his premises on lease, he would have never approached this Court. Otherwise also it is the complete domain of the respondent-Bank to prescribe conditions in the tender notice and in this regard, bidder cannot dictate terms in any manner. Hence, this Court is of the view that respondent-Bank was well within its right to take suitable premises on lease for housing its branch. Otherwise also it is the complete domain of the respondent-Bank to prescribe conditions in the tender notice and in this regard, bidder cannot dictate terms in any manner. Hence, this Court is of the view that respondent-Bank was well within its right to take suitable premises on lease for housing its branch. If the Court is satisfied that any condition, put in tender notice, is in public interest or has been solely put with a view to save public exchequer, it is always outside the purview of the Court to interfere in the same. In the present case, the Committee specifically reported that premises offered by the petitioner were not found suitable and, as such, financial bid offered by the petitioner was not opened, whereas record itself reveals that Committee found the premises offered by respondent No.4 suitable and accordingly financial bid, submitted by him was opened and his premises were taken on lease. 12. The Hon’ble Apex court, while dealing with such like matters, has repeatedly held that the Courts have very very limited powers while examining the issues with regard to terms and conditions of tender notice. 13. In this regard reliance is placed on Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, (1994)6 SCC 651 , wherein the Court held: “70. It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. 71. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. 71. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they are not essentially justifiable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. 77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be : 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, (1991)1 AC 696, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention". (pp.675 & 677-678) 14. Similarly, the action of the State in the contractual matters is required to be tested on touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention". (pp.675 & 677-678) 14. Similarly, the action of the State in the contractual matters is required to be tested on touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But if the action of the State in the contractual matters is meant for public good and in public interest, no interference whatsoever of the Courts is called for. If the decision of the State is informed of the reason and same is in public interest, Courts have no occasion, whatsoever, to interfere in the same. 15. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Raj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2014(2) Him.L.R.(DB) 1217, wherein this Court held as under: “9. The action of the State even in contractual fields will have to be tested on the following touchstone: (i) The State action in the contractual field are meant for public good and in public interest and are expected to be fair and just. (ii) It would be alien to the constitutional scheme to accept the argument of exclusion of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in contractual matters. (iii) The fact that a dispute falls in the domain of contractual obligation, would make no difference to a challenge raised under Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the impugned act is arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. (iv) Every State action must be informed of reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason is arbitrary. (v) Where no plausible reason or principle is indicated (or is discernible), and where the impugned action ex facie appears to be arbitrary, the onus shifts on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable. (vi) Every holder of public office is accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. All powers vested in a public office, even in the field of contract, are meant to be exercised for public good and for promoting public interest. (vii) Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of governmental policy even in contractual matters, and if the policy or any action of the Government fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, the same would be unconstitutional. (vii) Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies also to matters of governmental policy even in contractual matters, and if the policy or any action of the Government fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, the same would be unconstitutional. (See: Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs. State of U.P. (1991) 1 SCC 212 ). Thus, what is essential is that the State and its instrumentalities and their functionaries while exercising their executive power in matters of trade or business etc. including making of contracts, should bear in mind the public interest, public purpose and public good. This is so, because every holder of public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State, or its instrumentalities, is ultimately accountable to the people in whom sovereignty vests and as such, all powers vested in the State are meant to be exercised for public good and in public interest. Therefore, the question of unfettered discretion in an executive authority just does not arise. The fetters on discretion are clear, transparent and objective criteria or procedure which promotes public interest, public purpose and public good. A public authority is ordained, therefore to act, reasonably and in good faith and upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. (Refer: Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 1 ). Bearing in mind the guiding principles laid down in the Constitution of India alongwith law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time, we proceed to determine the writ petition.” (pp.1219-1220) 16. In this regard reliance is also placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court in S.G. Jaisinghani vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1427 , Satwant Singh Sawhney vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1836 , Namit Gupta vs. State of H.P. and Others, AIR 2014 HP 49 , Pritam Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2013)1 Him.L.R. 130 and Saroj Garg vs. State of H.P. & Ors., AIR 2011 HP 94. 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, we don’t see any reason to interfere in the decision taken by the respondent-Bank, by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, as prayed for, by the petitioner in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 18. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. 17. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above, we don’t see any reason to interfere in the decision taken by the respondent-Bank, by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, as prayed for, by the petitioner in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 18. Interim direction, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.