JUDGMENT : In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of order dated 03.03.2016 by which the petitioner’s technical bid has not been found to be responsive and the same has been rejected. The petitioner also seeks a writ of Prohibition restraining respondents 2 to 4 from awarding the contract in question to respondent No.5 as well as Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to open the price Bid of the petitioner pursuant to Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.01.2016. In order to appreciate the petitioner’s grievance, few facts need mention which are stated infra. 2. The petitioner is Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction of work of bridges, etc and has successfully executed various works. The petitioner is also registered as contractor with Public Works contract as A-Class category. The Respondent No.2 issued a notice inviting tender dated 01.01.2016 for design and construction of 500 Meter span pre-stressed double lane bridge including approach roads of length 1875 meter (1175 mtr on right side and 700 mtr on left side) over river Ujh at Jothana (Kathua) under CRF. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid notice inviting tender, the petitioner as well as four other bidders including respondent No.5 submitted their bid. Class 4.7(1) of the Notice Inviting Tender which prescribes the eligibility criteria reads as under: 4.7(1). Experience in Similar Works: “Technical; (i) The applicant shall provide evidence that it has experience of successfully completing the construction of similar nature of works in the single bridge over perennial River/overflowing water and having individual span of 35 M or more during last five years. The work should have executed by the applicant individually as Prime Contractor. The similar nature of works means Construction of Pre-stressed concrete box type girder Bridge in bouldry strata.” 4. It appears that in pursuance of the representations made by the Contractor, respondent No.3 issued a Corrigendum in Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.01.2016, on 25.01.2016. The bid of the petitioner was considered by the Committee constituted by the respondents. However, by a Communication dated 03.03.2016, the petitioner was informed that its bid has not been found to be responsive. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. The bid of the petitioner was considered by the Committee constituted by the respondents. However, by a Communication dated 03.03.2016, the petitioner was informed that its bid has not been found to be responsive. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the criteria which was prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.01.2016 was amended by issuing corrigendum on 25.01.2016 and the requirement which was prescribed is satisfactory completion as prime contractor, at least one work of similar nature equal to value 33 per cent of advertised amount in any one year during the last five years ending last date of the month previous to the one in which the tenders are invited. It is submitted that the technical bid of the petitioner was evaluated with reference to the un-amended criteria and was found to be non responsive. The attention of this Court has been invited to the Certificate dated 28.05.2015 issued by the Executive Engineer, Power House Division BHEP in support of submission that the petitioner has the requisite experience and is fully eligible for consideration of his technical bid. It is also argued that a similar Notice Inviting Tender was issued by the Director General, Border Roads in which the petitioner was found to be qualified. 6. During the course of the arguments, it was pointed out that the petitioner today has filed one supplementary affidavit. Lastly it was urged that respondent No.5 also does not fulfill the eligibility criteria laid down in the Notice Inviting Tender as he does not have experience of similar nature of work under a single contract. 7. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for respondents 2 to 4 has invited attention of this Court to the Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.01.2016 and has submitted that the scope of work has remained the same despite corrigendum being issued on 25.01.2016. It is further submitted collective reading of terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender read with Corrigendum, makes it evident that the tenderers should have experience of construction of pre stressed concrete double lane bridge or experience of successfully having completed similar nature of work. It is pointed out that the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience as prescribed in the Corrigendum dated 25.01.2016. Therefore, the Technical Committee has rightly found the bid to be non responsive. It is pointed out that the petitioner does not possess the requisite experience as prescribed in the Corrigendum dated 25.01.2016. Therefore, the Technical Committee has rightly found the bid to be non responsive. It is further submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner has not alleged mala fides and a decision that the technical bids submitted by the petitioner is non responsive has been taken by Committee of experts and this Court will not sit as Court of Appeal over the decision taken by Committee of Experts. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 has submitted that the scope of work has not been changed even after the issuance of the corrigendum and the petitioner does not have the experience of construction of a double lane bridge. Therefore, the technical bid of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. In support of his submissions learned counsel for respondent No.5 has referred to decision in the case of Raunuq International Ltd. Vs. I. V. R. Construction Ltd and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 492 and a decision of the Supreme Court dated 15.09.2016 passed in Civil Appeal No.9079 of 2016 (Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd and Anr. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decision in the case of Harminder Singh Arora vs. Union of India and ors, (1986) 3 SCC 247 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that discretion to grant largesse including award of jobs, contracts, quotas, license and so on must be structured by rational, relevant and non-discretionary standard or norms. If the Government departs from such standard or norms, its action would be liable to be struck down unless the Government can establish that departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principles which in itself was not irrational, irrelevant, unreasonable or discriminatory. See, Narendra Kumar Maheshwari vs. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) SCC 440. If the Government departs from such standard or norms, its action would be liable to be struck down unless the Government can establish that departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principles which in itself was not irrational, irrelevant, unreasonable or discriminatory. See, Narendra Kumar Maheshwari vs. Union of India, 1990 (Supp) SCC 440. It is equally well settled legal proposition that it is open to the State to prescribe conditions in the tender, prescribing the eligibility criteria and if the State can justify the tender conditions in the context of particular contract, the courts will not interfere and whenever there are different alternatives, it is not for the courts to suggest that a particular alternative is justified. In awarding contract, the public interest is of paramount consideration and there should be no arbitrariness in awarding the contract and all participants in the tender process must be treated alike. In the celebrated case of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 ), the Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of judicial power of review held that it would apply to exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. It has been held that the ground upon which the administrative action is subject to control by judicial review is on the grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. It has further been held that terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny because invitation to tender is in the realm of contract and more often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. It has further been held that 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 but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. 10. 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 but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. 10. The principles regarding award of contract were again reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Director of Education vs. Educomp Datamatics Limited (2004) 4 SCC 19 and it was held that Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of tender and the courts cannot strike down the terms of tender prescribed by the Government because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fairer, wiser or more logical. The courts can interfere only if the policy decision is arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice. In the case of Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited vs. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited, (2010) 6 SCC 303 , the Supreme Court while taking note of the law laid down in Assn. of Registration Plates vs. Union of India (2005) 1 SCC 679 , reiterated that State Government has the right to get the right and most competent person and in the matter of formulating conditions of tender documents, unless the action of tendering authority is found to be malicious and is a misuse of statutory powers, the tender conditions are unassailable. In the case of Siemens Aktiengeselischaft and Seimens Limited vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited and others, (2014) 11 SCC 288 , it was held that tenders floated by the Government are amenable to judicial review only in order to prevent arbitrariness and favoritism and protect the financial interest of the State and the public interest. Thus, the scope of judicial review is confined as to whether there was any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety committed by the decision making authority. It has further been held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the soundness of the decision made by the competent authority and the court can only examine whether the decision making process was fair, reasonable, transparent and bonafide with no perceptible injury to public interest. It has further been held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the soundness of the decision made by the competent authority and the court can only examine whether the decision making process was fair, reasonable, transparent and bonafide with no perceptible injury to public interest. In Raunaq International Ltd vs. IVR Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492 , the Supreme Court has held that price may not be always the sole criteria for awarding the contract. It has further been held that the Evaluation Committee is appointed to evaluate offers, the experts committee’s special knowledge plays a decisive role in deciding which the best offer. The price offered is only one of the criteria. The Supreme Court in the case of Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs. Union of India (2016) 6 SCC 408 has held minimal interference is called for by the Court of Judicial Review with a decision taken by the technical experts after due deliberations inasmuch as the Courts are not well equipped to fathom into such domain which is left to the discretion of the executive. It has further been held that primary and secondary purpose of review is to ensure that administrative bodies act in efficient, transparent, fair and unbiased manner keep in forefront public interest. 11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legal position, facts of the case in hand may be seen. From the careful scrutiny of Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.01.2016, it is evident that the scope of work which has been defined in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.01.2016 is as follows: “Design and construction of 500 meter Span Pre-stressed concrete Double lane Bridge including approaches of length 1875 mtr (1175 mtr on right side and 700 mtr on left side, 01 mtr span RCC culverts 6 nos., 2 mtr span RCC culvert 02 nos., R/wall 300 mtrs., B/wall 400 mtrs., Pucca Drain 250 mtrs. And WBM grade II, WBM grade III and 25 mm thick SDBC) over River Ujh at Jothana (Kathua) under CRF. It is pertinent to note that scope of work has not been changed, only the eligibility criteria has been changed by issuing a Corrigendum on 25.01.2016. And WBM grade II, WBM grade III and 25 mm thick SDBC) over River Ujh at Jothana (Kathua) under CRF. It is pertinent to note that scope of work has not been changed, only the eligibility criteria has been changed by issuing a Corrigendum on 25.01.2016. The changes which have been made vide aforesaid corrigendum are reproduced for the facility of reference as under: Please read Instead of At Page 12 4.3(A)(b) At Page 12 24.3(A)(b) Satisfactorily completed as prime contractor, at least one work of similar nature equal to the value 33% of advertised amount in any one year during last 5 years ending last date of the month previous to the one in which the tenders are invited. Successful completion certificate at least one similar work equal to 50% of total length of work i.e. Design and construction of 500 meter span pre-stressed double lane bridge including approach roads of length 1875 meter (1175 mtr on right side and 700 mtr on left side) over river Ujh at Jothana (Kathua) under CRF At Page No. 13 4.7 1 Experience in similar work (i) The applicant shall provide evidence that it has experience of successfully completing the construction of similar nature of works in one single bridge over perennial River/overflowing water. The work should have executed by the applicant individually as prime contractor. 4.7 (1) Experience in Similar Works Technical; (i) The applicant shall provide that it has experience of successfully completing the construction of similar nature of works in one single bridge over perennial River/ overflowing water and having individual span of 35 M or more during last five years. The work should have executed by the applicant individually as Prime Contractor of Pre-Stressed concrete box type girder Bridge in bouldry strata. 12. If the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.01.2016 is read in conjunction with Corrigendum dated 25.01.2016, it is evident that a prospective bidder must have completed work of similar nature. From careful scrutiny of the amended as well as un-amended eligibility criteria, it is axiomatic that the work of similar nature appears in amended as well as in un-amended eligibility criteria. At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy that scope of work has not been changed. From careful scrutiny of the amended as well as un-amended eligibility criteria, it is axiomatic that the work of similar nature appears in amended as well as in un-amended eligibility criteria. At the cost of repetition, it is noteworthy that scope of work has not been changed. Therefore, the expression “The work of similar nature has to be read as analogous to work of construction of pre-stressed concrete box type girder bridge”. 13. The Tender Evaluation Committee consisted of Managing Director, Financial Controller, General Manager (Central), General Manager and DGM, Unit-V of JKPCC Ltd. From the record of the Tender Evaluation Committee which has been annexed as Annexure-R1 with the petition, it is graphically clear that the Tender Evaluation Committee has taken into account the amended criteria as well, while evaluating the bids and the technical bid of the petitioner has been found to be non responsive. It is pertinent to mention that the aforesaid decision has been taken by a Committee of Experts and this Court cannot sit as Court of Appeal over the decision by a Committee consisting of experts. It is pertinent to mention that no allegations of mala fides have been made against the members of the Tender Evaluation Committee. The certificate annexed by the petitioner issued by the Executive Engineer, Power House Division shows that the petitioner has experience in Design, Investigation, Supply, Fabrication And Erection of 325 mtr Single Span Steel Motorable Suspension Bridge Including Construction Of Abutments, Anchor Blocks, Wind Blocks And Associated Civil Works. Thus the aforesaid certificate also does not show that the petitioner has the requisite experience as provided under the amended eligibility criteria. 14. Besides that, the petitioner in the communication dated 09.02.2016 addressed to Managing Director of JKPCC Ltd has itself stated that its tender should be considered on the basis of qualification/completion certificate of 325 mtr, Single Span Steel Motorable Suspension Bridge Over River Chenab At Trugal Assar District Doda. In the instant case, “500 mtr span pre-stressed concrete double lane bridge including approaches has to be constructed. Thus in view of the stand taken by the petitioner itself in the communication dated 09.02.2016, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria. 15. In the instant case, “500 mtr span pre-stressed concrete double lane bridge including approaches has to be constructed. Thus in view of the stand taken by the petitioner itself in the communication dated 09.02.2016, the petitioner does not fulfill the eligibility criteria. 15. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s bid was evaluated with reference to un-amended eligibility criteria does not deserve acceptance as from perusal of Annexure-R1, it is evident that Tender Evaluation Committee has taken into account the amended eligibility criteria while evaluating the bid of the petitioner. Similarly the submission that the bid submitted by the petitioner is lower than that of respondent No.5, therefore petitioner should be awarded the contract also cannot be accepted as price is not the sole criteria for acceptance of the bid, it is only one of the factors. In view of the law laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Raunaq International (Supra). In the instant case, the Tender Evaluation Committee has found that the petitioners does not fulfill the eligibility criteria, therefore, the aforesaid question even otherwise does not arise for consideration. Since the counsel for the petitioner after advancing the arguments for a considerable period informed the Court that he had filed a supplementary affidavit today, this Court has not inclined to take the same on record. Accordingly, the same is not taken on record. 16. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.