JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner is a transport contractor having valid transport license and belonging to rural area. He was awarded with the tender for transportation of food stuff for Mid Day Meal (MDM) in the year 2012-13 in the district of Khurda and successfully completed the same. The Collector-cum-Chairperson (MDM, Khurda)-opposite party no.2 issued a tender call notice on 29.02.2016 inviting sealed tenders from the intending registered transport contractors/agents having valid agent license/common carrier license for engagement of transporting agent under Mid-Day- Meal Programme for transportation of rice from FCI point to School points for the year 2016-17. The tender documents, complete in all respect along with required documents, were to be sent in sealed cover superscribed “sealed tender for undertaking transportation work of food grain (rice) under MDM programme-2016-17” addressed to the District Education Officer, Khurda by registered post/speed post. The last date of receipt of the tender documents was 21.03. 2016 by 1.00 P.M. and date of opening of the tenders was 21.03.2016 at 5.00 P.M. in the office of the Addl. District Magistrate, Bhubaneswar. As per the terms and conditions of the tender notice, clause-10 requires that recent solvency certificate issued by the competent authority for Rs.50,00,000/- only, who applied for the whole district, and Rs.10,00,000/- only, who applied for one block, should be furnished by the tenders along with the tender paper. Clause-11 requires that earnest money deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- only per block (multiple of Rs.1,00,000/-, if applied for more than one block) in shape of bank drafts/postal savings pass book/bank pass book/NSC/term deposit duly pledged in favour of the District Project Management Unit (DPMU), MDM, Khurda should be furnished along with the tender paper. The security deposit has been enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-; EM.D. has been enchanced from 26,500/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and solvency cost also has been enhanced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by such terms and conditions of the tender documents, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present application. 2. Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that there was no rationality in the enhancement of EMD, solvency certificate and security deposits and, as such, the enhancement of deposits on different rates pursuant to the tender documents of the year 2016-17 is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Ms. Saswati Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that there was no rationality in the enhancement of EMD, solvency certificate and security deposits and, as such, the enhancement of deposits on different rates pursuant to the tender documents of the year 2016-17 is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. By fixation of such conditions, the opposite parties have tried to eliminate small transporting contractors/agents and encourage the big contractors. If such tender conditions are allowed to exist, that would lead to an unhealthy competition, which is absolutely unreasonable, arbitrary and dehorse the provisions of law. It is further urged that the food stuff are being transported under different schemes, namely, Public Distribution System (PDS), SNP and Mid-Day-Meal (MDM). So far as the conditions for transporting of food stuff under PDS and SNP schemes are concerned, there was no change in the conditions which were prevailing earlier whereas in respect of transporting under MDM scheme, the conditions have been substantially changed without assigning any reasons thereof. Apart from the same, it is further urged that due to non-availability of transport contractors/agents because of change of conditions, it has only been confined to some of the transporters belonging to Bhubaneswar and the rural transporters have practically been excluded, though there was no allegation against them and they had successfully completed their tender work assigned in the previous years. It is stated that the transporters/agents of the Bhubaneswar have been assigned to transport food stuff in respect of the areas they had applied for, in addition to the other areas for which they had not applied. This clearly indicates that favouritism has been shown by the authority towards those transporters/agents of the Bhubaneswar to handle all the transport contracts. It is stated that the conditions of the contract have been changed without any valid or justifiable reason. Therefore, interference of this Court has been sought for. To substantiate her contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another, (2001) 8 SCC 491 . 3. Mr. Therefore, interference of this Court has been sought for. To substantiate her contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another, (2001) 8 SCC 491 . 3. Mr. A.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department vehemently urged that in order to ensure the smooth supply of MDM, the conditions of the tender documents have been changed and, as such, no illegality or irregularity can be said to have been committed by the authority. It is further urged that the past experience indicates that the small transport contractors used to leave the work at the midway, thereby causing the MDM scheme to suffer for non-supply of food stuff in time to the respective places. Therefore, no fault can be found with the authorities for changing the conditions. It is further urged that where the State acts reasonably, fairly and in public interest, no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. In that case, the scope of Court’s interference is very restricted and limited and, as such, in the present case the Court should not interfere with the conditions stipulated in the notice inviting tenders. Furthermore, the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand to set the term of the condition of the tender in exercise of such powers and that once the conditions of the tender have been fixed the Court cannot interfere in exercise of judicial review. To substantiate his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and others, (2012) 8 SCC 216 . 4. Mr. R.C. Sarangi, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 states that the Court cannot interfere with the terms of the invitation to tender, as the same are not open to the judicial review/scrutiny, and 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. It must have reasonable play in its joints as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner that there was an arbitrary fixation of EMD, security deposit and solvency certificate, which being the terms of he invitation to the tender documents, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of power under judicial review. In addition to the above, it is urged that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this writ petition, as the person is not adversely affected. Therefore, the petitioner not being a person aggrieved cannot approach this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner not being the participant to the bid pursuant to the notice inviting tender in Annexure-4, it cannot be construed that he is a person aggrieved. Therefore, at his behest, the writ petition cannot be maintained. To substantiate his contention, reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 , Directorate of Education and others v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and others, AIR 2004 SC 1962 and S.S. and Company v. Orissa Mining Corporation Limited, (2008) 5 SCC 772 . 5. Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.5 has stated that opposite party no.5 being stood in the position of opposite party no.4, he adopts the arguments advanced by learned counsel for opposite party no.4. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Since pleadings have been exchanged amongst them, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage. 7. The facts are not disputed to the extent that the petitioner is a transport contractor engaged in transportation of Mid Day Meal to various destinations under Khurda district. Pursuant to tender for the year 2012, the petitioner was successful and carried out his work and completed the same within the time specified. As such, there is no adverse remark against the petitioner in carrying out the terms and conditions of the tender documents for the year 2012-2013. Pursuant to tender for the year 2012, the petitioner was successful and carried out his work and completed the same within the time specified. As such, there is no adverse remark against the petitioner in carrying out the terms and conditions of the tender documents for the year 2012-2013. The petitioner being a rural based transport contractor and on the basis of the terms and conditions of invitation to tender for the year 2012-13 he having been satisfied with the requirement had been selected and was allowed to discharge his duty in terms of such conditions. When an invitation to tender was made for the year 2016-17, there has been a sky rocketing enhancement in solvency, EMD and security deposits. Consequentially, the petitioner has been deprived of participating in the tender for transportation of food stuff under Khurda district. Being aggrieved by such conditions, he has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. In paragraph-3(e) of the writ petition, it is pleaded as follows: “3(e) : It is humbly submitted that the opp. parties have adopted this tactics by hiking the solvency, EMD etc. only to show favouritism to those, who have already done Tender works(s) or rich businessman of their choice. For better appreciation, a Comparative Table is given herein below:- Comparative Statement of Tender Notice Of the years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Year Tender paper Cost (Block wise) E.M.D. Solvency Security Deposit Quantity in Quintal 2014-15 Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 26,500/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs.50,000/- 206880 2015-16 ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, 2016-17 Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.10,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- ,, Considering such contention and finding that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case in his favour, this Court by order dated 21.03.2016 issued notice to the opposite parties passing the following order: “xxx xxx xxx Considering the facts, it is directed that till the next date of listing, no contract in pursuance of the tender call notice dated 29.02.2016 shall be awarded by the opposite parties.” The said interim order was also extended from time to time by affording opportunity to the State-opposite parties to file their counter affidavit. But, in the meantime, since the authorities had already selected the transporters/agents, they filed applications for intervention in the matter and have been impleaded as opposite parties no.4 and 5 in the writ petition. But, in the meantime, since the authorities had already selected the transporters/agents, they filed applications for intervention in the matter and have been impleaded as opposite parties no.4 and 5 in the writ petition. They had been given opportunity to file their respective counter affidavits by order dated 05.05.2016. The said opposite parties have filed their counter affidavits, to which the petitioner has also filed rejoinder affidavits, which have also been exchanged amongst the parties. No specific reply has been given to the pleadings made in paragraph-3(e) of the writ petition as mentioned above. But, in the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.3 dated 04.04.2016 it has been pleaded as follows: “10. That, it is also submitted to the averments made in the Para-3(b) to 3(d) of the writ that the solvency, EMD and security are intended in the tender for safe security for smooth execution of the said tender work. It is a fact that the volume of work are same as the previous years but the market cost of the MDM rice carried in a quarter i.e. quantum of rice carries in a quarter by the awarded of the tender is hiked day by day. The solvency, EMD/Security are kept in the tender are taken as such that if any irregularities occurs/ arises by the awarded of the said tender during the contract period, the same will be recovered from the securities given by the awardees of the said tender. As such it is a remedial measure for smooth execution of the tender work and the allegations made in the writ petition that the authority without any valid reason arbitrarily hiked the eligibility criteria for competitions within few participants and to show favouritism is baseless and cannot be sustainable in the eye of law. The decision regarding hike of Solvency, EMD/ Security amount has been duly approved by the Collectorcum- Chairman, MDM, Khordha before the publishing of the tender dtd. 29.02.2016. 10. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School and Mass Education Department vide letter dtd. 13.03.2015 instructed all the Collectors stating therein that the agreement with the transport contractors shall incorporate strict provisions to deal with pilferage, misappropriation, diversion, quality change, weighment, insurance, security deposit, adulteration, acknowledgement, scrutiny, sample collection, SMS alert, FIR, forfeiture etc. 29.02.2016. 10. That, it is pertinent to mention here that the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, School and Mass Education Department vide letter dtd. 13.03.2015 instructed all the Collectors stating therein that the agreement with the transport contractors shall incorporate strict provisions to deal with pilferage, misappropriation, diversion, quality change, weighment, insurance, security deposit, adulteration, acknowledgement, scrutiny, sample collection, SMS alert, FIR, forfeiture etc. Under no circumstances the Transport contractor be allowed to generate liability beyond the security deposit amount and accordingly in the tender conditions EMD, security deposit and solvency certificate has been hiked in order to meet any exigency arising out of pilferage, misappropriation, adulteration etc. 11. That, it is not out of place to mention here that it is contended by the present petitioner that in respect of Kandhamal district earnest deposit has been stipulated to be Rs.50,000/- and solvency certificate of Rs.5 lakhs is to be given whereas in respect of Khurda district the above said prices are hike. In response to the above contentions of the present petitioner it is also submitted that although Kandhamal district has prescribed solvency certificate of less amount than that of Khurda district whereas in other districts like Puri, Nabarangpur such prices are also higher. In respect of Puri District The EMD of Rs.200000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only per block and solvency of Rs.1000000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs) only are to be deposited by the tenderer. In respect of Nabarangpur district solvency certificate of Rs.1 crore, earnest money deposit of Rs. 1 lakh is to be given. In respect of Jajpur district for the year 2015-16 the solvency certificate for 20 lakhs, EMD of 15 lakhs were required. Moreover the successful tenderer was required to furnish the minimum bank guarantee of 15 lakhs. It is also submitted that the fixation of tender conditions in the different districts have been fixed by their respective tender committee.” 8. Apart from the above pleadings, much reliance has been placed on the letter dated 13.03.2015 in Annexure-E/3 issued by Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department, Odisha to all Collectors wherein it has been stated in Clause-3 that the agreement with the Transport Contractor shall incorporate strict provisions to deal with pilferage misappropriation, diversion, quality change, weighment, insurance, security deposit, adulteration, acknowledgement, scrutiny, sample collection, SMS alert, FIR forfeiture etc. etc. etc. and under no circumstances the Transport Contractor can be allowed to generate liability beyond the security deposit amount. Though, no specific reply has been given in the counter affidavit to the pleadings made in paragraph-3 (e) of the writ petition, reliance has been placed on the reasons assigned in paragraphs-10 and 11 of the counter affidavit read with letter dated 13.03.2015 under Annexure-E/3. 9. In the rejoinder affidavit dated 18.04.2016, the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court indicating how a single tender has been considered in different Blocks. In paragraph-5 it is stated as follows: “5. That out of 11(Eleven) Blocks of Khurda District for five Blocks, no tender was received namely (1) Jatni, (2) Begunia, (3) Bolagarh, (4) Tangi, and (5) Chilika. In four blocks of Khurda District, single tender received namely (1) Balianta, (2) Balipatna, (3) Khurda and (4) Banpur. Instead of rejecting the single tender as per the settled position of law, the Authorities have already settled other Blocks to them for which they have never applied in most arbitrary manner. For better appreciation the Table is prepared as per personal knowledge of the petitioner. Khurda District Name of the Block Name of Tenderer No of Tenderer Remarks 1.Balianta Jagannath Gajendra 1 Single Tender 2.Balianta Jagannath Gajendra 1 “ 3. Bhubaneswar Jagannath Gajendra and Ashok Sahoo 2 “ 4. Jatni No tender is received - - 5. BMC, Ashok Sahoo and Antaryami Sahoo 2 - 6.Khurda Bibhukalyan Sahoo 1 Single Tender 7.Begunia No tender is received - - 8. Bolagarh No tender is received - - 9. Tangi No tender is received - - 10.Chilika No tender is received - - 11.Banpur Bhagirathi Senapati 1 Single Tender 10. In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.3 on 18.06.2016 to the rejoinder it has been stated as follows: “7. That it is humbly submitted to the averments made in the rejoinder Para No. 2 & 3 that the petitioner without having any real base has repeatedly alleged against this opposite party. In paragraph-7 of the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no.3 on 18.06.2016 to the rejoinder it has been stated as follows: “7. That it is humbly submitted to the averments made in the rejoinder Para No. 2 & 3 that the petitioner without having any real base has repeatedly alleged against this opposite party. The hiking of solvency, EMD and security deposit in the tender as invited in the tender call notice dated 29.2.16, is the pre decision of the competent authority prior to the issue of such notice keeping in view of the safe security of the transporting of rice from the FCI point to the School point under Mid Day Meal programme of the Khordha District. It may ascertained from the last past years tenders that the tenderers were quoted nominal price in the tender in comparison to the fixed price of Rs.75/- like such as 0.90 paise or near by to 0.90 paise which is not practically workable which clearly intends towards some ulterior motive. It is submitted that the previous tenderers now working for transportation of MDM rice of the district (because of the stay order passed by this Hon’ble Court) are not cooperative and they are not distributing the rice in proper time, even they are not intimating the authorities about the distribution and balance position. Even most of them are not claiming the transportation charges for last two years. This shows their attitude and motive of transporting rice in a low price. In para-3 of the letter no. 312/S & ME (MDM)/SPMU dt. 13.3.15 of Govt. of Odisha School and Mass Education Dept. wherein it is certified that: “Under no circumstances can the transport contractor be allowed to generate liability beyond the security deposit amount.” 11. In the rejoinder filed to the counter affidavit dated 17.07.2016 of opposite party no.4, the petitioner has categorically stated that there is no question of any misappropriation, pilferage and shortage of rice at any stage. To substantiate her contentions, paragraphs-4, 5 and 6 are quoted below: “04 That it is not out of place to mention here that one Government Officer is recommended to be present at the time of lifting of rice from FCI Godown. Receiving Officer at School point will receive the rice and give acknowledgement regarding quantity and quality of rice to the transporting Contractors. Receiving Officer at School point will receive the rice and give acknowledgement regarding quantity and quality of rice to the transporting Contractors. The same Policy is adopted by the Government since 2012. Hence, there cannot be misappropriation/pilferage/ shortage of rice. 05. That the State Government has failed to assign any reason for hike of Tender conditions to the extent of 200% for the same volume of work, specially when petrol/ diesel prices are not increasing. The present petitioner is a rural based Transport Contractor. Thus, the petitioner cannot give solvency of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) as his property belongs to rural area. The solvency of Rs.10,00,000/- has no nexus to achieve the object. As one can lift rice worth Rs. 50,000/- maximum. As long as acknowledgement of distribution of rice in accordance with diversion, next lifting of rice from Godown is not permissible. Therefore, security deposit of Rs.50,000/- is just and appropriate. 06. That no policy decision of the Government cannot be arbitrary and unreasonable. Only to deprive of rural based transport Contractor, solvency has been increased from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- per Block. The pre-qualification of tender is fixed only to show favouritism in favour of the intervener/opposite parties. Therefore, when additional Blocks (where no tender is available) are distributed among the interveners/Opp. Parties, no further solvency is demanded. In other words, on one solvency of Rs.10,00,000/-, tender of 3(Three) Blocks are granted. The policy decision of the Government for the year: 2016-17 has not been taken keeping in mind all the relevant facts. Any decision, by it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. In the instant case, such action of the District Tender Committee is violative of Article -14 of the Constitution of India. 12. Any decision, by it a simple administrative decision or a policy decision, if taken without considering the relevant facts, can only be termed as an arbitrary decision. In the instant case, such action of the District Tender Committee is violative of Article -14 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparently clear that the reason for enhancement of EMD, security deposits and solvency, as has been made in the tender call notice Anneuxre-4, has not been indicated anywhere, save and except reliance being placed on the letter of the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, School and Mass Education Department, Odisha in Annexure-E/3 dated 13.03.2015 and to obligate the same, reply has also been given by the petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit dated 17.07.2016 explaining the position that how there is misappropriation, pilferage and shortage of rice have been safeguarded by the action of the State authorities. Therefore, imposition of conditions in the tender document depriving the small transport contractors to participate in the bid amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of powers by the authority. More so, these conditions have been incorporated with a mala fide intention to favour a group of persons having single tender in respect of the areas to which transportation is to be made. Time and again, the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of awarding contract in favour of single tender. With all fairness the State should have acted reasonably in cancelling tenders so far as single bidder is concerned. But, it appears that by putting such conditions, the authorities have tried to encourage single tenders/bidders and, resultantly, due to non-availability of competitive bidders, the single bidders have been allowed to operate the areas, for which they had not even applied for in addition to the areas they had applied for. 13. Much reliance has been placed on Michigan Rubber (India) Limited (supra) by the Standing Counsel for the School and Mass Education Department. It is urged that the State authorities have alone got discretion to set tender conditions/eligibility criteria in the tender. Therefore, the conditions stipulated in restricting participation of the petitioner in the tender cannot be construed to be unfair and discriminatory. It is urged that the State authorities have alone got discretion to set tender conditions/eligibility criteria in the tender. Therefore, the conditions stipulated in restricting participation of the petitioner in the tender cannot be construed to be unfair and discriminatory. It is no doubt true that the Government and their undertakings must have a free hand to set the term of the condition of the tender in exercise of such powers and that once the conditions of the tender have been fixed, the Court cannot interfere in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. But, a rider has been given that where conditions, so stipulated, are arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide and based on bias, in that case the Court can interfere. The present case being within the domain of arbitrary, discriminatory and mala fide carrying bias action of the authority, this Court has certainly got jurisdiction to interfere with the same. 14. In view of the foregoing discussions, there is no iota of doubt that the State authorities have acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, discriminatorily and malafidely to favour a group of persons/contractors by eliminating the petitioner from the arena of competition. 15. In Tata Cellular (supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for opposite party no.4, the Apex Court, in paragraph-113 thereof, after discussing various judgments has been pleased to deduce the following principles: “113. The principles deducible from the above are: (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. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tires. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fairplay 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.” The Apex Court made it very clear that 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. Similar view has also been taken in Directorate of Education and others (supra) wherein the Apex Court categorically held that, though the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract, but the Court can interfere with the administrative policy decision, only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias. Therefore, the present case being within the purview of the arbitrariness, unreasonableness, discriminatory, mala fide or actuated by bias, the judgments referred to in Tata Cellular and Directorate of Education mentioned supra, in our view, have no assistance to the present context. 16. In S.S. and Company mentioned supra, on which reliance has been placed so far as locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, it has been held that if the tenderer did not satisfy the eligibility criteria, even in terms of the unamended clause, and consequently its tender was rejected there under, it could not assail the amendment made in the relevant clause in terms whereof it again failed to qualify. But, this is not a case where the petitioner had participated in the tender, rather by putting the conditions by enhancing the EMD and solvency amount, the petitioner has been precluded from participating in the tender itself. But, this is not a case where the petitioner had participated in the tender, rather by putting the conditions by enhancing the EMD and solvency amount, the petitioner has been precluded from participating in the tender itself. So far as the previous years tender conditions are concerned, such conditions were not there and, admittedly, in respect of other distribution systems, namely, PDS and SMP, such stringent conditions have not been put by the State authority and, consequentially, there was fair participation of the bidders in view of the terms and conditions mentioned in the previous years. But, by putting conditions, so far as EMD, solvency certificate and security deposits are concerned, the petitioner being outstayed from the tender and in order to favour group of persons such stipulations have been made, it amounts to arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of powers. Consequentially, the petitioner has been discriminated and malafidely the benefit has been extended to such people. Thereby, the petitioner has got every locus to assail such terms and conditions. Therefore, the judgment referred to supra has no application to the present case. 17. In Dinesh Engineering Corporation and another (supra), having found that by putting a condition it would lead to monopoly in the hands of a group of persons capable of giving higher EMD, security deposits and solvency certificates, the Apex Court deprecated such monopoly of particular company. Therefore, the said judgment is squarely applicable to the present context to the extent that by putting such conditions, the small transport contractors/agents have been deprived of from participating in the bid and the big transport contractors have been favoured and, as such, they have not only been shown favour to supply the MDM food stuff to the places, for which they had applied for, but due to non-availability of respective bidders they have also been permitted to supply the MDM food stuff to other blocks, for which they had not even applied. Apart from the same, they being the single bidders, their bids should not have been accepted by the authority in respect of the particular blocks/areas. This is a glaring case of arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of powers by the authority. Therefore, the conditions, so stipulated in the tender call notice, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 18. Apart from the same, they being the single bidders, their bids should not have been accepted by the authority in respect of the particular blocks/areas. This is a glaring case of arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of powers by the authority. Therefore, the conditions, so stipulated in the tender call notice, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 18. In view of foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the tender call notice dated 29.02.2016 Annexure-4, so far as it relates to the conditions for enhancement of security deposits, EMD and solvency certificate, being arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and mala fide, are hereby quashed. Consequentially, the selection of opposite parties no. 4 and 5, as transport contractor pursuant to such tender call notice, being unsustainable, is also set aside. Since the State-opposite parties are to supply the MDM, direction is given to take necessary steps immediately to make arrangements to continue to supply and go for fresh tender with suitable terms and conditions in the interest of the public. 19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there is no order as to cost.