JUDGMENT : VINEET SARAN, J. Petitioner no.1, a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, and petitioner no.2, being its authorized representative, have filed this application to cancel Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No.03/OCCL/2017-18 dated 08.11.2017 in Annexure-1 and further seek for direction to the opposite parties to call for fresh tenders for the work in question by allowing participation of joint venture and/or consortium. 2. The Orissa Construction Corporation Limited (OCCL)-opposite party no.1 through its Managing Director invited online item rate tenders in double cover through e-procurement, vide notice no.03/OCCL/2017-18 dated 08.11.2017, for the work “dredging and removal of shoal no.1 at upstream of Mahanadi Barrage and disposal of dredged materials within 2.5 km through pipeline”. The estimated cost of the tender was Rs.4929.18 lakhs and the period of completion was within 18 calendar months. The date of pre-bid meeting was fixed to 17.11.2017 and the date of opening of technical bid was fixed to 07.12.2017. With regard to date of opening of financial bid, it was indicated that the same would be intimated to the qualified bidders after evaluation of technical bid. In the column meant for class of contractors eligible to participate in the tender, it was mentioned as Class-I enlisted contractors of OCCL. Though petitioner no.1 was interested, it was deprived of participating in the tender process owing to the enlistment clause, which specifically allows the contractors/job workers enlisted under OCCL. Further, the tender notice also prevents participation of any joint venture and/or consortium. Petitioner no.1, though eligible to participate by virtue of being constituent of a joint venture and/or consortium, but in view of the aforesaid clause it could not, hence this application. 3. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. H.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that floating of tender by OCCL inviting bids only from its enlisted contractors and prevention of participation of joint ventures and/or consortiums, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, i.e., right to equality, which speaks volume on the transparency of the tender process. It is further contended that since it is large contract, wider participation should have been permitted and thus restricting participation to individual participants and not joint venture companies, would be restrictive in nature. It is further contended that since it is large contract, wider participation should have been permitted and thus restricting participation to individual participants and not joint venture companies, would be restrictive in nature. It is also contended that restriction of participation only to contractors enlisted with the corporation, would be detrimental to the interest of the corporation. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of the apex Court in New Horizons Limited v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 . 4. Having heard Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. H.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the stage of admission, we have considered and examined the contention raised by him on the basis of materials available on record. As such, without issuing notice to the opposite parties, this Court proceeded with the hearing. 5. We have perused the records and the conditions stipulated in the tender call notice issued by the opposite party corporation. For better appreciation, the conditions stipulated in the tender call notice, with which the petitioners are essentially aggrieved, are extracted hereunder :- “PARTICULARS OF TENDER 1. Name of work Dredging & removal of Shoal no.1 at upstream of Mahanadi barrage and disposal of dredged materials within 2.5 km through pipeline. xxx Xxx xxx 5. Class of Contractor C-I enlisted Contractor of OCC Ltd. xxx Xxx xxx SECTION – I NOTICE INVITING TENDER & DETAILED TENDER CALL NOTICE xxx Xxx xxx 14. Joint venture is not allowed. xxx Xxx xxx” 6. The entire submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners revolves around the above mentioned clauses of the tender call notice. Therefore, this Court is to examine whether in exercise of power under judicial review it can interfere with the terms and conditions of the tender document. 7. In Michigaon Rubber v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 , the apex Court held that the Court cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government merely because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser and logical. 7. In Michigaon Rubber v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 , the apex Court held that the Court cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government merely because it feels that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser and logical. In Maa Binda Express Carrier v. Northeast Frontior Railway and others, (2014) 3 SCC 760 , the apex Court, while dealing with the matter with regard to scope of judicial review on award of contract by the State and its instrumentalities, which has been settled in a long line of judgments of the apex Court, held that submission of a bid/tender in response to a notice inviting tenders is only an offer which State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. 8. Coming to the judgment rendered in New Horizons Limited (supra), on which much reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in that case the concept and meaning of Joint Venture Corporation has been discussed. But there was no direction to set forth a condition in the tender document permitting the joint venture to participate in the notice inviting tender. Therefore, the ratio decided in the said case has no application to the present context. 9. In view of the foregoing discussions, in our opinion, there cannot be any objection to the opposite party corporation permitting only enlisted contractors to participate in the tender process, especially when there is no restriction for petitioner no.1 or any company to get enlisted as a contractor with the corporation as long as it fulfills the conditions imposed for such enlistment. As regards not permitting the joint ventures, in our opinion, it is for the authority inviting tenders to evaluate as to who should be permitted to participate in the tender process, and who should not be. In their own wisdom, the opposite party corporation has decided to permit only individual persons or companies to participate in the tender and not joint ventures, as it is for them to assess as to what would be in the best interest of the corporation. It is not for the Courts to substitute their own opinion as to what should be the condition imposed in the tender call notice. It is not for the Courts to substitute their own opinion as to what should be the condition imposed in the tender call notice. Therefore, in the matters like this, the Court is refrained from interfering with any of the terms and conditions of the tender call notice by exercising the power of judicial review and, as such, it is only if the conditions so imposed by the tendering authority are arbitrary or unreasonable, that the Courts can interfere. In the present case, none of the conditions which the petitioners have challenged are unreasonable, arbitrary or restrictive in nature so as to call for interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.