JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior standing counsel, Indian Oil Corporation, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in WP(C) No.7420/2016 and for respondent Nos.2 to 6 in WP(C) No.7900/2016 as well as the learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions. 2. The 2(two) writ petitions being connected, are listed together and as agreed to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 3. In WP(C) No.7420/2016, affidavit was filed by the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 and reply to the said affidavit had also been filed. The petitioner Nos.1 to 12 in both the writ petitions are same. In addition, in WP(C) No.7900/2016, there is an additional petitioner. 4. The pleaded case of the petitioners are that they are 2(two) types of registered Contractors under the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (for short, “IOCL”), viz. (i) Zonal Contractors and (ii) Empanelled Contractors. The Zonal Contractors are those who are allotted works up to Rs.30 Lacs and the Empanelled Contractors are those who are allotted works above Rs.30 Lacs. There are 4(four) Zones of IOCL in the State, namely, (i) Guwahati Zone, (ii) Tinsukia Zone, (iii) Silchar Zone and (4) Imphal Zone. It is stated in both the writ petitions that except petitioner No.9, petitioner Nos.1 to 8, 10 to 12 are registered as Zonal Contractors of Guwahati Zone in which there are 26(twenty-six) Zonal Contractors. In WP(C) No.7900/2016, nothing has been said about the petitioner No.13. It is averred that except petitioner No.9, the petitioners have been executing various Civil/Electrical/Mechanical/Pipeline contracts at various Retail Outlets, Consumer Outlets, Consumer Depots, Storage Depots etc. under the IOCL throughout the North East Region for more than last 10(ten) years. 5. The Chief Engineering Manager, Indian Oil AOD State Office, Guwahati had floated an e-Tender dated 06.05.2016 inviting tenders for empanelment of Contractors for carrying out Civil/Electrical/Mechanical/Pipeline Works at various Indian Oil Retail Outlets, Consumer Outlets, Consumer Depots, LPG Bottling Plants, Terminals, Depots, Aviation Fuelling Stations etc. under Indian Oil AOD State Office for a period of 3(three) years. The last date of submission of e-Tender was fixed on 08.06.2016 up to 1430 Hours and the date and time of opening of tender was fixed on 09.06.2016 at 1500 Hours. under Indian Oil AOD State Office for a period of 3(three) years. The last date of submission of e-Tender was fixed on 08.06.2016 up to 1430 Hours and the date and time of opening of tender was fixed on 09.06.2016 at 1500 Hours. The e-Tender was issued for empanelment in Category-I, which is for amount above Rs.30 Lacs to Rs.75 Lacs, Category-II for Rs.75 Lacs to Rs.150 Lacs and Category-III for Rs.150 Lacs to Rs.200 Lacs and Clauses-11, 12 and 13, respectively, prescribed the respective pre-qualification criteria. Averments made in the 2(two) writ petitions indicate that the petitioner Nos.1, 3, 5 to 12 submitted their bids for Category-I, while the petitioner Nos.2 and 4 submitted their bids for Category-I and Category-II. Nothing has been indicated with regard to the petitioner No.13 of WP(C) No.7900/2016. 6. As considerable period of time had elapsed after opening of the tenders, the petitioners made enquiries as to why there was delay in finalising the empanelment process. The petitioners were informed that the tenders were under consideration. At this stage, the General Manager (Contract Cell), Eastern Regional Office, Kolkata issued a tender dated 10.11.2016 in the official website inviting public tender seeking Techno- Commercial bids from eligible Contractors for empanelment as Contractors for construction/maintenance works at Retail/Consumer Outlets, Consumer Depots, Storage Depots, Terminals, Aviation Fuelling Stations (AVS) of IOCL under Indian Oil AOD State Office for a period of 3(three) years. Thereafter, by e-mail dated 17.11.2016, the petitioners were informed that the earlier tender notice dated 06.05.2016 had been cancelled. On enquiries made by the petitioners, they were informed that the tender dated 10.11.2016 is in relation to the very same work in respect of which the earlier tender dated 06.05.2016 was issued. 7. It is pleaded that in the tender dated 10.11.2016, very high pre-qualification criteria had been prescribed and the Categories were reduced to 2(two) Categories from earlier 3(three) Categories with Category-I covering value of work from Rs.0 to Rs.100 L Lacs and Category-II from Rs.100 to Rs.200 Lacs. There is drastic change also in respect of definition of similar work in both the tenders dated 06.05.2016 and 10.11.2016. It is stated that such change was made to limit scope of participation to a handful of selected Contractors and that in all other States, except North Eastern Region, the IOCL follows the same pre-qualification criteria prescribed in the tender dated 06.05.2016. 8. It is stated that such change was made to limit scope of participation to a handful of selected Contractors and that in all other States, except North Eastern Region, the IOCL follows the same pre-qualification criteria prescribed in the tender dated 06.05.2016. 8. In WP(C) No.7420/2016, the petitioners have prayed for (i) setting aside the tender dated 10.11.2016 and the impugned decision cancelling the tender dated 06.05.2016, which was communicated vide e-mail dated 17.11.2016, (ii) for setting aside and quashing the impugned pre-qualification criteria prescribed for Category-I and Category-II in the tender dated 10.11.2016 and (iii) for directing the respondent authorities to proceed with tender process initiated pursuant to the tender dated 06.05.2016. 9. In the affidavit of the respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 filed on 14.12.2016, amongst others, it is stated that a revised policy guidelines was issued on 05.08.2016, which has uniform, consistent all India applicability and, therefore, fresh tender dated 10.11.2016 was issued in super session of the earlier tender notice dated 06.05.2016. 10. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioners on 19.12.2016. On 22.12.2016, the second writ petition being WP(C) No.7900/2016 was filed praying for setting aside and quashing the guidelines dated 05.08.2016 and for quashing Clauses-2.0, 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 thereof. 11. Thus, essentially, while in WP(C) No.7420/2016, the petitioners assail the tender notice dated 10.11.2016 and the decision to cancel the earlier tender dated 06.05.2016, in the second writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No.7900/2016, challenge is made to the guidelines based on which purportedly the tender notice dated 10.11.2016 was issued. 12. Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions: The guidelines dated 05.08.2016 came into effect after 2(two) months of the prescribed date of opening of bids on 09.06.2016 and usually the empanelled list is finalised and published within a week of date of opening of bids and in the instant case, with an oblique motive, the same was not finalised. The petitioners having been undertaking contract works with the IOCL for more than 10(ten) years, they have legitimate expectation for being Empanelled Contractors for the purpose of execution of high value works/contracts. As the guideline came into effect from 05.08.2016, the same will have prospective effect and, therefore, stalling the tender process on the ground of circulation of the guideline dated 05.08.2016 and thereafter, cancelling the tender on 17.11.2016, is actuated by malafide. As the guideline came into effect from 05.08.2016, the same will have prospective effect and, therefore, stalling the tender process on the ground of circulation of the guideline dated 05.08.2016 and thereafter, cancelling the tender on 17.11.2016, is actuated by malafide. As Category-I now comprise the value of work from Rs.0 to Rs.100 Lacs, the petitioners will be totally eliminated from any future tender process as they were earlier allotted works up to Rs.30 Lacs. In the tender dated 10.11.2016, the experience in similar works having been limited to civil construction works with or without associated electrical/structural works carried out in any Petroleum/Petro-chemical/ Chemical Industry only, the petitioners are deprived from participating in the tendering process as being Zonal Contractors under IOCL, they are doing contract works of below Rs.30 Lacs. Clause-3.1(c) of the guidelines dated 05.08.2016 has left definition of similar works to be described by the tendering authorities and definition of similar works have been given in the tender notice dated 10.11.2016 without any rational basis. There is nothing special about civil construction work in Petroleum/Petro-Chemical and Chemical Industry and, therefore, limiting experience only in case of works undertaken in such industries is arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Category-I in the tender notice dated 10.11.2016 transgressed into financial slab of the Zonal Contractors within the range of Rs.0 to Rs.30 Lacs and, therefore, Clause-2.0 is arbitrary. It is further submitted that turnover as prescribed in Clause-3.2 is also arbitrarily raised very high and such fixation of turnover also does not meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 13. Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Supreme Court: Union of India & Ors. Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation & Ors., reported in (1993) 3 SCC 499, Michigan Rubber (India) Limited -Vs- State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 , Yogesh Yadav -Vs- Union of India & Ors., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 623 and Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. -Vs- SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 . 14. Mr. -Vs- SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 . 14. Mr. Choudhury, learned senior standing counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in WP(C) No.7420/2016 and for respondent Nos.2 to 6 in WP(C) No.7900/2016, placing reliance on the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the additional affidavit filed, has submitted that the terms and conditions of the zonal contract have not changed after coming into force of the guidelines dated 05.08.2016 and the existing Zonal Contractors will continue to be eligible for works within the scope, terms and conditions of zonal contract works. The revised guidelines do not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and it is also not correct as contended by the writ petitioners that the same is designed to favour a handful few. It is submitted that the guidelines was issued keeping the best interest of the Corporation in view, which is to have a group of qualified and capable Contractors for the purpose of cost utilisation and utility. It is contended that pre-qualification criteria cannot be branded as arbitrary and irrational and that the tendering authority must be given allowance to set the terms of the tender and in the circumstances of this case, the classification of empanelment in 2(two) categories from earlier 3(three) and definition of similar rate, as prescribed in the tender dated 10.11.2016, having regard to the object cannot be said to be unjust or having no rational basis. As the revised guidelines was about to be issued, the IOCL had rightly deferred consideration of the tenders. Emphasis is given by Mr. Choudhury that the revised guidelines dated 05.08.2016 is applicable all over India and not only for the North Eastern Region as alleged by the writ petitioners. It is submitted by him that no case is made out by the writ petitioners for interference. 15. Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Maa Binda Express Courier & Anr. It is submitted by him that no case is made out by the writ petitioners for interference. 15. Mr. Choudhury has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Maa Binda Express Courier & Anr. -Vs- North East Frontier Railway & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 760 , AIR India Limited -Vs- Cochin International Airport Limited & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 , Meerut Development Authority -Vs- Association of Management Studies & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171 , Raunaq International Limited -Vs- I.V.R. Construction Limited, reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492 and Michigan Rubber (India) Limited -Vs- State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 . 16. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. 17. At the outset, it will be relevant to reproduce Clauses-2.0, 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 of the revised guidelines dated 05.08.2016:- “2.0 Categories and slabs of Empanelment: The categories of empanelment for works Civil, Mechanical, Electrical in nature involving construction and maintenance of Retail Outlets, RDI/RCDs, Terminals, Depots, AFS, and plants (Repairs/Painting of Tanks and pipelines etc.) shall be carried out as per following monetary slabs: (i) Rs.0 – 100 Lacs. (ii) Rs.100 – 200 Lacs. Fresh empanelment tenders after expiry of current empanelment wherever invited shall be based on above mentioned categories and monetary slabs. For works like architectural and structural consultancy for Retail Outlets, topographical survey and soil investigation works, it shall desirable to have rate contracts (Value contracts) value for a period of 1 – 2 years. Empanelment for values above Rs.200 Lacs for all types of Engineering works and for creation of category other than the above two slabs for the categories of works listed shall require approval of functional HoD at HO. Empanelment slabs of other functions shall be decided by the respective functions. 3.0 Pre-qualification (PQ) criteria for empanelment: General guideline for fixing the pre-qualifying criteria for engineering works is given hereunder: 3.1 Similar Work: (a) One similar work of 60% value of maximum value for the category. For example for the category Rs.0 to Rs.100 lacs, the maximum value is Rs.100 lacs and hence contractor should have completed at least one work of 100 x 60% = Rs.60 lacs. For example for the category Rs.0 to Rs.100 lacs, the maximum value is Rs.100 lacs and hence contractor should have completed at least one work of 100 x 60% = Rs.60 lacs. (b) The works should have been executed during the last 5 years ending last day of the month previous to the one in which tenderers are due for opening. (c) Definition of similar works shall be described properly and adequately. 3.2 Turnover: (a) 60% of value of 3 works of maximum value of the category in any of the last 3 preceding financial years. For example for the category Rs.0 to Rs.100 lacs, the turnover requirement shall be 100 x 3 x 60% = Rs.180 Lacs. (b) For tenders invited during April – September, in case of non availability of audited balance sheets (Profit & Loss Account Statement)/published accounts of the immediate preceding year, the audited balance sheet (Profit & Loss Account Statement)/published account of 4th preceding financial year shall also be acceptable.” 18. It will be also relevant to take note of the pre-qualification criteria for Category-I and Category-II of the earlier tender notice dated 06.05.2016:- “Category-I:- Empanelment for financial Slab:- above Rs.30 lakhs and upto 75 lacs, Category-II: Empanelment for financial Slab:- above Rs.75 lakhs to 150 lacs, Category-III: Empanelment for financial Slab:- above Rs.150 lakhs to 200 lacs. “Pre Qualification Criteria For Category – I (Rs.30 to 75 Lakh) Party should have experience of having successfully completed similar works during last 5 years ending April, 16 (i.e. from 01.05.2011 to 30.04.2016) fulfilling either of the following criteria: (a) Similar Works Three similar completed works of value not less than Rs.22.5 Lakh each. Two similar completed works of value not less than Rs.30 Lakh each. One similar completed work of value not less than Rs.37.5 Lakh each for proof of execution of similar works, the bidder will have to submit a copy of the work order, completion certificate and/or payment details would have to be submitted. The work experience should be as a principal contractor, i.e. there should be direct work order from the employer of the bidder. The work experience should be as a principal contractor, i.e. there should be direct work order from the employer of the bidder. Definition of the similar work:- Similar works means: any civil construction work with or without associated electrical & mechanical/steel structural works, Or construction works involving civil works, steel structural work, tank fabrication work, pipeline work, electrical works at Retail/Consumer Outlets of oil marketing company, Petroleum/Petrochemical storage locations (POL/LPG), Aviation fuelling Station, Petrochemical complex will be considered as similar works. In addition to the requirements given in ‘A’ above, the bidder should have the experience of successfully completing following works as specified below: Single work order of Construction of Building works for an amount of minimum value Rs.12.0 Lacs. Single work order of construction of Roads and Driveways for an amount of minimum value of Rs.12.0 Lacs. Single work order of Electrical Works for an amount of minimum value of Rs.4.0 Lacs. Single work order of Mechanical/steel Structural works for an amount of minimum value of Rs.8.0 Lacs. The above value of works mentioned in Sl. No.(i) to (iv) may be a composite work order in the work order of similar nature work or separate order to the tune of minimum amount specified. Annual turnover during any of the last three financial years (i.e. in 2013-14, 2014-15 or 2015-16) should be 45 lakh or more. For proof of having requisite annual turnover, the party should submit a copy of relevant page of Audited balance sheet (Audited by CA). The party should have PAN, PF Registration, Service Tax Registration, Sales Tax Registration and should submit copies of the same as proof thereof. Pre Qualification Criteria For Category – II (Rs.75 to 150 Lakh) Party should have experience of having successfully completed similar works during last 5 years ending April, 16 (i.e. from 01.05.2011 to 30.04.2016) fulfilling either of the following criteria: a. Similar Works Three similar completed works of value not less than Rs.22.5 Lakh each. Two similar completed works of value not less than Rs.60 Lakh each. One similar completed work of value not less than Rs.75 Lakh for proof of execution of similar works, the bidder will have to submit a copy of the work order, completion certificate and/or payment details would have to be submitted. The work experience should be as a principal contractor, i.e. there should be direct work order from the employer of the bidder. The work experience should be as a principal contractor, i.e. there should be direct work order from the employer of the bidder. Definition of the similar work:- Similar works means: any civil construction work with or without associated mechanical/steel structural works, Or Construction works involving civil works, steel structural work, tank fabrication work, pipeline work, electrical works at Retail/Consumer Outlets of oil marketing company, Petroleum/Petrochemical storage locations (POL/LPG), Aviation fuelling Station, Petrochemical complex will be considered as similar works. In addition to the requirements given in ‘A’ above, the bidder should have the experience of successfully completing following works as specified below: Single work order of Construction of Building works for an amount of minimum value Rs.22.0 Lacs. Single work order of construction of Roads and Driveways for an amount of minimum value of Rs.22.0 Lacs. Single work order of Electrical Works for an amount of minimum value of Rs.8.0 Lacs. Single work order of Mechanical/steel Structural works for an amount of minimum value of Rs.15.0 Lacs. The above value of works mentioned in Sl. No.(i) to (iv) may be a composite work order in the work order of similar nature work or separate order to the tune of minimum amount specified. Annual turnover during any of the last three financial years (i.e. in 2013-14, 2014-15 or 2015-16) should be 90 lakh or more. For proof of having requisite annual turnover, the party should submit a copy of relevant page of Audited balance sheet (Audited by CA). The party should have PAN, PF Registration, Service Tax Registration, Sales Tax Registration, Sales Tax Registration and should submit copies of the same as proof thereof.” 19. The pre-qualification criteria for Category-I and Category-II of the subsequent tender notice dated 10.11.2016 are also reproduced below:- “Pre-Qualifying Criteria: Category – I (For Value of Works Rs.0 to 100 Lacs) (a) Experience Criteria of Similar nature of Jobs: Contractor should have executed a single similar work of minimum value of Rs.60.0 Lacs during the last 5 (Five) years ending on 31.10.2016. The work order should be in the name of the applicant vendor directly from the Principal employer. In case of any sub-contract work order, the tenderer need to submit necessary documents to indicate that the original service receiver has given the approval for the sub-contract. The work order should be in the name of the applicant vendor directly from the Principal employer. In case of any sub-contract work order, the tenderer need to submit necessary documents to indicate that the original service receiver has given the approval for the sub-contract. For this, copy of the work order, completion certificate (incorporating Order value, Executed Value, Completion Date Etc.)/payment details towards proof of completion of works should be submitted. (b) Definition of similar work: Similar work shall mean civil construction Works with or without associated Electrical/structural Work carried out in any Petroleum/ Petro-chemical/Chemical Industry. In case against the similar work order, bidder has submitted the SAP work orders of IOC, the verification of work orders may be done from SAP for determining the final value of the works and completion date. (c) Financial Criteria of Annual Turnover: The bidder should have annual turnover of Rs.180.0 Lacs or more in any of the last 3 financial years, i.e. 2013-14, 2014-2015 and 2015-16 as per the Audited Balance sheets & Profit Loss A/C Statement to be submitted by the party. Pre-Qualifying Criteria: Category – II (For Value of Works Rs.100 to 200 Lacs) (a) Experience Criteria of Similar nature of Jobs: Contractor should have executed a single similar work of minimum value of Rs.120.0 Lacs during the last 5 (Five) years ending on 31.10.2016. The work order should be in the name of the applicant vendor directly from the Principal employer. In case of any sub-contract work order, the tenderer need to submit necessary documents to indicate that the original service receiver has given the approval for the sub-contract. For this, copy of the work order, completion certificate (incorporating Order value, Executed Value, Completion Date Etc.)/payment details towards proof of completion of works should be submitted. (b) Definition of similar work: Similar work shall mean Civil construction Works with or without associated Electrical/structural Work carried out in any Petroleum/ Petro-chemical/Chemical Industry. In case against the similar work order, bidder has submitted the SAP work orders of IOC, the verification of work orders may be done from SAP for determining the final value of the works and completion date. In case against the similar work order, bidder has submitted the SAP work orders of IOC, the verification of work orders may be done from SAP for determining the final value of the works and completion date. Financial Criteria of Annual Turnover: The bidder should have annual turnover of Rs.360.0 Lacs or more in any of the last 3 financial years, i.e. 2013-14, 2014-2015 and 2015-16 as per the Audited Balance sheets & Profit Loss A/C Statement to be submitted by the party.” 20. In Raunaq International Limited (supra), the Supreme Court in Paragraphs-9 and 10 had stated as follows:- “9. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision, considerations which are of paramount importance are commercial considerations. These would be: (1) the price at which the other side is willing to do the work; (2) whether the goods or services offered are of the requisite specifications; (3) whether the person tendering has the ability to deliver the goods or services as per specifications. When large works contracts involving engagement of substantial manpower or requiring specific skills are to be offered, the financial ability of the tenderer to fulfil the requirements of the job is also important; (4) the ability of the tenderer to deliver goods or services or to do the work of the requisite standard and quality; (5) past experience of the tenderer and whether he has successfully completed similar work earlier; (6) time which will be taken to deliver the goods or services; and often (7) the ability of the tenderer to take follow-up action, rectify defects or to give post-contract services. Even when the State or a public body enters into a commercial transaction, considerations which would prevail in its decision to award the contract to a given party would be the same. However, because the State or a public body or an agency of the State enters into such a contract, there could be, in a given case, an element of public law or public interest involved even in such a commercial transaction. 10. What are these elements of public interest? (1) Public money would be expended for the purposes of the contract. 10. What are these elements of public interest? (1) Public money would be expended for the purposes of the contract. (2) The goods or services which are being commissioned could be for a public purpose, such as, construction of roads, public buildings, power plants or other public utilities. (3) The public would be directly interested in the timely fulfilment of the contract so that the services become available to the public expeditiously. (4) The public would also be interested in the quality of the work undertaken or goods supplied by the tenderer. Poor quality of work or goods can lead to tremendous public hardship and substantial financial outlay either in correcting mistakes or in rectifying defects or even at times in redoing the entire work - thus involving larger outlays of public money and delaying the availability of services, facilities or goods, e.g., a delay in commissioning a power project, as in the present case, could lead to power shortages, retardation of industrial development, hardship to the general public and substantial cost escalation.” 21. In Air India Limited (supra), the Supreme Court in Paragraph-7 had held thus:- “7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority , 1979 (3) SCC 488 ; Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union v. Union of India ; Asstt. Collector, Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd, Tata Cellular v. Union of India , Ramniklal N. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are of paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene.” 22. In Meerut Development Authority (supra), the Supreme Court in Paragraphs-26 and 27 had held thus:- “26. A tender is an offer. It is something which invites and is communicated to notify acceptance. Broadly stated it must be unconditional; must be in the proper form, the person by whom tender is made must be able to and willing to perform his obligations. The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. However, 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 bidding process. 27. However, 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 bidding process. 27. 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. One cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the tender except on the above stated ground, the reason being the terms of the invitation to tender are in the realm of the contract. No bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist the Authority inviting tenders to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of notice so provided for such negotiations.” 23. In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited (supra), the Supreme Court in Paragraphs-23 and 24 had held thus:- “23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) The basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities; (b) Fixation of a value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference by Courts is very limited; (c) In the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, 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 Courts is not warranted; (d) Certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work; and (e) If the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by Court is very restrictive since no person can claim fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. 24. Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: ‘the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached’; and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected. If the answers to the above questions are in negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.” 24. In Maa Binda Express Courier (supra), the Supreme Court in Paragraphs-8 and 9 had held thus:- “8. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to award of contract by the State and its instrumentalities is settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. While these decisions clearly recognize that power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party, submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting such tenders is no more than making an offer which the State or its agencies are under no obligation to accept. The bidders participating in the tender process cannot, therefore, insist that their tenders should be accepted simply because a given tender is the highest or lowest depending upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the Government. All that participating bidders are entitled to is a fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of their tenders. It is also fairly well-settled that award of a contract is essentially a commercial transaction which must be determined on the basis of consideration that are relevant to such commercial decision. This implies that terms subject to which tenders are invited are not open to the judicial scrutiny unless it is found that the same have been tailor made to benefit any particular tenderer or class of tenderers. So also the authority inviting tenders can enter into negotiations or grant relaxation for bona fide and cogent reasons provided such relaxation is permissible under the terms governing the tender process. 9. Suffice it to say that in the matter of award of contracts the Government and its agencies have to act reasonably and fairly at all points of time. To that extent the tenderer has an enforceable right in the Court who is competent to examine whether the aggrieved party has been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. (See: Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies and Anr . etc. (2009) 6 SCC 171 and Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd . (2000) 1 SCR 505).” 25. In Central Coalfields Limited (supra), the Supreme Court in Paragraph-47 had held thus:- “47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [ (1979) 3 SCC 489 ] the terms of the NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ] there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ] there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision “that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached” as held in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC 517] followed in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka [ (2012) 8 SCC 216 ].” 26. Where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or granting some forms of largess or issuing licence, the Government action has to be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The action of the Government is liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if it fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and invalid. The award of contract being essentially a commercial transaction, the State and other authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, can fix its own terms of invitation of tenders. In the matter of formulating the conditions of tender documents, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of a tendering authority is found to be arbitrary, discriminatory or malicious. There must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or it is such a decision that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached. Limited judicial review is also available in cases where it is established that the terms of invitation of tender are tailor-made to suit a particular person or a particular class of persons with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process. 27. Limited judicial review is also available in cases where it is established that the terms of invitation of tender are tailor-made to suit a particular person or a particular class of persons with a view to eliminate all others from participating in the bidding process. 27. In respect of pre-qualification criteria for both Category-I and Category-II under tender dated 06.05.2016, a number of options of similar works were offered to demonstrate that the tenderers were having experience. In respect of Category-I, three similar completed works of value not less than Rs. 22.5 Lacs each, two similar completed works of value not less than Rs. 30.0 Lacs each, and one completed work of value not less than Rs. 37.5 Lacs would have satisfied the pre-qualification criteria if the works were executed as a principal contractor in terms of work orders from the employer of the bidder. In respect of pre-qualification criteria for Category-II, under the Tender Notice dated 06.052016, three similar completed works of value not less than Rs. 22.5 Lacs each, two similar completed works of value not less than Rs. 60.0 Lacs each and one similar completed work of value not less than Rs. 75.0 Lacs, as a principal contractor, would have met the experience of having successfully completed similar works. Under the notice inviting tender dated 10.11.2016, no options are given with regard to execution of similar works and what is provided for is a single similar work of minimum value of which is Rs. 60.0 Lacs during the last five years ending on 31.10.2016 in respect of Category-I, and similar work of minimum value of which is Rs. 120 Lacs in respect of Category-II. The tender notice dated 10.11.2016 speaks that the required turnover for Category-I and Category-II is Rs. 180 Lacs and Rs. 360 Lacs, respectively, on the principle of 60% of value of three works of maximum value of the category in any of the last three preceding financial year in terms of Clause 3.2 of the guidelines dated 05.08.2016. Under the earlier tender notice dated 06.05.2016, while it was Rs. 45 Lacs for Category-I it was Rs. 90 Lacs for Category-II. 360 Lacs, respectively, on the principle of 60% of value of three works of maximum value of the category in any of the last three preceding financial year in terms of Clause 3.2 of the guidelines dated 05.08.2016. Under the earlier tender notice dated 06.05.2016, while it was Rs. 45 Lacs for Category-I it was Rs. 90 Lacs for Category-II. Now, the fixation of the pre-qualification criteria is entirely within the purview of the IOCL and it is evident that there is a perceptible change with regard to the emphasis being shifted to completion of one work of more value and correspondingly increasing the requirement of turnover. The purpose of empanelment seems to have a pool of contractors who have experience of executing works of value which is higher than what was required in the Tender Notice dated 06.05.2016. That apart, increase in turnover requirement in similar kinds of work will go to show the credentials of the contractor. It has to be conceded that IOCL is the best judge of its needs and requirements. 28. The categorical stand of IOCL in the affidavit is that zonal contractors will not be affected by the revised guidelines and they will continue to be eligible for the works within the scope, terms and conditions of zonal contract works. 29. Materials on record demonstrate the zonal contract is in the nature of contract for execution of jobs up to Rs.30 Lacs under single order value for a specific period to be executed through the listed Contractors. The Zonal Contractors work under a specified rate contract and a Standard Schedule of Rates (SOR) for specified items. If the job value in a single order is up to Rs.30 Lacs and items and rates are covered under the SOR, then such jobs are awarded to the Zonal Contractors under zonal rate contract. It is only when the job value in a single order is expected to exceed Rs.30 Lacs or involve a degree of specialisation and field specific expertise, limited tender is invited among the Empanelled Contractors. But it may also so happen that in case of necessity to contract for certain items, which are not included in the SOR of zonal contracts, even if the value of the work is less than Rs.30 Lacs, limited tender is required to be invited from amongst the empanelled parties. But it may also so happen that in case of necessity to contract for certain items, which are not included in the SOR of zonal contracts, even if the value of the work is less than Rs.30 Lacs, limited tender is required to be invited from amongst the empanelled parties. As such, Category-I has been classified from Rs.0 to Rs.100 Lacs in the guidelines dated 05.08.2016 and therefore, it cannot be said that classification of Category-I from Rs.0 Rs.100 Lacs is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal. Empanelment, per se, does not guarantee any work and as and when any internal work/project arises, a limited tender is invited from the Contractors thus empanelled and in the tendering process, only one bidder is selected for the purpose of execution of the work in question. 30. Mr. Saikia had cited Hindustan Development Corporation Limited (supra) to buttress his argument that petitioners have legitimate expectation that the IOCL should offer contracts for higher value works as they have been working as Zonal Contractors with IOCL for a considerable period of time. It was held in Hindustan Development Corporation Limited (supra) that legitimate expectation will arise when a body by representation or by past practice aroused expectation which it would be within its power to fulfil. The protection is limited to that extent and a judicial review can be within those limits. When a person bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation, he must satisfy that there is a foundation. If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of a right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke this principle. It is not the case of the petitioners that as because they are Zonal Contractors of IOCL, they cannot participate in a tendering process elsewhere. Rather, arguments have been advanced that the petitioners have been undertaking contract works elsewhere. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that doctrine of legitimate expectation is not attracted. 31. Though the tender notice was issued on 06.05.2016, as there was subsequently talk of a revised guidelines being issued, the process of finalisation pursuant to the tender notice dated 06.05.2016 was kept on hold. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that doctrine of legitimate expectation is not attracted. 31. Though the tender notice was issued on 06.05.2016, as there was subsequently talk of a revised guidelines being issued, the process of finalisation pursuant to the tender notice dated 06.05.2016 was kept on hold. In Yogesh Yadav (supra), the question that had fallen for consideration was as to whether fixation of benchmark would amount to change in the criteria of selection in the midstream when there was no such stipulation in that regard in the advertisement and this judgment was pressed into service to contend that rules of the game cannot be changed midstream. According to Mr. Saikia, tender notice dated 06.05.2016 having been issued and petitioners having participated, bringing new pre-qualification criteria by the subsequent notice inviting tender dated 10.11.2016 amounts to changing the rules of the game. I am unable to subscribe to this submission. The petitioners did not acquire any vested right merely by participating in the tender notice dated 06.05.2016. The authorities can always abort and/or cancel a tender process on good and sufficient grounds. It appears that after the tender notice dated 06.05.2016 was issued, there was contemplation on the part of the authorities to have fresh guidelines on the subject-matter. In such a situation, there was nothing wrong to wait to see the outcome. As there was substantial change in the revised guidelines that was issued on 05.08.2016, fresh notice inviting tender was issued on 10.11.2016 and in the process, the earlier tender notice dated 06.05.2016 came to be cancelled. 32. In view of the above discussions, I do not find that any case is made out to interfere with the revised guidelines dated 05.08.2016. 33. However, there is another aspect of the matter. In the revised guidelines dated 05.08.2016, in Clause 3.1, definition of “similar work” was left to be described properly and adequately. Obviously, such description was left to be given in the NIT. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Court has now to consider whether the definition of “similar work” as laid down in pre-qualification criteria for Category-I and Category-II of the tender notice dated 10.11.2016 passes the test of reasonableness on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Obviously, such description was left to be given in the NIT. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Court has now to consider whether the definition of “similar work” as laid down in pre-qualification criteria for Category-I and Category-II of the tender notice dated 10.11.2016 passes the test of reasonableness on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While doing so, it will not be necessary to compare the definition of “similar work” as finding place in the tender notice dated 10.11.2016 with that of the tender notice dated 06.05.2016. 34. Definition of “similar work” in the context of pre-qualification criteria is having pivotal importance as experience under pre-qualification criteria is intrinsically linked with the execution of similar work done earlier with minimum value as prescribed. “Similar work” has been defined to mean Civil Construction works with or without associated Electrical/Structural work carried out in any Petroleum/Petro-chemical/ Chemical industry. No material has been placed by the respondent IOCL as to how a Civil Construction work with or without associated Electrical/Structural work carried out in any Petroleum/Petro-chemical/ Chemical industry is different from any other Civil Construction work with or without associated Electrical/Structural work carried out in any other Civil Construction. The restriction limiting scope of similar work of Civil Construction work with or without associated Electrical/Structural work carried out only in any Petroleum/Petro-chemical/Chemical industry apparently has no basis. Such a definition will only sub-serve the interest of the contractors who are entrenched and are presently engaged in the aforesaid industries. A contractor with much higher credentials and with much higher experience in civil construction works in myriad other industries, in the process, will not be able to meet the pre-qualification criteria. This will not be in public interest. As the definition of “similar work” has no reasonable basis, the same is arbitrary and irrational and, besides, it has the potential to cater to only a particular class of contractors. In that view of the matter, the definition of “similar work”, as finding place in the NIT dated 10.11.2016, falls foul with essence and substance of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the same is struck down. 35. The IOCL authorities will issue an appropriate corrigendum defining “similar work” consistent with the observations made above. 36. In the result, WP(C) 7900/2016 is dismissed. WP(C) 7420/2016 is partly allowed with the observations and directions as indicated above. No cost.