JUDGMENT & ORDER : By means of the present intra-court appeal, the writ petitioner-appellant [herein-after referred as the petitioner] has challenged the judgment and order dated 4th September,2018, passed by the learned Single Judge, in connection with the Case No. WP(C) 516 of 2018, dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the selection of the respondent No.4 cancelling the bid of the petitioner to run the Canteen of the AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala. 2. Background facts of the case in a nut-shell are as follows: The competent authority of the Agartala Medical College and the GBP Hospital, Agartala had floated tenders inviting applications from the experienced firm/agency for operation and management of the Canteen of the said Hospital on certain terms and conditions. It has clearly been stated in the tender document dated 11.08.2017, that offer will be received by speed post/registered post/courier service in sealed cover super scribing “Expression of Interest for Operation and Management of GBP Hospital Canteen” at Agartala Government Medical College & GBP Hospital, Agartala. The said tender document further stipulates the eligibility criteria. Both, the petitioner and the respondent No.4 along with others participated in the tender process. The petitioner became the highest bidder and accordingly, the competent authority i.e. the respondent No.3 vide notification dated 28th December,2017( Annexure-2 to the writ petition) issued offer to the petitioner with a request to start the services in the AGMC & GBP Hospital Canteen from the morning of 1st January,2018 positively and further requested to enter into an agreement with the authority of AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala in terms of Clause-03(f) of the tender document dated 11.08.2017 which is reproduced below:- “03. f. On selection, the successful bidder shall be required to deposit totaling an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) only which will be treated as security deposit for the GBP Hospital Canteen. The successful bidder an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only in the form of Demand draft should be deposited within 7(Seven) days of issue of the order date in the name of Medical Superintendent & Head of Office, AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala. The successful bidder an additional amount of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only in the form of Demand draft should be deposited within 7(Seven) days of issue of the order date in the name of Medical Superintendent & Head of Office, AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala. Adjustment with EMD amount may be done so that the successful bidder may deposit an amount Rs.50,000/-only, subject to the convenience of the bidder.” Clause-4(b) of the tender document further stipulates that “the successful bidder will have to enter into an agreement with the authorities of the AGMC & GBP Hospital as per draft agreement before taking over the charge of the canteen and commencement of the canteen work.” 3. In response to the communication dated 28.12.2017, the petitioner had made a communication vide letter dated 2nd January,2018 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) wherein the “Subject” of the letter is written as below: “Sub: Information about non acceptance of offer to start the services in the GBP Hospital canteen”. In the said communication he has clearly stated-- “On the above context it is really hard to accept the offer to start the services in the AGMC & GBP Hospital on the rate of revenue offered by him on the said tender/quotation”. However, till the time of further communication from your end I am willing to run the services in the GBP Hospital Canteen considering the public inconvenience if anything against are not decided by the competent authority”. 4. While dealing with the eligibility conditions in the tender document as well as the offer letter dated 28.12.2017 and the communication dated 2nd January, 2018, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the said clauses as well as the communications made in between the competent authority i.e. the Medical Superintendent and Head of Office of AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala and the petitioner and found that all the conditions were not complied with by the petitioner. 5. After perusal of the records, according to us, noncompliance of the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement tantamounts to petitioner’s disinclination to accept the offer made by the respondent No.3. In furtherance thereof, from the communication dated 2nd January, 2018 reveals petitioner’s disinclination to accept the offer to start the services in the GBP Hospital Canteen on the rate of revenue offered by him on the said tender or expression of interest. In furtherance thereof, from the communication dated 2nd January, 2018 reveals petitioner’s disinclination to accept the offer to start the services in the GBP Hospital Canteen on the rate of revenue offered by him on the said tender or expression of interest. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the finding of the learned Single Judge. 6. Mr. A. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has tried to persuade this Court that the communication dated 2nd January,2018 should not be construed as the petitioner’s unwillingness to proceed with the terms of the offer made by the respondent No.3. However, we are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 7. The respondent No.4 was the second highest successful bidder and the respondent No.3 being the competent authority had accepted the bid he submitted for running the Canteen. In pursuance of the offer made by the competent authority, respondent No.3, the second highest bidder i.e. the respondent No.4 had executed and performed all the necessary formalities in compliance with the terms and conditions of the tender documents as well as the offer made by the competent authority. In that meanwhile, the petitioner vide his communication dated 12.04.2018 expressed his willingness to run the Canteen and accepted the offer dated 28th December,2017 made by the competent authority of the AGMC & GBP Hospital in his favour in the following terms. The relevant portion of his prayer dated 12.04.2018 is reproduced below: “On the above context my acceptance may kindly be considered and I may get the opportunity to run the services of the GBP Hospital Canteen in the changed location on the rate of revenue offered by me in my tender/quotation, which was subsequently accepted by the department and was communicated vide your communication cited herein above.” 8. The said acceptance of the petitioner compelled the respondent No.3 to issue notice dated 15.05.2018 upon the petitioner asking him to vacate the Hospital Canteen premises and clear the outstanding dues payable to the respondent No.3 in course of the running of the Canteen. The said acceptance of the petitioner compelled the respondent No.3 to issue notice dated 15.05.2018 upon the petitioner asking him to vacate the Hospital Canteen premises and clear the outstanding dues payable to the respondent No.3 in course of the running of the Canteen. In the said notice, it was informed to the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was selected for operation and maintenance of the GBP Hospital Canteen vide letter dated 11.08.2017 and the petitioner was requested to vacate the Canteen premises within 15 days from the issue of the said letter [latest by morning on 29.05.2018] as tenure of the contract period of the petitioner to run the Canteen was expired. 9. Being aggrieved by the said notice for vacating of the Canteen vide letter dated 15.05.2018, the petitioner has challenged the said notice dated 15.05.2018 by filing the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously argued that once the petitioner had withdrawn his letter dated 2nd January, 2018 wherein he had expressed his unwillingness to run the Canteen on the terms and conditions as laid down in the tender notice. He has further submitted that the communication dated 15.05.2018 asking the petitioner to vacate the Canteen premises with the information of selection of the respondent No.4 as an eligible candidate to run the Canteen was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and such action of the respondents is pre-judicial to his interest. 11. We also have the opportunity to look at the legal notice dated 18.05.2018 served upon the respondent No.3 for allowing him to continue the Canteen services pursuant to the work order dated 28.12.2017 else, initiate fresh tender process, failing which, the petitioner would be compelled to take recourse of law. 12. But the respondent No.3 being the competent authority had issued another notice dated 23.05.2018 [Annexure-7 to the writ petition] reiterating notice dated 15.05.2018. 13. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken note to the undisputed fact that the petitioner being the L-1 bidder was first invited by the competent authority but for his non acceptance the respondent No.3 was compelled to call upon the respondent No.4, the L-2 bidder to provide Canteen services. The learned Single Judge while dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner has taken note to the undisputed fact that the petitioner being the L-1 bidder was first invited by the competent authority but for his non acceptance the respondent No.3 was compelled to call upon the respondent No.4, the L-2 bidder to provide Canteen services. Further, indisputably the respondent No.4 has fulfilled all the terms and conditions laid down in the tender notice as well as the terms and conditions stipulated in the offer made to him by the respondent No.3. 14. Mr. T.D.Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in his conclusion that the petitioner in unequivocal terms had expressed his unwillingness to accept the offer to run the Hospital Canteen and only on his failure, the respondent No.3 had selected the respondent No.4 who not only has agreed to the terms and conditions of the tender notice but also made security deposit to run the Canteen in terms of the tender notice. So, there is no illegality committed by the respondent No.1, 2 and 3. 15. The learned Single Judge, while deciding the writ petition has observed that once the petitioner had expressed his unwillingness to run the canteen vide communication dated 2nd January,2018, his subsequent withdrawal of the earlier letter dated 2nd January,2018 would be of no consequence. Learned Single Judge has further observed that by that time the competent authority had decided to issue offer to the second highest bidder i.e. the respondent No.4, who became eligible to run the Canteen in all respects. 16. This Court has taken note of one of the conditions of the offer dated 28.12.2017 made by the competent authority wherein in Clause 4(b) it is clearly laid down that : “Clause 4(b): The successful bidder will have to enter into agreement with the authorities of the AGMC & GBP Hospital as per draft agreement before taking over the charge of the canteens and commencement of the canteen work.” 17. Indisputably, the said essential condition was not complied with by the petitioner and consequently, we find no infirmity with the finding of the learned Single Judge. Indisputably, the said essential condition was not complied with by the petitioner and consequently, we find no infirmity with the finding of the learned Single Judge. There being a breach of the terms and conditions of the tender disentitles the writ petitioner to ask this Court to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court that the agreement not being executed between the petitioner and the AGMC & GBP Hospital authority would not debar the competent authority to issue the work order in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel placing reliance on a decision in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Combined Chemicals Co. Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2011) 2 SCC 151 has submitted that non execution of the agreement would not frustrate the terms and conditions of the letter of acceptance. While dealing with the issue, the learned Single Judge has held that the said authority of the Apex Court is of no assistance for the petitioner for the reason that apart from execution of the agreement, there was certain other conditions like security deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-and additional amount of Rs.50,000/-in the form of demand draft to be deposited within 7 days of the letter of acceptance and in the instant case, the petitioner indisputably did not make the said deposits in compliance with said stipulated essential requirements mentioned in the tender document and this being the position, the plea of non-execution of the agreement, even otherwise, may not come to his support. 19. We find no infirmity in the said observation of the learned Single Judge and hence, we repel the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. It is further observed from the communication dated 2nd January, 2018 made by the petitioner, even for argument sake, if we consider that the said communication should not be construed as the petitioner’s unwillingness to the offer of the competent authority dated 28.12.2017, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but from the communication dated 2nd January, 2018 it is apparent that it is a conditional offer which is not permissible in law. 21. In Tata Cellular Vs. 21. In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 , the Apex Court relating to scope of judicial review of administrative decisions and exercise of powers awarding contracts, in Para 94 has held as under: “94. 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 tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of or 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.” 22. Almost similar views were expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Air India Ltd. Vrs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 617 and in Jagadish Mandal Vrs. State of Urissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 wherein the Apex Court has held that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafide. 23. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as aforestated, we have examined the facts of the present case. State of Urissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 wherein the Apex Court has held that judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafide. 23. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as aforestated, we have examined the facts of the present case. Admittedly, the respondent No.3, the Medical Superintendent & Head of Office of AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala has not acted arbitrarily, irrationally, un-reasonably to award the contract to the second highest bidder, respondent No.4 and indisputably, it is the conduct of the petitioner which compelled the respondent No.3 to invite the respondent No.4 to run the Canteen. Having due regard to this fact, this Court is afraid of exercising its power of judicial review of the administrative action of the respondent No.3. 24. The Hospital authority runs the Canteen for the greater public interest to serve food to the patients as well as the visitors. So, it involves greater public interest. The Hospital authority is further duty bound to make appropriate arrangement for smooth running of the Canteen for the larger interest of the patients. 25. In our considered opinion, the power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest. 26. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we unhesitatingly hold that the disqualification of the petitioner to run the Hospital Canteen and the selection of the respondent No.4 by the respondent No.3 do not suffer from any infirmity and we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner and consequently, we affirm and uphold the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.