JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the notice inviting tender dated 27.01.2019 which contains Clause No. 5.1.1 has been sought to be struck down on the ground that the same has been inserted only to oust the petitioner from participating in the bid. 2. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is eligible bidder for execution of the work, in pursuance to the notice inviting tender, the said work is being done by the petitioner-unit but due to the condition stipulated under Clause No. 5.1.1, the petitioner is being supplied from participating in the bid, therefore, the same is being unreasonable, arbitrary and irrational and on these grounds the said clause has been sought to be struck down so that the petitioner may be able to participate in the bid. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 1 and judgment passed by this Court in the case of Balajee Electrosteels Company (P) Ltd. Vs. Bokaro Steel Plant reported in (2009) 2 AIR Jhar R. 961. 4. Per contra Ms. Aprajita Bhardwaj, learned A.C. to A.G. appearing for the State-respondent has vehemently opposed the ground of the petitioner. It is the contention of the State-respondent that the tender has been issued which contains the condition under Clause- 5.1.1 wherein it has been provided that the bidder must have experience of handling the housekeeping/man power supply work in reputed organization including Government & PSUs at least three years supported by documentary evidence and must have among list of big clients at least Govt./Semi-Govt./PSUs/Listed Companies (in BSE/NSE). It has been submitted that it is the domain of the authority to insert conditions, so that the best can be chosen for performance of the better work. It has been submitted that it is the domain of the authority to insert conditions, so that the best can be chosen for performance of the better work. It is the submission that the condition if found to be unreasonable or suffers from vice of the arbitrariness the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may interfere but such ground has been urged, therefore, the ground urged by the petitioner, is not fit to be considered and as such this writ petition is having no merit, reliance upon judgment has kept rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 . 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, this Court thinks it proper to make an observation about the scope of judicial review in the matter of interference with the condition of the tender. The Honble Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 as has been pleased to hold so far as the judicial review is concerned, with reviewing not the merit of the decision in support of which application for judicial review is made, but the decision making process itself. It is thus different from an appeal with hearing an appeal, the court of concerned within the merits of the decision under appeal since before all judicial review is not an appeal from the decision, the court cannot substitute its own decision. It has further been held that it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfillment of that policy is fair. The Honble Apex Court is therefore, has held down the following principles i.e. (I) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (II) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (III) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. The Honble Apex Court is therefore, has held down the following principles i.e. (I) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (II) The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (III) 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 (IV) 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. (V) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words. A fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of wednesbury principle of reasonableness but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides (VII) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. In the Case of Raunaq International Ltd. Vrs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1999)1 SCC 492 the scope of judicial review has been laid down by holding therein that the decision making process suffers from bias of arbitrariness the same will be scrutinized under the power of judicial review in the case of Jagdish Mandal Vrs. State of Orissa & Ors. reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 , it has been laid down that the power of judicial review in the contractual matters is permissible only if (I) Whether the process adopted or decision made is mala fide or intended to favour someone or the same is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. (II) Whether public interest is affected. Judgment rendered in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vrs. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors. 1979 3 SCC 489 , the Honble Apex Court observed as under Paragraph-10. (II) Whether public interest is affected. Judgment rendered in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vrs. The International Airport Authority of India & Ors. 1979 3 SCC 489 , the Honble Apex Court observed as under Paragraph-10. It is a well settled of rule of administrative law that an executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observed those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them. Judgment rendered in the case of Directorate of Education & Ors. Vrs. Educomp Datamatics Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2004) 4 SCC 19 , it has observed that paragraph 12 it has clearly been held the decisions for the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny the same being in the realm of contract. That the Government must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender. It must have reasonable play in its joins as a necessary concomitant for an administrative body in an administrative sphere. The factual aspect involved in the instant case that the bidders qualification criteria (BQC) scrutinize the factual aspect in the case in hand in which a notice inviting tender has been issued on 27.01.2019 by the Superintendent, Patiliputra Medical College Hospital, Dhanbad, inviting application for work contract services of housekeeping/daily sweeping/cleaning and disposal Waste and Facility Management Services in Patiliputra Medical College, Dhanbad, the said notice contains apart from the other eligibility criteria, and experience criteria as under Clause-5 handling bidders qualification criteria referred hereinbelow:- 5. BIDDERS QUALIFICATION CRITERIA (BCQ) 5.1. EXPERIENCE CRITERIA 5.1.1. The Bidder must have an experience of handling the housekeeping/man power supply work in reputed organization including Govt. & PSUs for at least three years supported by documentary evidence and must have among list of big clients, at least three Govt./Semi- Govt./PSUs/Listed Companies (in BSE/NSE). The said condition has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner establishment being Cooperative Society is carrying out the work of the same nature since long without any complaint from any quarters and eligible in all respects but due to insertion of experience of having in the three establishments, now they are not in a position to participate in the bid therefore, only to oust the petitioner-unit, this condition has been inserted. The sole contention raised by the petitioner that the condition of having experience from three institutions is an arbitrary and only to oust the petitioner from the frey has been inserted. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he is having no experience of having at least three Govt./Semi- Govt./PSUs/Listed Companies (in BSE/NSE), merely because the petitioner having no such experience it cannot be said to be arbitrary exercise of inserting the aforesaid criteria. It is also seen by this Court that the nature of work which has been sought to be performed which is for providing services in the Medical College which requires more expertise for providing bidder services to ailing people who are coming for their treatment and keeping that fact into consideration that the condition of experience of having more three Govt./Semi-Govt./PSUs/Listed Companies (in BSE/NSE) have been required. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court by putting reliance upon judgment rendered in the case of Reliance Energy Ltd. (Supra) but this Court has examined on the factual aspect of the aforesaid case wherein the fact pertains having a condition of income criteria. The fact of aforesaid judgment has reflected that there is a condition of the income criteria and the appellant of the aforesaid case has shown his income through direct and indirect mode but only by taking into consideration, income through direct mode, his candidature has been rejected, in consequence thereto, the matter went before the Honble Supreme Court wherein the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that income cannot be segregated by making difference in between direct or indirect income, income means income either by direct or indirect income and in that pretext the cancellation of candidature of appellant of the aforesaid case has been struck down but herein the instant case that is not the issue rather the issue is of experience and when the authority have sought for experience of the institution of repute at least of three establishments, therefore, the factual aspect leading to the instant case is quite different from the case pertaining to in the case of Reliance Energy Ltd. (supra) and hence it is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case in the instant case. This Court has examined the factual aspect leading to pass the judgment in the case of Balaji Electrosteels Company (P) Ltd. (Supra) this Court has found that one eligibility criteria has been inserted "the tenderer must be a manufacturer of Silico Manganese and have installed capacity to produce and supply 2500 Metric Tonnes of Silico Manganese per month. Also, the tenderer must offer minimum 7500 Metric Tonnes to be supplied on monthly prorate basis during the contract period of three months i.e. @ minimum of 3750 Metric Tonnes or more for each 1 months sub cycle and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after looking to the factual aspect and taking into consideration the production capacity to supply 2500 Metric Tonnes of Silico Manganese per month and able to offer supply of 7500 Metric Tonnes monthly pro rate basis during the contract period of three months but the supply orders as made by the respondents to the various units including M/s. Maithan Alloys Ltd and M/s Sharp Ferro Alloys Ltd. is for a total quantity of only 1392 per MT and 2330 MT respectively, therefore, the argument was advanced by the petitioner of the aforesaid writ petition that the respondents do not actually required the quantity of 2530 MT on average per month and their actual requirement would be satisfied by a much lesser quantity of supply. Further ground was urged that the respondent possess the requisite capacity to supply the actual quantity required by the respondents at the Bokaro Steel Plant and had in supplied more than 5900 MT of the product in the past to the Respondents at the Bokaro Steel Plant and keeping the aforesaid aspect of the matter the judgment has been delivered holding therein that the condition stipulated under Clause 1.3.2 of the Advertisement in question which was subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition, has been held to be restrictive Clause, since for the first time the respondents have introduced the respective clause and it is to be explained that such change in policy within the discretion of the respondent in exercise of their executive powers which could not have been satisfied comes within the best of reasonableness. But herein the facts and circumstances of this case that is not to supply of any crude material rather the work order is for supply of the amenities and therefore if the condition regarding experience of Govt., Semi Govt. institution have been inserted the same cannot be said to be suffer from the test of the reasonableness and therefore, the judgment passed by the Cordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Balajee Electrosteels Company (P) Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The judgment is not said to be universally applicable which is to be applied depending upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case and on the basis of this position of law the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Reliance Energy Ltd. (Supra) is not now being decided regarding their applicability in the facts and circumstance of the instant case. 7. It is not in dispute that the power of judicial review is to be exercised by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but the scope of judicial review is very limited and that can only be exercised if there is arbitrariness or the qualification is unreasonable or after conclusion of the process of bid that there is any error in the process of selection, equally it is settled that the High Court should not exercise the power in the decision taken by the competent authority in the matter of tender, otherwise it will be said that the High Court has said as appellate court over the decision taken by the Committees, which has been made for finalizing the bid. 8. The said fact has been taken into consideration by the Honble Apex Court in the cases of Air India Ltd. (supra), Tata Cellular (Supra), Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), Jagdish Mandal (supra), Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra) and Directorate of Education & Ors. 8. The said fact has been taken into consideration by the Honble Apex Court in the cases of Air India Ltd. (supra), Tata Cellular (Supra), Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), Jagdish Mandal (supra), Ramana Dayaram Shetty (supra) and Directorate of Education & Ors. (supra), in view of the said proposition, the scope of judicial review is to be exercised by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the decision making process it suffers from infirmity, arbitrariness and irrationality, it is amenable to judicial review but so far as the terms and conditions of the tender is concerned the High Court can interfere with subject to the conditions if it is arbitrary. 9. The selection of bid containing a criteria of experience cannot be said to be an arbitrary or irrational, herein keeping the nature of work pertaining to the Medical College which got much importance, so far as cleaning sanitation etc. is concerned and if the experience in the three big clients has been sought for, it cannot be said to be suffered from vice of arbitrariness. Arbitrariness within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India can be said to be arbitrary if, there would be unreasonable classification, unreasonable means that there is discrimination against the similarly situated or any condition inserted to discriminate from the others. Keeping the said intent of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India since, the experience from three big clients has been sought for and merely because the petitioner is having no experience of the three big clients of rendering their services, it cannot be said to be unreasonable classification. It is equally settled that if the classification is reasonable then action of the authorities will not be said to suffer from vice of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The writ petition has been filed questioning the terms and conditions as stipulated under Clause 5.1.1 and if the authority has formulated in terms and conditions for taking best services from the bidders, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to sit over upon their decision in exercise of power of judicial review by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as has been held in the case of Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (Supra) wherein at paragraph 6 and 7, while dealing with such condition, by Honble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at Paragraph-7 that in arriving at a commercial decision the State can chose 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, 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, whereas paragraph- 7 which is being quoted hereinbelow:- "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 the Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar union (Reg.) v. Union of India, CCE 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 paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its tender and that is not open 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 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. 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." 11. This Court after looking into factual aspect and keeping the facts into considerations that the condition stipulated under Clause 5.1.1 which requires experience of three units of Govt./Semi Govt./PSUs/Listed Companies (in BSE/NSE) for the purpose of better work to provide better amenities to ailing people but the petitioner is not possessing the aforesaid condition it cannot be said to suffer from vice of arbitrariness and unreasonableness and further the said condition is applicable to all. 12. This Court is of the view that it is not a case in the nature where it can be said to suffer from vice of arbitrariness or biasness or unreasonableness, hence being a policy decision it is within the domain of the administrative authority, this Court refrains itself in exercising the power of judicial review conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. This writ petition lacks merit, and accordingly, stands dismissed.