JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vivek Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner through remote video-conferencing from Indore. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the eligibility conditions contained in tender floated by the Senior Divisional Railway Engineer (respondent no. 3). The case of the petitioner is that it is registered a partnership firm and is, inter alia, doing business of maintenance of generator sets of the Indian Railways. One of the minimum eligibility conditions imposed by the N.F. Railways in their e-tender notice dated 04.06.2020 is: "The operation and maintenance of DA Sets (A, M1, M2, M3 checks) for M/s. Greaves make are to be done by OEM or authorized dealer with tender specific authorization given by the OEM or sources approved by RDSO (i.e. Research, Design and Standards Organization) as per latest vendor directory for M/s. Greaves make of DA Sets". At the Bar, the learned counsel for both sides are as idem that abbreviation OEM stands for original equipment manufacturer, and that abbreviation RDSO stands Research, Design and Standards Organization. 3. The name of the work for which the tenders in question was floated is: "At KYQ/AGTL:- Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (CMC) of M/s. Greaves make DG Sets (500KVA) along with its accessories of Power Cars for a period of 02 years at Coaching Maintenance Depot KYQ & AGTL in N.F. Railway." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said condition did not exist in the previous tenders floated by the respondents, and that the imposition of the impugned condition is designed to oust open competition and that if the said condition is allowed to stand, if would create monopoly of a selected few participants to the tender process. In this regard, reference is made to similar scope of work which was tendered by a different division of the Railways. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to completion certificate dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure R1 of Affidavit-in-reply), issued by the respondent no. 3 and accordingly, it is submitted that the said document not only establishes that the petitioner is doing similar works, but has also successfully completed such similar works. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to completion certificate dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure R1 of Affidavit-in-reply), issued by the respondent no. 3 and accordingly, it is submitted that the said document not only establishes that the petitioner is doing similar works, but has also successfully completed such similar works. It is submitted that the petitioner was otherwise eligible to participate in the tender process as per eligibility criteria laid down in the GCC 18 (i.e. General Conditions of Contract, 2018) and that their eligibility is preserved by virtue of Railway Board Circular No. 2019/Elect(G)/165/1 dated 22.04.2020. It is submitted only owing to the said conditions, the petitioner has been placed at a disadvantageous position. It is also submitted that the challenge is made, amongst others, on the grounds that the said conditions is contrary to the GCC 18, arbitrary, mala fide and contrary to public policy of allowing free and fair competition in the matter concerning State largesse and the respondents are accused of throttling all scope of competition by the petitioner in the proposed bidding process. It is submitted that in a writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has already quashed such a condition imposed in another tender floated by the Ratlam Division of Western Railways by order dated 02.07.2020, passed in W.P. No. 8826/2020 (Bharti Engineering Vs. Union of India & Ors.). 5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondents has submitted that Clause 2.6.1.3 of the GCC for Service Contracts, 2018 it is permissible for the tendering authority to include any other criteria with regard to minimum eligibility to participate in the tender. Union of India & Ors.). 5. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondents has submitted that Clause 2.6.1.3 of the GCC for Service Contracts, 2018 it is permissible for the tendering authority to include any other criteria with regard to minimum eligibility to participate in the tender. It is also submitted that pursuant to the Railway Board's circular dated 22.4.2020, which is heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the NF Railway had issued their 'Modified policy on maintenance/escorting and POH of DA sets in power cars" vide communication dated 22.05.2020 (Annexure-C to the Affidavit-in-opposition), inter alia, providing under paragraph-1 thereof that: "Operation and maintenance of DA Sets (A, B, C checks) for M/s. Cummins & M/s. KOEL and A, M1, M2, M3 Checks for M/s. Greaves Greaves make are to be done by OEM or authorized dealer with tender specific authorization given by the OEM or sources approved by RDSO as per latest vendor directory for M/s. Greaves make of DA Sets." Thereafter, the impugned condition was imposed as a tender condition in the tender in question bearing E-Tender No. EL/GH/849 dated 04.06.2020. It is submitted that the DA power sets are of vital importance to trains to which power cars are attached. Therefore, in view of their experience in dealing with situations faced previously faced, as morefully narrated in their affidavit-in-opposition, it is desirable that technically sound contractors are selected through competition. It is submitted that even if the petitioner is not a original equipment manufacturer, but if the petitioner is technically sound, it can get themselves registered in the directory of RDSO, which would make the petitioner eligible to participate in tenders containing a clause similar to the one contained in the tender in question. In support of his submissions, the learned standing counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the case of (1) Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. The State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 , and (2) The Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs. Union of India, (2019) 0 Supreme(SC) 986. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply as well documents annexed thereto. 7. At the outset, it is seen that the minimum eligibility criteria that has been challenged in this writ petition is contained in note no. Union of India, (2019) 0 Supreme(SC) 986. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply as well documents annexed thereto. 7. At the outset, it is seen that the minimum eligibility criteria that has been challenged in this writ petition is contained in note no. 9 of the notice for e-tendering dated 4.6.2020, which has been extracted herein before. 8. The admitted case projected by the petitioner is that as per GCC 2018, they were otherwise eligible to participate in the tender process and that they had previously participated in such tenders and have also successfully done such work to the satisfaction of all concerned. However, the respondents have successfully demonstrated that Railway Board's Circular No. 2019/Elect(G)/165/1 dated 22.04.2020, amongst others, contained two clauses, which are extracted below:- i. The Technical eligibility criteria as contained in GCC 2018 or any amendment thereafter for works contract may be dispensed with cases of bidders, who are either OEMs or sources approved by RDSO for related works contracts. This exemption shall be extended to PUs approved sources also for various safety/vital items which were transferred to PUs vide Board's letter no. 2001/RS(G)/779/7 dated 07.12.2016. ii. ** ** ** iii. ** ** ** iv. Firms not featuring in RDSO or PUs approved sources for various safety/vital items which were transferred to PUs vide Board's letter no. 2001/RS(G)/779/7 dated 07.12.2016 of works contracts shall have to fulfill the eligibility criteria as stipulated in GCC 2018 or any amendment thereafter. 9. The aforesaid circular dated 22.04.2020 is followed N.F. Railway's communication no. EL/268/0/671 dated 22.05.2020, issued by Dy. CEE/Chg., for PCME/NFR and addressed to Sr/DEEs of TSK, LMG, GHY, RNY, APDJ and KIR, by which the eligibility criteria for award of works contract to undertake repairs/rehabilitation of equipments including power cars were amended, which has already been extracted herein before. The e-notice of the tender in question, as indicated above was issued on 04.06.2020, i.e. after the change in policy as stated in communication dated 22.05.2020. On a perusal of the minimum eligibility condition disclosed in the said e-notice inviting tender, it cannot be held that such a clause is inconsistent with the new policy in force. Moreover, although the respondents have disclosed about the communication dated 22.05.2020 in their affidavit-in-opposition, there is no challenge to the said modified policy. On a perusal of the minimum eligibility condition disclosed in the said e-notice inviting tender, it cannot be held that such a clause is inconsistent with the new policy in force. Moreover, although the respondents have disclosed about the communication dated 22.05.2020 in their affidavit-in-opposition, there is no challenge to the said modified policy. The Court finds that the existence of such state of affairs was perhaps not brought to the notice of the Indore Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, while deciding the case of Bharti Engineering (supra)]. Therefore, as the said Hon'ble Court was not called upon to decide the similar eligibility criteria in light of communication dated 22.05.2020, with all respect to the cited decision, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said judgment will not have any persuasive effect under the distinguishable facts presented in this case in hand. 10. It is seen that in this writ petition, the tendered contract work is as follows- "At KYQ/AGTL:- Comprehensive Maintenance Contract (CMC) of M/s. Greaves make DG Sets (500KVA) along with its accessories of Power Cars for a period of 02 years at Coaching Maintenance Depot KYQ&AGTL in N.F. Railway." Thus, the diesel generator sets are of specific "Greaves" make. Therefore, in view of the nature of work in question, the Court is unable to return a finding that the minimum eligibility criteria as contained in note no. 9 of the e-tender notice is bad, or creates any monopoly, or ousts open competition. Therefore, in view of the nature of work in question, the Court is unable to return a finding that the minimum eligibility criteria as contained in note no. 9 of the e-tender notice is bad, or creates any monopoly, or ousts open competition. The reasons for arriving at such an opinion are, primarily, three-fold - firstly, no one can raise a valid and sustainable dispute to the effect that the OEM or their authorized dealer would not be best suited for the work, as such, if the maintenance work is for a specified make equipment, even the single participant in tender process is the OEM, no fault can be attributed to the criteria; secondly, there is no material from which the Court can presume that there is only one authorized dealer of the OEM in the Country and to return a finding to the effect that monopoly is created by the existence of the condition assailed in this writ petition; thirdly, if the authorities are prepared to accept RDSO enlisted contractors to participate in the tenders, third parties who are neither OEM, nor non-authorized dealer, can definitely participate in the tender, as such, no finding can be returned by holding that the conditions contained in minimum eligibility criteria assailed herein creates competition. Thus, if the tender in question is allowed to be proceeded with, there is no overwhelming public interest which would be compromised in any manner whatsoever. 11. The Court is conscious of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had carried out similar works in the past. However, notwithstanding that the petitioner might have successfully carried out similar maintenance works in the past, but admittedly the petitioner is neither the OEM, nor the tender specific authorized dealer of the OEM. Moreover, the petitioner is also not one of the firms enlisted with RDSO. Therefore, the petitioner does not meet the minimum eligibility criteria of the notice inviting e-tender after change in policy, as such, past participation by the petitioner in similar tender prior to change in policy is of no consequence. As already indicated herein before, the minimum eligibility condition had been envisaged vide communication dated 22.05.2020, then followed by the e-tender notice dated 04.06.2020. As already indicated herein before, the minimum eligibility condition had been envisaged vide communication dated 22.05.2020, then followed by the e-tender notice dated 04.06.2020. Thus, when the communication dated 22.05.2020 is not under challenge, the Court does not find that there has been any infirmity in the decision-making process on part of the respondents to incorporate changes in the minimum eligibility criteria, as such, following the ratio laid down in the case of Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Metcalfe & Hodgkinson (P) Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 138 , no case is made out by the petitioner so as to enable the Court to examine the eligibility conditions which had been incorporated in the e-tender notice in question. Moreover, in the instant case in hand, in paragraph 7 of their affidavit-in-reply, the respondents have disclosed two hardships faced by them, which has led the respondents to adopt new minimum eligibility criteria. The said two hardships are-(i) Original spare parts of DA sets of power cars are not available with firms other than OEM or authorized dealer/service provider. Thus, they use parts which are equivalent to original one, causing failure of equipment; and that (ii) the staff/technicians assigned by such firms for maintenance of DA sets of power cars have not been provided with any kind of training from OEM of respective DA sets to perform such works. Thus they are not familiar with new technological changes/development in DA sets. Therefore, they are technically not sound enough to carry out the complete maintenance works. 12. From the two reasons so assigned, it is not difficult to understand that the DG/DA sets are attached in power cars of the rail-rakes carrying passengers. Thus, as power-cars are provide power to the entire train, it is definitely in public interest that such DG/DA sets are maintained by technically sound parties, as such, in the present case in hand, overwhelming public interest would override the private commercial interest of the petitioner. Accordingly, there can be no dispute that OEM, tender specific authorized dealers of OEM, as well as RDSO enlisted service providers would be a better choice for providing maintenance in respect of such DG/DA sets. Accordingly, there can be no dispute that OEM, tender specific authorized dealers of OEM, as well as RDSO enlisted service providers would be a better choice for providing maintenance in respect of such DG/DA sets. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding the dispute raised in this writ petition, the Court is not required to examine the expertise of the petitioner, as the Court does not have technical expertise to do so, but it is not difficult to presume that if a contractor is enlisted by the RDSO, such enlisted contractors are likely to meet the mark of reliability. In another words, it is squarely out of the domain of this Court to examine whether or not the petitioner is competent to carry out the contractual work of maintaining DG/DA sets. It is also not within the scope of this writ petition for the Court to examine if there is any specific instance where the non-OEM or non-authorized contractor had failed in the past to maintain the DG/DA sets. 13. In the case of The Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra), the Supreme Court of India had referred to various authorities on power of judicial review in the matter of contractual matters and tenders. Amongst others, reference is made to the case of Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 651, wherein it was held that the Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which decision was made. It was also held that the Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision and that the terms of invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. 14. In light of the discussions above, the Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case in hand, the minimum eligibility conditions against which the aggrieved petitioner has filed this writ petition cannot be said to have failed in the test of Wednesbury's principle of reasonableness in any manner. The said conditions are not found to be arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. Moreover, from the statements made in herein before referred paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents have been able to satisfy the Court that there were good reasons which had necessitated the respondents to alter the minimum eligibility conditions contained in note no. The said conditions are not found to be arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. Moreover, from the statements made in herein before referred paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the respondents have been able to satisfy the Court that there were good reasons which had necessitated the respondents to alter the minimum eligibility conditions contained in note no. 9 of the notice of e-tender dated 04.06.2020, impugned herein. There is neither any pleading, nor there are any materials on record in this writ petition and affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner from which preponderance of probability can be culled out to the effect that the impugned condition would encourage favouritism or create a monopoly by killing or throttling competition as alleged. The said impugned minimum eligibility condition is not found to be biased or tainted with mala fides and that the decision making process is also not found to be perverse. In respect of the impugned condition imposed, it is deemed appropriate to quote the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818 to the effect that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation that is not acceptable to the Constitutional Courts, but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. 15. Accordingly, this writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Interim directions contained in orders dated 3.8.2020 and 11.8.2020, as extended by orders dated 1.9.2020 and 08.09.2020 stands revoked and discharged. The parties are left to bear their own cost.