ORDER Kaurav, J:- 1. The petitioner has challenged the Credential Certificate dated 1.6.2021 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.6 and decision dated 4.6.2021 (Annexure P/5) issued by respondent No.3 granting permission to take-up the steps for purchase of furniture through single source i.e from respondent No.6. 2. The petitioner is a Federation of Laghu Udhyog Nirmata Avam Vikreta Sangh of Madhya Pradesh established by manufacturers of furniture. In exercise of Clause 11.3.4 of Madhya Pradesh Bhandar Kray Tatha Sewa Uparjan Niyam, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 2015), the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Revenue issued a Goods Credential Certificate dated 1.6.2021 in favour of respondent No.6. 3. Shri Rahul Jain, learned counsel assisted by Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi, Advocate appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to various provisions of Micro, Small And Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the rules of 2015. It is submitted by him that in absence of any comparative assessment, issuance of certificate and permission to purchase furniture only from respondent No.6 is against the principles of natural justice, violative of article 14 & 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. According to him, there is no reason, whatsoever, in issuing the Credential Certificate in favour of respondent No.6 which is the essential requirement as per Clause 11.3.2 of the rules of 2015. He also submits that rule-25 of the rules of 2015 requires to give preference to the manufacturers of the State of Madhya Pradesh. In the instant case there is violation of aforesaid Rules which ultimately goes against the spirit of act of 2006. The Act of 2006 requires to promote the Small Scale Industries at all levels. He places reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The international Airport [(1979) 3 SCC-489.], Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 .], Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka and others [3 (2012) 8 SCC 216 .] and Depak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others [ (2014) 3 SCC 502 .]. 4. Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5, has opposed the petition. According to him, the present petitioner is not a manufacturer and at the behest of petitionerFederation, writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Shri Ankit Agrawal, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 5, has opposed the petition. According to him, the present petitioner is not a manufacturer and at the behest of petitionerFederation, writ petition is not maintainable. There is no allegation of any malafide or bias in taking the decision under challenge. The respondents have followed the procedure enshrined in the rules of 2015 and specific technical requirement and other circumstances were taken into consideration. A Committee of experts was constituted to examine all the technical aspects and after comparative assessment from all the vendors who could have provided furniture with said technical specifications, the said Committee on 24.5.2021 recommended that the certificate in favour of respondent No.6 should be issued under Clause 11.3.4 of the rules of 2015. The recommendation of the Committee is placed on record as Annexure R-1. He also submits that the High Court is not expected to substitute its own reasoning in place of reasoning given by expert Committee. He relies on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporationt [ (2016) 16 SCC 818 ], Tata Cellular v. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ] , Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and others with Laxman Sharma v. State of Orissa and others [ (2007) 14 SCC 517 ] (2007) 14 SCC 517 and Raunaq International Ltd. v. IVR Construction Ltd. and others [(1991) 1 SCC 492]. 5. Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Satyam Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6, while supporting the arguments made by the State submits that the impugned order has already been effected by the department and tender process of 11 different districts has already been processed and after finalization of the same, letter of acceptance have also been issued in favour of four different firms. According to him, almost 60% of the required material has already been supplied in different places remaining material is ready for delivery. Respondent No.6 further states that the tenders were invited from all eligible bidders who were willing to supply the furniture of respondent No.6 company as per the requirement of the tender and, therefore, there was a fair competition and without challenging the N.I.T dated 5.7.2021 (Annexure P/7), the present petition is not maintainable. 6. Respondent No.6 further states that the tenders were invited from all eligible bidders who were willing to supply the furniture of respondent No.6 company as per the requirement of the tender and, therefore, there was a fair competition and without challenging the N.I.T dated 5.7.2021 (Annexure P/7), the present petition is not maintainable. 6. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the intervenors, who are the dealers of respondent No.6-Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited, has also opposed the present petition and submits that there is no scope for interference in the present petition as substantial supply has already been effected. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 8. Para-4 and 5 of the Recommendation of the Committee of experts dated 24.5.2021 are reproduced as under :- ^^4- lfefr }kjk ;g vuq'kaalk dh xbZ fd dk;kZy; Hkouksa gsrq ,sls QuhZpj miyC/k djk;s tkus pkfg, tks mPp xq.koRrk ds gksa] Comfortable gksa] fVdkÅ gksa] vklkuh ls miyC/k gksa] cktkj esa Credibility mPPk gksa vkSj njsa Hkh ;qfDr;qDr gksaA mDr laca/k esa fofHkUu daifu;ksa tSls Nilkamal, Durian, Geeken, Wipro, Godrej, Knoll ds QuhZpjksa ij fopkj foe'kZ mijkar Wipro, Godrej, Knoll daiuh ds QuhZpj ds ,d tSlh Specification ds vuqlkj rqYkukRed i=kd rS;kj djk;k tkdj] lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k ftldk voyksdu lfefr ds lnL;ksa }kjk fd;k x;kA lHkh lnL;ksa }kjk rqyukRed i=d esa knoll Company ds QuhZpj dh njsa mPp] QuhZpj dh miyC/krk de] ,oa okafNr QuhZpj esa dqN QuhZpj dh miyC/krk ugh gksuk ikbZ xbZA Wipro and Godrej Company ds Same Specification ds QuhZpj esa Godrej ds okafNr vf/kdka'k QuhZpj dh njsa fuEu ikbZ xbZ gSa xq.koRrk mPp Lrj dh gksus ,oa miyC/krk lkekU; gksus] miyC/krk izns'k Hkj esa gksus ,oa njsa mfpr] QuhZpj Comfortable gksus] fofHkUu fMtkbZu esa miyC/k gksus ¼dk;kZy; QuhZpj ds vuqdwy½] Durability vf/kd gksus] okjaVh@xkjaVh dh lqfoèkk gksus ls rFkk ea=ky; esa uofufeZr ,usDlh 1 ,oa 2 esa xksnjst ds QuhZpj dk mi;ksx gksus ,oa QhMcSd larqf"Vizn gksus ls lfefr }kjk xksnjst ds QuhZpj dk iznk; fuekZ.k/khu dk;kZy; Hkouksa gsrq fd, tkus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZA 5- lfefr }kjk vuq'kaflr xksnjst daiuh dk gh QuhZpj ;fn fuekZ.k/khu dk;kZy; Hkouksa esa PIU ds ekè;e ls iznk; fd;k tkuk gS rks ;g fLFkfr ,dy L=¨r ls Ø; djus dh Js.kh esa vk;sxhA bl ifjfLFkfr esa e/;izns'k Hk.Mkj Ø; rFkk lsok miktZu fu;e] 2015 dh dafMdk 11-3-4 ds varxZr vko';d izfØ;k dk ikyu dj ,dy L=ksr ls bfPNr oLrq dk Ø; fd;k tk ldrk gS ftlds fy, lacaf/kr foHkkx }kjk vkSfpR; oLrq izek.k&i= tkjh fd;k tkuk gksxkA rRi'pkr gh ,dy L=ksr ls Ø; djus dh fufonk vkeaf=r djus gsrq izfØ;k ,tsalh }kjk dh tk ldrh gSA PD PIU }kjk mnkgj.kkFkZ fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa mPp xq.koRrk okys QuhZpj Ø; fd;s tkus gsrq e-iz- HkaMkj Ø; ,oa lsok miktZu fu;e] 2015 dh dafMdk 11-3-4 ds varxZr izfØ;k dk ikyu djrs gq, vkSfpR; oLrq izek.k i= dh izfr layXu dh xbZ gSA** 9. Clause 11.3.2, no doubt requires that when a decision to purchase goods from single source is taken, it must be preceded with specific reasons. To consider the submissions putforth by the petitioner, we have perused the reasons which have been recorded by the concerned authority and we find that the same duly fulfills the requirement of rules of 2015. The Committee has examined various aspects, such as the high quality of office furniture, comfort, durability, availability and credibility in the market etc. The Committee has also made an assessment of the furniture of the same specification of Godrej with the furniture of the same specification of the other companies. It is seen that after comparative analysis, a specific finding is recorded that from all perspective like availability, quality and the rates, the furniture of respondent No.6 Company was found to be more suitable. The Committee has taken into consideration various aspects including the warranty/guarantee of the furniture. The Committee also noted that the furniture of the same company was used in newly constructed annexe of new Secretariat building where no complaints were noted, hence the recommendations were made. Moreso, the Committee consisting of experts are the best judge for the requirement of the department and, in absence of any malafide or favourism, we are not inclined to interfere under article 226 of the Constitution. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness bias or malafide. The Constitutional Court can certainly interfere in any action if it is found that the same is misuse of statutory power or there is perversity in the understanding or appreciation. Selecting a suitable agency for supply of the goods under the rules in question is essentially a decision which requires to be taken after considering various parameters. However, in the instant case, we do not see any of the aforesaid reason to interfere. We have examined the decision cited by both the parties which are also in the same line and hence, they are not required to be dealt with exhaustively. 10. In view of aforesaid, the instant writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.