JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, Actg. C.J. - This intra court appeal arises out of an order dated 23.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge, by which writ petition preferred by respondent No. 5 has been allowed. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. 2. New Mangalore Port Trust (hereinafter referred to as 'NMPT' for short) had invited bids from eligible bidders for construction of break water, marine structure, dredging and reclamation of fishing harbour at Kulai. The technical bids of respondent No. 5 and the appellant as well as two other tenderers submitted their bid, which were opened on 23.02.2020. The respondent No. 5 and another bidder were found to be responsive. However, tender was canceled as the rate quoted by lowest bidder was 40% above, the estimated cost of the project. 3. Thereafter, the NMPT again passed a resolution on 10.12.2020, in pursuance of which bids were invited again on 21.12.2020, adding some more work to the project. A pre bid meeting was held on 11.01.2021. The last date of submission of tender was 01.02.2021, which was extended to 22.02.2021 and tenders were opened on 23.02.2021. Again the appellant as well as respondent No. 5 and two other tenderers submitted the bid. The Tender Evaluation Committee on the basis of the report submitted by the Project Management Consultant dated 25.03.2021, in its meeting held on 30.03.2021 found the technical bid of the appellant to be non responsive, whereas, the bid submitted by respondent No. 5 was accepted. 4. The appellant challenged the rejection of its technical bid in a writ petition viz., W.P. No. 6892/2021, which was filed on 01.04.2021, in which the recommendation made by the Tender Evaluation Committee was challenged. Immediately after filing of the writ petition on the next day i.e., on 02.04.2021, the appellant made a complaint to the State Government about the irregularities committed in the tender in question. A learned single Judge passed an interim order on 08.04.2021 by which NMPT was restrained from awarding work contract till next date of hearing. In the said writ petition, even though respondent No. 5 had filed a caveat, yet, it was not impleaded as a party. 5. A learned single Judge passed an interim order on 08.04.2021 by which NMPT was restrained from awarding work contract till next date of hearing. In the said writ petition, even though respondent No. 5 had filed a caveat, yet, it was not impleaded as a party. 5. In the aforesaid writ petition, an order dated 15.04.2021 passed by Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways (hereinafter referred to as 'the GOI' for short) was placed on record, by which a Committee was constituted to conduct a detailed investigation with regard to the complaint dated 02.04.2021 made by the appellant. The learned Single Judge in view of submission made by learned counsel for the GOI that any further action with regard to tender shall be taken only after the GOI passes an order based on the report of the Committee, disposed of the writ petition preferred by the appellant with liberty to the appellant to approach the court based on the outcome of the order to be passed by the Central Government. 6. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition viz., W.P. No. 11165/2021, in which inter alia a prayer for review/recall of the order dated 19.04.2021 in W.P. No. 6892/2021 (GM-TEN) preferred by the appellant was sought. The respondent No. 5 also sought quashment of order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the GOI as well as a writ of mandamus to award the contract in question to respondent No. 5. The aforesaid writ petition by an order dated 23.02.2022 was allowed by the learned single Judge and the order dated 19.04.2021 passed in W.P. No. 6892/2021 was recalled. The learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 15.04.2021 as well as the communication dated 07.10.2021 sent by GOI to Chairman of the NMPT. A writ of mandamus was also issued directing to consider the claim of the appellant for grant of contract. In the aforesaid factual background, this appeal has been filed. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that no ground for review/recall of the order dated 19.04.2021 passed in W.P. No. 6892/2021 was made out by respondent No. 5. It is further submitted that if the relief of review/recall of the aforesaid order could not have been granted to the appellant, no other relief claimed in the petition could have been granted. It is further submitted that if the relief of review/recall of the aforesaid order could not have been granted to the appellant, no other relief claimed in the petition could have been granted. It is further submitted that learned Single Judge grossly erred in holding that decision taken by the GOI on a complaint filed by the appellant is a policy decision. It is also pointed out that in the absence of any challenge to the report dated 09.06.2021 submitted by the committee constituted by the GOI, no relief could have been granted to respondent No. 5. It is contended that learned Single Judge grossly erred in allowing the writ petition. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decisions in 'Shivdeo Singh And Others Vs. State Of Punjab And Others', AIR 1963 SC 1909 , 'Rokyayabivs Ismail Khan And Others', AIR 1984 KAR 234 , 'Devaraju Pillai Vs. Sellayya Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1160 , 'C.N. Byrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, MANU/KA/0220/1994, 'D. Thimappasheka And Another vs. State Of Karnataka and Others', 2000-AIHC-979, and 'Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati And Others', AIR 2013 SC 3301 . 8. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 5 submitted that conduct of the appellant disentitles him to any discretionary relief in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that there has been a proper adjudication of the bids submitted by appellant as well as respondent No. 5. It is pointed out that neither report of the Project Management Consultant dated 25.03.2021 nor the report of Tender Evaluation Committee dated 30.03.2021 have been challenged in the writ petition. It is contended that the appellant did not raise a contention before the learned Single Judge that the writ petition should be remitted for hearing before the bench, which passed the order in an earlier writ petition. It is also urged that respondent No. 5 who was the beneficiary was not impleaded in the writ petition filed by the appellant and therefore, was not bound by the earlier decision. It is also urged that the decision taken by the technical Evaluation Committee and the resolution of the Board awarding contract to respondent No. 5, in the absence of any challenge binds the appellant. It is urged that the appeal preferred by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. 9. It is also urged that the decision taken by the technical Evaluation Committee and the resolution of the Board awarding contract to respondent No. 5, in the absence of any challenge binds the appellant. It is urged that the appeal preferred by the appellant deserves to be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submitted that constitution of the Committee has been held to be bad, by learned single Judge, therefore, no sanctity can be attached to the report prepared by the Technical Evaluation Committee. It is submitted that scope of judicial review in the matter of formation of Government Contract and rejection/evaluation of bids is limited. In support of aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decision in 'Bakshi Security And Personnel Services Private Limited', (2016) 8 SCC 446 , 'Caretel Infotech Limited Vs. HPCL & Others', (2019) 14 SCC 81 , 'Silppi Constructions Contractors vs. Union Of India & Another', (2020) 16 SCC 489 . 10. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. By a resolution dated 10.12.2020, the bids were invited for construction of break water, marine structure, dredging and reclamation of fishing harbour at Kulai were invited on 21.12.2020. Admittedly, the Tender Evaluation Committee on the basis of the report submitted by the Project Management Consultant dated 25.03.2021, in its meeting held on 30.03.2021 found the technical bid of the appellant to be non responsive, whereas, the bid submitted by respondent No. 5 was accepted. The Tender Evaluation Committee after detailed scrutiny of the bids of the appellant as well as respondent No. 5, recommended as under: The Tender Committee met on 30.03.2021 and after detailed deliberation on the report of PMC and the opinion of the port advocate (Annexure-II), the Tender Committee confirms its earlier recommendations to technically qualify M/s. ITD Cementation India Limited, Mumbai and M/s. SAPL GCC JV, Mangalore and to open their price bids and not to technically qualify M/s. Yojaka (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mangalore and M/s. Ranjit Buildcon Limited, Ahmedabad as their bids are non responsive subject to approval of competent authority. 11. It is trite law that this court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by Technical Evaluation Committee and should show judicial restraint in administrative action. 11. It is trite law that this court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by Technical Evaluation Committee and should show judicial restraint in administrative action. This court in exercise of judicial review only examines the decision making process and interferes only with the decision of an authority to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. The appellant had sought the following reliefs before the learned Single Judge: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the recommendation of the 4th respondent dated 25.03.2021 vide Annexure-E. (b) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the decision of the 2nd respondent dated 29.03.2021 bearing resolution No. 206/2020-21 and communication of rejection of the tender through SMS dated 01.04.2021 vide Annexure-F1 & F2. (c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner bid as responsive and proceed further in the tender process (d) Issue such other writ or order as this Hon'ble court deems fit to be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of this petition by allowing this petition in the interest of justice and equity. Thus it is evident that, the decision taken by Tender Evaluation Committee was not challenged by the appellant in the previous writ petition filed by it viz., W.P. No. 6892/2021 either as arbitrary or malafide. Thus, the decision taken by the NMPT, which culminated into passing of resolution dated 04.03.2022 awarding the contract in favour of respondent No. 5 has not been assailed and binds the appellant. 12. The relevant extract of the order passed in W.P. No. 6892/2021 reads as under: 2. Learned ASG ha placed on record the order dated 15.04.2021 passed by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways. 3. Shri. Ashok Haranaalli, submitted that since the matter is under consideration by the Central Government, any further action with regard to tender, shall be taken only after Central Government passes an order based on the Committee's report. 4. In the circumstance, this writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this court based on the outcome of the order to be passed by the Central Government. The order dated 19.04.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6892/2021 does not bind the respondent No. 5 as it was not a party to the writ petition. The order dated 19.04.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 6892/2021 does not bind the respondent No. 5 as it was not a party to the writ petition. Even otherwise, there is no adjudication of the claim of the appellant pertaining to rejection of its technical bid in the subsequent writ petition. The respondent No. 5 had substantially claimed the relief of quashment of order dated 15.04.2021 passed by GOI, constituting a committee to look into the complaint submitted by the appellant and had sought a writ of mandamus to award the contract in question to the respondent in pursuance of the resolution passed by the NMPT on 31.03.2021. The respondent No. 5 in any case could have sought the relief as prayed for in the writ petition as the same was based on independent causes of action, which had been accrued to it on resolution being passed in it's favour recommending the grant of contract and on passing of the order dated 15.04.2021 by GOI constituting the committee. Even otherwise, the order passed on an earlier occasion without hearing the respondent No. 5 could be reviewed/recalled in view of constitution bench decision of Supreme Court in 'Shivdeo Singh And Others Vs. State Of Punjab And Others', AIR 1963 SC 1909 . Thus it is evident that in W.P. No. 6892/2021, there was no adjudication of the rights of the parties. 13. New Mangalore Port Trust is a body constituted under Section 3 of the Act. The Board is bound by the directions issued to it by GOI under Section 111 of the Act. Section 111 of Port Trusts Act deals with power of the Central Government to issue directions to the Board, which reads as under: 111. Power of Central Government to issue directions to Board.--(1) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the Authority and every Board shall, in the discharge of its functions under this Act be bound by such directions on questions of policy as the Central Government may give in writing from time to time: Provided that the Authority or the Board, as the case may be, shall be given opportunity to express its views before any direction is given under this sub-section. (2) The decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final. (2) The decision of the Central Government whether a question is one of policy or not shall be final. Thus it is evident that the impugned order dated 15.04.2021 directing constitution of the committee to enquire into the complaint made by unsuccessful bidder is dehors the power of Central Government under Section 111 of the Act, the same was therefore, rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. 14. 'In Raunaq International Ltd., Vs. Ivr Construction Ltd.', (1999) 1 SCC 492 : ( AIR 1999 SC 393 ), it has been held that Court should not interfere in exercise of power of judicial review in dispute between the two rival tenderers in the absence of public interest. Similarly view was taken in 'Sanjay Kumar Shukla Vs. Bharat petroleum Corpn. Ltd.', (2014) 3 SCC 493 : ( AIR 2014 SC 3778 ) and it has been held that the Court should be vigilant against agitation of private disputes under the writ jurisdiction when there is no improper exercise of power on the part of public authority. It has further been held that power of judicial review has to be exercised only when justified by public interest having due regard to the fact situation of the case. In 'Bakshi Security And Personnnel Services (P) Ltd. Vs. Dev Kishan Computed (P) Ltd.', (2016) 8 SCC 446 : ( AIR 2016 SC 3585 ), the Supreme Court summarized the principles with regard to interference in contractual matters and it was held that power of judicial review cannot be invoked to protect the private interest over the public interest or to decide contractual disputes. It has been further held that before exercising the power of judicial review, the Court must pose to itself the questions, namely, whether process adopted or decision made is mala fide or intended to favour someone, whether process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that no responsible authority acting reasonably in accordance with law could have reached such a decision and whether public interest is affected. 15. On the touchstone of aforesaid well legal principles, this court in the facts of the case refrains to exercise the power of judicial review in the absence of any public interest. 15. On the touchstone of aforesaid well legal principles, this court in the facts of the case refrains to exercise the power of judicial review in the absence of any public interest. It is noteworthy that the project in question is a public project and on account of interim order granted by this court, the implementation of the project has already been delayed. On this ground also, no interference with the decision passed by the learned Single Judge is called for. 16. So far as submission made by learned Senior counsel for the appellant that in the absence of challenge to the report of the committee dated 09.06.2021 no relief could have been granted to respondent No. 5. is concerned, suffice it to say that once the order constituting the committee itself is quashed, no legal sanctity can be attached to the report submitted by the committee. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.