JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order passed in Writ Petition No.100625/2023, the respondents No.1 and 2 therein have preferred Writ Appeal No.100566/2023 and respondent No.3 therein has preferred Writ Appeal No.100567/2023. 2. As both these writ appeals emanates from the same impugned order, they are taken up together and heard. 3. For the sake of convenience parties herein are referenced to as per their status in the writ petition. 4. The dispute pertains to awarding of two contracts in favour of respondent No.3 by respondent No.1 as mentioned below : “Work-A:-(Tender Notice No.92/2022-23 dated 23.09.2022) pertains to providing Dam body grouting, PICC pointing to upstream side of piers, bay and non-spillway portion, treatment to contraction joints and reaming of porous and drainage holes of Drainage Gallery of TB Dam Right Side. Work-B:- (Tender Notice No.93/2022-23 dated 23.09.2022) pertains to providing curtain grouting in Drainage Gallery for both Non-Spillway and Spillway portion form Ch,100’ to 3897.64’ providing pointing to downstream of spillway and non-spillway portions and improvements to electrical system at Tungabhadra Dam Right Side.” 5. The petitioner was also a bidder, whose bid has been rejected by respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred Writ Petition No.100625/2023. The petitioner alleged mala fides and favouritism in favour of respondent No.3 and contended that the petitioner has the necessary qualifications to make a bid for the tender works and on the contrary, respondent No.3 did not possess the necessary qualifications and inspite of it, respondent No.1 has awarded both contracts in favour of respondent No.3. 6. Per Contra, the respondents contended that the petitioner did not have the necessary qualifications and respondent No.3 possess all the required qualifications and respondent No.1 after following the due process has awarded the contract in favour of respondent No.3 in the manner known to law. 7. The learned Single Judge evaluated the terms of the tender insofar as it relates to the qualifications required by the successful bidder and came to the following conclusions : “14. 7. The learned Single Judge evaluated the terms of the tender insofar as it relates to the qualifications required by the successful bidder and came to the following conclusions : “14. The qualification criteria for tender No.92 and tender No.93 is as under: QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR OPENING OF PRICE BID - TENDER No.92/2022 (TENDER ID-546007): To qualify for the award of the contract each bidder in its name should have, good experience in execution as original agency in similar works of Dam Safety Works i.e Construction or rehabilitation of Dam involving all ingredients viz Construction/ major repair of Masonry/ Concrete Dams/Barrages including upstream face pointing / drilling / grouting / Reaming of Porous and Drainage Holes / Treatment to Contraction Joints in State and Central Government or undertaking, during the last ten years specified i.e., the years 2012- 13 to 2021-22 financial years updated to 2022-23 (i.e., they should be immediately preceding the financial year in which tenders are invited), satisfying the qualification shown under para "Bid Capacity", only are eligible to tender. (a) Satisfactorily completed as a prime contractor similar works of Dam Safety Works i.e. Construction or rehabilitation of Dam involving all ingredients viz Construction/ major repair of Masonry/ Concrete Dams/Barrages including upstream face pointing/ drilling/ grouting/ Reaming of Porous and Drainage Holes/Treatment to Contraction Joints value not less than Rs.7,20,37,795.50/- in any one year. (b) Executed in any one year, the following minimum set of quantity of works in last ten years i.e., from 2012-13 to 2021-22. 1. Racking, cleaning and pointing on upstream face of Masonry joints with UV resistant, anti-shrink and high strength materials like cements using crystalline technology (CT) Polymer/Equivalent cementations materials 4351.90 Sqm 2. Drilling of inclined / vertical holes in masonry/ concrete/ Hard rock body 2855.50 Rmt 3. Grouting 428.25 MT 4. 1. Racking, cleaning and pointing on upstream face of Masonry joints with UV resistant, anti-shrink and high strength materials like cements using crystalline technology (CT) Polymer/Equivalent cementations materials 4351.90 Sqm 2. Drilling of inclined / vertical holes in masonry/ concrete/ Hard rock body 2855.50 Rmt 3. Grouting 428.25 MT 4. Reaming of porous drain holes 1311.24 Rmt QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR OPENING OF PRICE BID - TENDER No.93/2022 (TENDER ID-574263): To qualify for the award of the contract each bidder in its name should have, good experience in execution as original agency in similar works of Dam Safety Works like Construction or rehabilitation of Dam involving all ingredients viz Construction/ major repair of Masonry/ Concrete Dams/Barrages including upstream face pointing/ drilling/ curtain grouting in State and Central Government or undertaking, during the last ten years specified i.e., the years 2012-13 to 2021-22 financial years updated to 2022-23 (i.e., they should be immediately preceding the financial year in which tenders are invited), satisfying the qualification shown under para "Bid Capacity", only are eligible to tender. (a) Satisfactorily completed as a prime contractor similar works of Dam Safety Works like Construction or rehabilitation of dam involving all ingredients viz. Construction/ major repair of Masonry/Concrete Dams/Barrages including upstream face pointing/drilling/ Curtain grouting value not less than Rs.5,90,77,647/- in any one year. (b) Executed in any one year, the following minimum set of quantity of works in last ten years i.e., from 2012-13 to 2021-22. 1. Providing Pointing to stone masonry 8518.63 Sqm 2. Drilling of inclined / Vertical holes in Concrete/ Hard Rock Body/Hard Foundation Rock 4138.75 Rmt 3. Curtain Grouting 620.81 MT 4. Cleaning concrete / masonry / rock surface for guniting/ shortcreting by sand blasting 8518.63 Sqm * The bidder should upload the minimum set of quantities statement with countersigned certificates of specific financial year of last Ten years for consideration. (Mandatory). C(1). The tenderer should give undertaking declaration with sufficient proof of purchase of equipment. The declaration should be on a non-judicial stamp paper stating that “I, Sri/Ms/Smt. . . . . . . . . . . (Mandatory). C(1). The tenderer should give undertaking declaration with sufficient proof of purchase of equipment. The declaration should be on a non-judicial stamp paper stating that “I, Sri/Ms/Smt. . . . . . . . . . . do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that I/we own/lease the following equipment for using on the subject work and also declare that I/We will abide by any action such as disqualification or termination of contract or blacklisting or any action deem fit, if the department detects at any stage that I/we do not possess the equipment listed below". (Mandatory) C(2). Availability of key personnel with adequate experience as required should be indicated based on the requirement for the work to be executed. “25. Let us now examine the projects implemented by respondent No.3 and its eligibility. The petitioner-company has placed on record the nature of projects implemented by the petitioner-company and respondent No.3. A comparative chart is reduced and the same reproduced as under: Tender No.92/2021-Downstream Face of Right Flank of TB Dam Sl. No Qualification Requirement (Ref pg.9) Name of Work in Petitioner's Certificate (Ref pg.11) Description of Item in Petitioner's Certificate (Ref pg.12) Name of Work in Respondent No.3's certificates (Ref pg.13) Description of Item in Respondent No.3's Certificate (Ref pg. 15- 16) Remarks 1. No Qualification Requirement (Ref pg.9) Name of Work in Petitioner's Certificate (Ref pg.11) Description of Item in Petitioner's Certificate (Ref pg.12) Name of Work in Respondent No.3's certificates (Ref pg.13) Description of Item in Respondent No.3's Certificate (Ref pg. 15- 16) Remarks 1. Racking, cleaning and pointing on upstream face of masonry joints with UV resistant, antishrink and high strength materials like cements using crystaline technology (CT)/Poly mer/ Equivalent cementations materials (4351.90 Sqmt) Rehabilitation & Improvements to 100 year old Krishnaraja-sagar a Dam under DRIP by conducting detailed investigations carrying out treatment to upstream face by pointing with UV resistant and anti shrink materials like cements using crystalline technology (ct) or Poly Ironite Ceramic Cementations Materials Pointing Work (26800 Sqmt) Providing & pointing on upstream face of Masanry dam with UV resistant and anti-shrink materials like cements using crystalline technology (CT), Poly Ironite Ceramic Cementations (PICC) or equivalent cementations materials (where required) conforming to BIS/EN-15043, Class R4(2014) standard for masonry joint filling to a depth of 5 cm Including preparing of 'T' joint of masonry by removing existing loose portion of stone masonry by breaking (using manual/mechanical means) removing existing embedded M.S.bar, racking out the masonry joints to required depth, cleaning with special chemicals and air water jet under pressure for removing algae/fungi, applying bond coat before repair material application and top coat after finishing, complete as per specification including cost of all materials, machinery, labour, scaffolding, hire charges of cranes, insurance charges transportation with all leads and lifts and any other incidental charges as directed by the Engineer-incharge. NSP-APWSIP-Rehabilitation and Modernization from KM.0.000 to KM 29.291 of Nagarjuna Sagar Lal Bahadur Canal, A.P., India, Package No.LC.NLG -1 Epoxy mortar pointing to masonry walls (6060 Sqmt) Epoxy mortar pointing to masonry walls (34282 Sqmt) The only reason given by Respondent No.1 and 2 to reject the Petitioner's bid is that the description of the item mentioned in the documents submitted by Petitioner do not match the description in the tender document and that the same is not legible. It is submitted that per the evaluation of the same documents by the Evaluation Committee on 30.11.2022, the Petitioner was found to satisfy this requirement. Moreover, the Certificate and Final Bill submitted by Petitioners would show that the requirements were duly fulfilled. It is submitted that per the evaluation of the same documents by the Evaluation Committee on 30.11.2022, the Petitioner was found to satisfy this requirement. Moreover, the Certificate and Final Bill submitted by Petitioners would show that the requirements were duly fulfilled. Further, the same standard has not been applied to Respondent No.3 certificate which does not refer to any UV Resistant or Cementations material but has nonetheless been found to qualify the requirement. Lastly, the Respondent No.3 has been found qualified despite relying on an experience certificate for a canal which clearly does not have an upstream or downstream face. Tender No.93/2021-Downstream Face of Right Flank of TB Dam. Sl. No Qualification Requirement (Ref pg.10) Name of Work in Petitioner's Certificate (Ref pg.17) Description of Item in Petitioner's Certificate (Ref pg.17) Name of Work in Respondent No.3's certificates (Ref pg.13) Description of Item in Respondent No.3's Certificate (Ref pg.16) Remarks 4. Cleaning concrete/ masonry/ rock surface for guniting / shortcreting by sand blasting Treatment of second stage honeycombed concrete and honeycombed pier regions leaked construction joints spillway piers and bucket portion for vent nos.1 to 25 main spillway and A1 to A5 of additional spillway of Narayanapur dam (package-II) High Abrasion Resistant Slope Protection work by application of special materials applied by pneumatic Shotcrete Equipment (9485 Sqmt) NSP-APWSIP-Rehabilitation and Modernization from KM.0.000 to KM 29.291 of Nagarjuna Sagar Lal Bahadur Canal, A.P., India, Package No. LC.NLG -1 Cleaning of Gates / Masonry walls/ Roof slab / by Sand Blasting (43398 Sqmt) Respondent No.1 and 2 have disqualified the Petitioner for this item on the ground that the Certificate relied upon by Petitioner does not satisfy the requirement. It is submitted that the Petitioner has clearly completed the said work and has been disqualified due to a hyper technical approach being adopted. Moreover, if this is the standard to be applied, it is submitted that even Respondent No.3's certificate does not satisfy the requirement of this item. 26. Having taken cognizance of these significant details culled out supra, this Court has to examine as to whether tender process is found to be malafide and unfair which has ultimately resulted in violation of principle of reasonability and therefore, it becomes absolutely necessary for interference at the hands of this Court. 26. Having taken cognizance of these significant details culled out supra, this Court has to examine as to whether tender process is found to be malafide and unfair which has ultimately resulted in violation of principle of reasonability and therefore, it becomes absolutely necessary for interference at the hands of this Court. This Court also needs to examine whether the decision of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is perverse and not merely faulty, incorrect or erroneous. This Court has to also examine whether the tender process in the present case on hand depicts as an extreme case which would warrant judicial review at the hands of this Court. 27. Referring to the above significant details, the following are my conclusions: (1) The material placed on record clearly demonstrate that petitioner-company has a good experience in execution of similar works such as Dam safety works i.e., construction and rehabilitation of Dam involving all ingredients viz., construction/ major repair of masonary/concrete dams/ Barrages including upstream face pointing/ drilling/ grouting/ reaming of porous and drainage holes/ treatment of contraction joints. The documents also indicate that petitioner-company has satisfactorily completed Dam safety works. (2) While respondent No.3 has implemented projects relating to maintenance of water canals and not dams. The description of work done by respondent No.3 which is evident from its certificates also indicates that it has undertaken projects relating to cleaning of gates, masonry walls/ roof slab by sand blasting. All these projects relate to maintenance of canals namely Nagarjuna Sagar Lalbahadur Canal. It is also worth to note that technical expert who was present before the Court has admitted that the work undertaken by respondent No.3 relates to canals and not dams. (3) The entire process of scrutiny done by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is also found to be tainted with arbitrariness. The document furnished by the petitioner-company are not properly scrutinized while petitioner-company is found to be eligible in terms of work certificate enclosed along with the tender application. As indicated supra, the authorities have proceeded to disqualify on the ground that petitioner-company does not fulfill the prescribed criteria. The document furnished by the petitioner-company are not properly scrutinized while petitioner-company is found to be eligible in terms of work certificate enclosed along with the tender application. As indicated supra, the authorities have proceeded to disqualify on the ground that petitioner-company does not fulfill the prescribed criteria. (4) While petitioner was required to furnish the details of works done in preceding 10 financial years and the requirement was only that in any one of the financial year, value of the estimated work should not be less than Rs.7,20,37,796/-, the petitioner-company is found to have done work not less than Rs.7 Crores on atleast 4 occasions which is indicated supra. The authorities with a malafide intent have quoted lowest value of the project done by the petitioner for the year 2021-22 which is Rs.58 lakhs. While in the preceding years, atleast on 4 occasions, the estimated value of the project is in fact found to be more than Rs.14 Crores. (5) The quantity in item No.4 in tender No.92 'reaming of porous drain holes', requires minimum quantity of 1311.24 RMT. The authorities have quoted 699.19 RMT, while petitioner's documents no where has quoted this figure. The respondents have failed to offer an explanation from where they have quoted this figure. Be that as it may, the petitioner has done the work of reaming of porous drain holes and atleast on two occasions is found to have done the above said work for quantity much above than the prescribed quantity. (6) One more serious infraction which is found in evaluating the technical bid is that petitioner-company had written a letter on 16.01.2023 to the authority explaining the alleged defect. This letter is in fact submitted before evaluation which is done on 17.01.2023. The explanation is not taken into consideration while rejecting the bid. (7) The work done certificate enclosed by the petitioner- company is arbitrarily rejected by not properly evaluating the same. Though the executed project is referred to as pointing work, at column No.1, the petitioner has elaborately indicated that it has undertaken project of rehabilitation and improvement of 100 years old Krishnaraja Sagara Dam. (7) The work done certificate enclosed by the petitioner- company is arbitrarily rejected by not properly evaluating the same. Though the executed project is referred to as pointing work, at column No.1, the petitioner has elaborately indicated that it has undertaken project of rehabilitation and improvement of 100 years old Krishnaraja Sagara Dam. By conducting detailed investigation, carrying out treatment to upstream face by pointing with UV resistant and anti-shrink materials like cements using crystalline technology (ct) or poly ironite ceramic cementitious (picc) or equivalent materials (where required) conforming to bis/en-1504-3, class r4(2014) standard, steel fiber reinforced shotcrete above in view of severe splashing/impact of water, extraction of cores, videography of bore holes and water loss testing as directed, dam body grouting (where ever required) to arrest the seepage and to improve the structural strength of dam. Therefore, the authorities have selectively picked up the nature of work indicated in column-IV which is referred as pointing work without taking cognizance of the details furnished in column-I which in fact relates to projects relating to maintenance of dam. (8) If application for tender No.92 was furnished by the petitioner-company on 02.01.2023, the scrutiny of petitioner's application based on evaluation report dated 30.11.2022 also demonstrates arbitrariness and malafides and therefore, rejection of technical bid based on erroneous reasons is liable to be set aside by this Court. (9) One more significant detail which is found to be compelling and this Court is bound to take cognizance is that petitioner-company is already awarded the maintenance of left flank of the same dam. If petitioner-company is eligible and competent and if contract is already awarded for maintenance of Tungabhadra Dam left flank and if the document annexed along with the application after due scrutiny fulfills the criteria, it is quite difficult to accept the evaluation done by the technical bid of respondent No.1-Board insofar as right flank of same dam is concerned. The petitioner-company has commenced with the project. The Chief Engineer of KNNL has awarded the tender insofar as relating to left flank of the same dam and is also one of the official of the committee of right flank. This relevant aspect would also create a doubt in the manner in which tender evaluation and scrutiny is done by the respondent No.1-Board.” 8. The Chief Engineer of KNNL has awarded the tender insofar as relating to left flank of the same dam and is also one of the official of the committee of right flank. This relevant aspect would also create a doubt in the manner in which tender evaluation and scrutiny is done by the respondent No.1-Board.” 8. Based on the aforementioned findings, the following order has been passed : “ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's technical bid in respect of tender Nos.92/2022-23 and 93/2022-23 vide Annexures-L and M respectively are hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 18.01.2023 awarding tender in favour of respondent No.3 vide Annexure-S is quashed; (iii) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall re-do the entire tender process in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made by this Court supra; (iv) The pending interlocutory application, if any, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.” 9. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order, the present writ appeals have been filed. 10. The works awarded by way of the tenders which is the subject matter of the writ appeals pertains to repair of Tungabhadra Dam right flank. The contract is awarded by an authority which is a State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The contract is one of commercial in nature and work to be carried out is of public importance with time being the essence. The nature of work involves technical aspects which can be evaluated by qualified competent persons and the Court cannot substitute its wisdom with that of the qualified Engineers competent to evaluate or execute the work. The judicial review of the tender process similar to the one in the present case is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides in the procedure. The purpose is to check whether the choice or decision is made lawfully and not to check whether choice or decision is sound. While Courts decide these disputes, principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. The Courts will not interfere in exercise of its powers of judicial review, even if a procedural abrasion or error in assessment to a tenderer is made out. While Courts decide these disputes, principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. The Courts will not interfere in exercise of its powers of judicial review, even if a procedural abrasion or error in assessment to a tenderer is made out. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 , a Court before interfering in a tender or contractual matter in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose itself the following questions, (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone, or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say that “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached. 11. If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph No.22 of the aforementioned Judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has ruled as under : “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special c features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” 12. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BTL EPC Ltd., vs. Macawber Beekay Pvt. Ltd. and Others, Civil Appeal No.5968/2023 in paragraph Nos.35 and 36 has held as under : “35. It is settled law that in contracts involving complex technical issues, the Court should exercise restraint in exercising the power of judicial review. Even if a party to the contract is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, and as such, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court, the Court should not readily interfere in commercial or contractual matters. This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment of this Court. Justice J B Pardiwala, speaking for the Bench in Tata Motors Limited v. BEST held: "48. This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment of this Court. Justice J B Pardiwala, speaking for the Bench in Tata Motors Limited v. BEST held: "48. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights Is duty- bound to Interfere when there Is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides, and bias However, this Court has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review In contractual or commercial matters This Court Is normally loathe to Interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or Irrationality is made out One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless Interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts Involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in Judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. The courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give fair play In the Joints’ to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract Courts must also not Interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer." 36. The Court ought to defer to the discretion of the tender inviting authority which, by reason of having authored the tender documents, is best placed to interpret their terms. The Courts ought not to sit as courts of appeal but review the decision-making process and examine arbitrariness or mala fides, if any.” 13. The Court ought to defer to the discretion of the tender inviting authority which, by reason of having authored the tender documents, is best placed to interpret their terms. The Courts ought not to sit as courts of appeal but review the decision-making process and examine arbitrariness or mala fides, if any.” 13. The case of respondents in the writ petition, who have preferred these appeals is that the work is of public importance, it is technical in nature, it has to be carried out at the earliest and no procedural irregularities have been made by respondents No.1 and 2 while awarding the contract in favour of respondent No.3 and the learned Single Judge in the impugned order analysed the pre qualifications required by a bidder and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner in the writ petition has the necessary competence while the respondent No.3 does not possess the same and has erroneously set aside the contract awarded in favour of respondent No.3. 14. Per Contra, the petitioner in the writ petition justifies the impugned order and prays that the appeals be dismissed. 15. Perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, reveals that he analysed the technical specifications and he was swayed by the fact that petitioner had carried out certain repair works on the left flank of the Dam and has set aside the contract awarded in favour of respondent No.3. 16. The Advocate for the petitioner further submitted that subsequent to filing of documents by all the bidders, the petitioner obtained certain documents through RTI, which pertains to respondent No.3 and submitted to respondents No.1 and 2, which falsifies the claim of the 3rd respondent insofar as it relates to his eligibility to bid. 17. As already mentioned above, the work pertains to repair of a portion of the Dam. This Court is not competent to rule as to the technical specifications required for the same or evaluate the technical bids. It is best left to the authority which has called the tenders. 17. As already mentioned above, the work pertains to repair of a portion of the Dam. This Court is not competent to rule as to the technical specifications required for the same or evaluate the technical bids. It is best left to the authority which has called the tenders. However as the learned Single Judge has evaluated the technical qualifications in his Judgement, this Court deemed it fit to direct the 2nd respondent, who is the Superintending Engineer of respondent No.1 to again file an affidavit by evaluating the technical qualifications of petitioner as well as respondent No.3 and state as to who is qualified to take up the work. He had filed an affidavit dated 20.03.2023, wherein he has analysed the documents submitted by the competent bidders and has with reasons stated that petitioner does not satisfy all the conditions and respondent No.3 satisfies the conditions. 18. The findings of respondent No.2-Superintending Engineer, is disputed by the petitioner and it is again urged that he has not considered the fact that the documents submitted by respondent No.3 are false. It is also submitted that petitioner has made complaints against certain officers of Respondent No.1 to higher authorities. 19. As already stated above, this Court cannot evaluate the technical qualification of the bidders. It has to base its decision upon the opinion given by experts and respondent No.2 in the present case is an expert in that field. If the petitioner is of the opinion that the contract has been wrongly awarded in favour of respondent No.3 and it should have been actually awarded for the petitioner and that petitioner has suffered injuries because of it, the remedy open for the petitioner is to file a civil suit and claim damages. It is not appropriate for this Court to interfere in the tender process by invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order does not state what are the mala fides based on which the decision made is erroneous, but on the contrary has come to the conclusion that there is bias and mala fides on the part of respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3 and the said conclusion is arrived at, based on evaluating the technical qualifications of competing bidders. It in our opinion is not appropriate and the learned Single Judge ought not to have indulged in such an exercise of evaluating the pre qualifications of the bidders. 21. For the aforementioned reasons, writ appeals are hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.100625/2023 is hereby set aside reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court or such other forum in the manner known to law to redress his grievance, if any. 22. It is hereby clarified that this judgment will not come in the way of authorities initiating any inquiry against any erring official of respondent No.1, if there is any.