JUDGMENT : M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, C.J. 1. Petitioner in this writ petition is questioning Clause 6.1.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 14.08.2024. The said clause states as under: “6.1.2. The Bidder must have atleast single ongoing project of providing paramedical manpower services in Government Healthcare Sectors of Jharkhand State and a single Work Order of value not less than Rs.15.00 crore (Fifteen Crore) for similar nature of works or 2 Nos. work order of value 10.00 Crore (Ten Crore) or 3 Nos. of work order of value 5.00 Crore (Five Crore) exclusive for Government Healthcare Sectors during last three years from the date of publication of this tender supported by documentary evidence (performance certificate/agreement/work order). Note: Similar nature of works means providing manpower service of Highly skilled and skilled Category to the Government Health Care Units only.” 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that restricting experience for making a bid only in respect of persons providing Paramedical Manpower Services in Government Healthcare Sectors in Jharkhand State is arbitrary, illegal and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, apart from being arbitrary and discriminatory. He contends that the petitioner has requisite work experience due to execution of similar nature of work in other organizations, but due to the impugned clause petitioner cannot participate in the NIT in question. 3. In Michigan Rubber (India) Limited v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and misuse of its statutory powers, interference by Courts is not warranted. In the said judgment, it was also observed that certain preconditions or qualifications for tenderers have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and the resources to successfully execute the work, and if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding the contract, interference by the Court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. This principle has been reiterated in several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the judgment in Airport Authority of India v. Centre for Aviation Policy, Safety & Research (CAPSR) and Others, 2022 SCC Online SC 1334, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Government and their undertakings must have a free hand in setting terms of the tender and only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, mala-fide or actuated by bias, the Court would interfere. It is further observed that Courts cannot interfere with the terms of the tender prescribed by the Government because they feel that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. 4. Having regard to the settled legal position, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in the instant case because we do not find the impugned clause in the NIT to be arbitrary or discriminatory. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.