JUDGMENT : N.NAGARESH, J. Petitioner, who is a C Class Contractor enlisted under the Chief Engineer, Southern Naval Command, Pune, is before this Court seeking to quash Exts.P9 and P11 and to declare that the petitioner is eligible to submit his bid in response to Ext.P6 re-tender issued pursuant to Ext.P1. 2. The petitioner states that the 1 st respondent-Chief Engineer (Naval Works, Kochi) invited tender for “Completion of incomplete works for setting up single offices accommodation as a part augmentation of infrastructure and facilities at INA, Ezhimala (Phase-II)” as per Ext.P1 notice of tender. As the estimated cost of work is Rs.6,10,00,000/-, only Contractors having A Class and above registration were eligible to bid. As INA, Ezhimala is a remote station, Contractors one/two Class below the eligible Class were also permitted to bid the tender as per Ext.P1. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 bid. When technical bid was opened, only two participants were found qualified. Price bid could not be opened due to administrative reasons. Subsequently, the tender was cancelled and Ext.P6 re-tender notification was issued. 3. The petitioner again submitted Ext.P7 bid. There were more bids this time. The 1 st respondent, as per Ext.P9, rejected the petitioner's bid on the ground that number of enlisted Contractors of eligible Class exceeds 7. The petitioner states that Ext.P9 rejection is liable to be quashed. The bid of a Contractor having MSME registration is liable to be considered. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P10 appeal before the 2 nd respondent-Chief Engineer. The 2 nd respondent rejected the appeal as per Ext.P11. The petitioner states that Exts.P9 and P11 are liable to be set aside. 4. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the number of bids came responding to the second call followed by Ext.P1 is fake. Without considering the number of bids, the petitioner's bid is also liable to be considered. Treating Ext.P6 re-tender as continuation of the first call pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner's bid ought to have been accepted. The act of respondents in revoking the tender unilaterally is illegal and without bona fide. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in M.K. Enterprises, Patna v. State of Bihar [2023 KHC OnLine 4139] and argued that not providing opportunity to the petitioner before cancellation of bid is violative of principles of natural justice. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Patna High Court in M.K. Enterprises, Patna v. State of Bihar [2023 KHC OnLine 4139] and argued that not providing opportunity to the petitioner before cancellation of bid is violative of principles of natural justice. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in G.B. Chaudhuri Holdings Private Limited (M/s.) v. Food Corporation of India and another [2019 KHC 4002], the counsel for the petitioner argued that cancellation process of first tender is vitiated by lack of transparency and fairness. 5. Counsel for the 3 rd respondent entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The 3 rd respondent submitted that only Contractors enlisted with MES in Class A and above are eligible to bid the work in question. As per Note 1 of Ext.P1 NIT, in case after opening the Cover 1, the number of MES enlisted Contractors of eligible Class as well as unenlisted Contractors is less than 7, then applications of MES Contractors one/two Class below the eligible Class shall also be considered. 6. Since there were 11 bidders who participated in the tender and 8 of them are enlisted in Class A and above, bidders below the Class A are ineligible to participate. The counsel for the 3 rd respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Afcons Infrastructure Limited v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another [ (2016) 16 SCC 818 ] and argued that unless the threshold of malafides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity exists, constitutional courts shall not interfere in the decision making process or the decision of the authorities. 7. Respondents 1 and 2 also filed counter affidavit. In respect of the first bid, there were two Firms eligible for consideration. After opening the technical bid but before opening the price bid, the defaulted Contractor filed a writ petition before this Court against cancellation of the contract. In W.P.(C) No.27285/2023, this Court passed an interim order directing to maintain status quo. In the meanwhile, one of the bidders intimated that they were not in a position to extend the validity of bid. In such circumstances, re-tender was resorted to. 8. Thereafter, the tender was republished on 05.02.2024. The Technical bid (Cover 1) was opened. Eleven bidders had submitted their bids. In the meanwhile, one of the bidders intimated that they were not in a position to extend the validity of bid. In such circumstances, re-tender was resorted to. 8. Thereafter, the tender was republished on 05.02.2024. The Technical bid (Cover 1) was opened. Eleven bidders had submitted their bids. More than 7 Class A bidders were found qualified to make the bid. Therefore, the bids of one/two Class below enlisted Contractors were not considered. The bid of the petitioner was therefore not entertained. In the facts and circumstances, the allegations made in the writ petition are wrong and unfounded. The petitioner is not entitled to any reliefs, urged the 1 st respondent. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent. 10. The petitioner responded to Ext.P1 notice of tender. Clause 8 of Appendix A to Ext.P1 mandated that Contractor shall be listed with MES in Class A and above. Note 1 below the Appendix stated that in case after opening of Cover 1, the number of MES enlisted Contractors of eligible Class as well as unlisted Contractors, if any, fulfilling the other eligibility criteria given in NIT is less than 7, applications in respect of MES Contractors one/two Class below the eligible Class shall also be considered subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria given in the NIT. 11. In response to Ext.P1, only two persons submitted bids. As there were less than 7 Class A Contractors who bid, the bid of the petitioner could have been considered. However, a defaulted Contractor filed W.P.(C) No.27285/2023 before this Court and this Court passed an interim order and directed to maintain status quo on risk and cost tender. Therefore, the respondents could not open the price bid. The two bidders were requested for extension of validity of their offer. Though the petitioner submitted willingness, the other bidder did not agree to extend the validity of the bid. Consequently, there remained only one bid. 12. In the circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 re-published the tender. In the subsequent tender, there were 11 bidders. Out of the 11 bidders, only 3 bidders were found ineligible. As there were 7 bidders of the eligible Class A, the petitioner's bid could not have been considered as the petitioner is only a Class-C Contractor. 12. In the circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 re-published the tender. In the subsequent tender, there were 11 bidders. Out of the 11 bidders, only 3 bidders were found ineligible. As there were 7 bidders of the eligible Class A, the petitioner's bid could not have been considered as the petitioner is only a Class-C Contractor. It is in such circumstances that respondents 1 and 2 did not consider the bid of the petitioner. 13. In the afore circumstances, I do not find any illegality in Exts.P9 or P11. Judicial review in the matter of tenders is confined to issues as to whether any illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety committed by the decision making authority and to prevent arbitrariness and favouritism. 14. The rejection of the petitioner's tender as per Ext.P9 is because he failed to produce document to establish eligibility under Class A. As there were 8 Class A Contractors, who submitted bids, the petitioner's bid could not have been entertained. The writ court is not a court of appeal and it cannot review the decision of the tendering authority, but only the decision making process. This Court cannot declare the petitioner as a person qualified, when the tendering authority found him ineligible. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is hence dismissed.