ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. The specific case of Petitioners is that Respondent No.1 Telangana State Trade Promotion Corporation Limited is a Government of Telangana undertaking and a State instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, established with the object of promoting trade, commerce and industry, including creation and operation of logistics and trade promotional infrastructure such as Container Freight Stations, Inland Container Depots, Cold Storage Plants and Warehouses. Aggrieved by the action of Respondent No.1 Corporation in acting contrary to the terms and conditions of the Request for Proposal and the Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023, and in not entering into or executing the Operation and Management Contract in their favour, despite having been declared as successful bidders, petitioners are before this Court. Such conduct of Respondent No.1 is assailed as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 1.1. Petitioners state that in furtherance of its mandate, Respondent No.1 Corporation established a Container Freight Station, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Project’, at Mamidipally, Hyderabad, and invited proposals for operating, marketing, developing and maintaining the said facility. They issued a Request for Proposal prescribing the bidding process and schedule for selection of an Operation and Management Operator for the Container Freight Station. It was specifically stipulated therein that the selected bidder would be required to submit a Detailed Business Plan within four weeks of acceptance of the Letter of Award. The Request for Proposal provided that the selected bidder would be responsible for operating, maintaining and marketing the facility for a concession period of 30 years, in accordance with the provisions of the Operation and Management Contract proposed to be entered into between contractor and Respondent No.1 Corporation. 1.2. In response to the Request for Proposal floated by Respondent No.1 Corporation, Petitioner No.1 participated in the bidding process and submitted its technical bid on 26.09.2022. The said technical bid was evaluated by Respondent No.1 and Petitioner No.1 was declared technically qualified, thereby entitling it to participate in the financial bid process. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1 submitted its financial bid on 27.09.2022. Subsequent to negotiations conducted by Respondent No.1 Corporation, Petitioner No.1 submitted a revised financial bid along with a Preliminary Business Plan on 27.03.2023. They were placed before the Board of Respondent No.1 Corporation and were accepted in the 33rd meeting of the Board held on 25.04.2023. Thereafter, Petitioner No.1 submitted its financial bid on 27.09.2022. Subsequent to negotiations conducted by Respondent No.1 Corporation, Petitioner No.1 submitted a revised financial bid along with a Preliminary Business Plan on 27.03.2023. They were placed before the Board of Respondent No.1 Corporation and were accepted in the 33rd meeting of the Board held on 25.04.2023. Pursuant to the said acceptance, the Operation and Management contract of the Container Freight Station at Mamidipally was awarded to Petitioners, subject to certain conditions. 1.3. Consequent thereto, Respondent No.1 Corporation issued Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023 in favour of the Petitioners, awarding the Operation and Management of the Container Freight Station at Mamidipally, near Rajiv Gandhi International Airport. By virtue of the said Letter of Award, Petitioner No.1 emerged as the successful bidder. It is asserted that Respondent No.1 Corporation stipulated, as prerequisites for execution of the Operation and Management Contract, that Petitioners should incorporate a Special Purpose Vehicle jointly with M/s Shift Logistics, the consortium member, and furnish a Performance Bank Guarantee. In furtherance of the Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023, Petitioners addressed e mail dated 24.05.2023 accepting the selection as successful bidder. It is specifically stated that upon noticing that the Letter of Award restricted the operation of the facility solely as a Container Freight Station, which restriction was contrary to the terms of the Request for Proposal, Petitioners requested amendment of the Letter of Award. The Request for Proposal permitted use of the facility for multiple purposes, including as an Air Freight Station, Logistics Facility, Bonded Warehouse or domestic cargo, and that the Petitioners had submitted their bid on that basis. 1.4. Petitioners state that the request made vide e mail dated 24.05.2023 was not a rejection of the Letter of Award, but a request to bring the Letter of Award in conformity with the tender guidelines and the Request for Proposal. In furtherance of acceptance of Letter of Award and in compliance with the prerequisites for entering into the Operation and Management Contract, Petitioners incorporated a Special Purpose Vehicle under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013, represented by Petitioner No.3. Immediately upon incorporation of Special Purpose Vehicle, Petitioners intimated Respondent No.1 Corporation of the same and requested confirmation regarding the quantum and tenure of Performance Bank Guarantee required to be furnished. 1.5. Immediately upon incorporation of Special Purpose Vehicle, Petitioners intimated Respondent No.1 Corporation of the same and requested confirmation regarding the quantum and tenure of Performance Bank Guarantee required to be furnished. 1.5. Respondent No.1 Corporation, in response thereto, intimated that a Performance Bank Guarantee equivalent to six months' concession fee, as stipulated in the Request for Proposal, was required to be furnished. Acting in compliance with the said requirement, Petitioners furnished a Performance Security for Rs.19,50,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) vide Bank Guarantee No.6305NDLG00006124 dated 20.09.2023 issued by ICICI Bank. It is reiterated that incorporation of Special Purpose Vehicle and submission of Performance Bank Guarantee constituted full and complete compliance with the prerequisites stipulated by Respondent No.1 for execution of Operation and Management Contract. Upon such compliance and intimation, Petitioners awaited execution of the agreement incorporating the proposed amendments. It is alleged that despite repeated correspondences and representations addressed by Petitioners seeking performance of obligations under the Request for Proposal and the Letter of Award, Respondent No.1 failed to take any steps towards execution of Operation and Management Contract, thereby committing breach of its undertaking. 1.6. It is contended that Respondent No.1, having declared Petitioners as successful bidders and having issued Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023, failed to adhere to the terms thereof and failed to perform its obligations even after Petitioners had complied with all stipulated conditions. Such actions are assailed as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Petitioners assert that they repeatedly expressed their willingness and readiness to mobilise resources and commence operations, particularly after fulfilling all conditions under the Letter of Award, but Respondent No.1 failed to issue any communication or take any action. Such inaction is asserted to be arbitrary and devoid of reason. It is further contended that the continued inaction of Respondent No.1 in adhering to the terms of Request for Proposal and in performing its obligations, particularly with regard to execution of the Operation and Management Contract after submission of the Detailed Business Plan, smacks of mala fides on the part of the authorities. 1.7. Petitioners assert that it is settled law that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to enforce contractual obligations of the State or its instrumentalities. 1.7. Petitioners assert that it is settled law that a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable to enforce contractual obligations of the State or its instrumentalities. Due to the arbitrary action of Respondent No.1, Petitioners lost their valuable right to operate and manage the facility for the concession period of 30 years. Respondent No.1, being a State instrumentality under Article 12, has breached a solemn undertaking by not complying with the terms of the Letter of Award and by not coming forward to execute the Operation and Management Contract, thereby causing serious prejudice to Petitioners who had acted upon the representations and complied with all conditions. The actions of Respondent No 1 in violating the terms of the Letter of Award and in failing to execute the Operation and Management Contract, which sets forth the detailed terms and obligations for operation of the facility, without any communication, are unfair, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 1.8. It is asserted that abandonment of bid process after awarding contract to the successful bidder is unfounded, unsupported by law and in excess of statutory authority. Respondent No.1, being a State under Article 12, is under constitutional obligation to act fairly even in contractual matters. Respondent No.1, being a Government undertaking, is bound to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14 even in contracts with private entities, and that its actions are subject to standards of reasonableness, fairness and public interest. It is asserted that due to non-performance of contractual obligations, particularly after execution of Operation and Management Contract, handing over of EXIM warehouse, which is an integral and inseparable part of the Container Freight Station facility, has also been delayed. It is reiterated that State entities are not immune from satisfying the tests laid down under Article 14 of the Constitution and that arbitrary actions of such entities are always amenable to judicial review. 2. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter opposing the Writ Petition at the threshold, on the maintainability. It is specifically contended that Writ Petition seeks to agitate a purely commercial and private dispute under Article 226 of the Constitution, which does not arise out of any concluded contract. It is asserted that the relief sought pertains to enforcement of alleged contractual obligations and in the absence of a concluded and executed contract, such disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It is asserted that the relief sought pertains to enforcement of alleged contractual obligations and in the absence of a concluded and executed contract, such disputes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. In this regard, reliance is placed on the settled principle that Courts must exercise restraint in interfering in contractual and commercial matters involving State instrumentalities, unless arbitrariness, mala fides or perversity is clearly established. 2.1. It is contended that issuance of Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023 does not, by itself, result in a concluded contract. Contractual obligations arise only upon execution of Operation and Management Contract, which alone sets out the detailed rights, duties and obligations of the parties. It is asserted that Petitioners have misconceived the legal effect of the Letter of Award and mere acceptance of a bid or issuance of a Letter of Award cannot fetter the executive or administrative discretion of the State to revisit or withdraw from the process in public interest, a principle recognised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pallava Granite Industries (India) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India , (2007) 15 SCC 30 2.2. It is stated, Respondent No.1 is the absolute owner of the Container Freight Station at Mamidipally, Ranga Reddy District, and that in September, 2022, it issued a Request for Proposal for selection of an Operation and Management Operator for the said facility. It is admitted that Petitioner No.1, Readers Stores India Private Limited, submitted its technical bid on 26.09.2022, qualified in the technical evaluation, and thereafter, submitted its financial bid, which was opened on 27.09.2022. Pursuant to negotiations, petitioners submitted a revised financial bid on 27.03.2023 which was placed before the Board of Respondent No.1 and was accepted in the 33rd Board Meeting held on 25.04.2023. Based on the approval accorded by the Board, the General Manager (Assets & Logistics) issued a Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023 to petitioner No.1 declaring it as the successful bidder. The Letter of Award expressly incorporated specific conditions governing the proposed engagement, which were binding and non-negotiable unless approved by the competent authority. 2.3. Based on the approval accorded by the Board, the General Manager (Assets & Logistics) issued a Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023 to petitioner No.1 declaring it as the successful bidder. The Letter of Award expressly incorporated specific conditions governing the proposed engagement, which were binding and non-negotiable unless approved by the competent authority. 2.3. It is contended that the conditions stipulated in the Letter of Award included, inter alia, that the facility shall be operated only as a Container Freight Station and for CFS- related logistics activities; that an investment of Rs.25 Crores, as proposed in the Preliminary Business Plan of petitioner No.1 shall be made within five years from the date of awarding Operation and Management Contract; audited statements of investment shall be submitted every year, failing which the contract would be liable to termination; that exit conditions of Operation and Management Operator during the contract period shall be clearly provided for, including forfeiture of investments in the event of voluntary exit; that no other commercial activity shall be permitted in the premises; and that the CFS property shall not be mortgaged for raising any loans or advances from financial institutions or banks. 2.4. Respondent No.1 contends that subsequent to issuance of Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023, Readers Stores India Private Limited, by e mail dated 24.05.2023, rejected the Letter of Award in its original form, stating that the same was "not financially viable", and sought amendments to the conditions imposed therein. According to Respondent No.1, such communication clearly indicated that Petitioners were unwilling to proceed on the terms offered under the Letter of Award. Petitioners sought amendments by invoking Clause 1.1.12 of the Request for Proposal, which permits the selected bidder, subject to prior written permission of Respondent No.1 Corporation and the Customs authorities and compliance with applicable regulations, to use the facility as an Air Freight Station, Logistics Facility or Bonded Warehouse. The Board of Respondent No.1 Corporation, in its 34th Board Meeting held on 11.08.2023, accommodated the request of Petitioners and approved amendment of the usage conditions, thereby permitting use of the CFS facility as a Container Freight Station, Air Freight Station, Logistics Facility and Bonded Warehouse, demonstrating fairness and flexibility on the part of the Respondent Corporation. 2.5. Despite such accommodation, it is asserted that Petitioners continued to seek further amendments. 2.5. Despite such accommodation, it is asserted that Petitioners continued to seek further amendments. By e mail dated 14.07.2023, Petitioners sought modifications relating to conditions of usage, final investment amounts and commencement of moratorium being made conditional upon handover of 17,000 square feet of godown space. Further, by letter dated 21.08.2023, they sought payment of rent at prevailing market rates for use of godown by Respondent No.1 if the same was not vacated within six months from signing the Operation and Management Contract. It is further contended that by letter dated 19.09.2023, Petitioners sought yet another amendment, requesting that the moratorium should end only after handover of the EXIM godown from the seventh month, which request was reiterated by e mail dated 24.11.2023. Respondent No.1 submits that the Board, in its 36 th Board Meeting held on 30.12.2023, considered the aforesaid requests and accepted certain modifications. However, the Board consciously did not accept the request requiring Respondent No.1 to secure alternate godown space for storing paper products within six months of the moratorium period, or to hand over the EXIM warehouse unconditionally, or to pay market rent in the event of non-handover. 2.6. It is contended that under Clause 1.1.9 of the Request for Proposal, handover of godown space was expressly made conditional upon Respondent No.1 being able to find an alternate site for storage of its paper products division, without any stipulated timeframe, and that Petitioners were fully aware of this condition when they participated in the bidding process. Respondent No.1 further states that over the preceding three years, its trade volume had increased more than three-fold, necessitating continued use of the 17,000 square feet godown space for storage of its own goods. Respondent No.1 had sought allotment of land from TGIIC for construction of an alternative godown, but no positive approval had been received, and that operational constraints compelled Respondent No.1 to take private premises on rent, incurring expenditure of several lakhs of rupees per month. It is further contended that as per Clause 2.3.10 of the Request for Proposal, the selected bidder was required to incorporate a Special Purpose Vehicle within 30 days, and that the Operation and Management Contract could be executed only with such Special Purpose Vehicle. According to Respondent No.1, Readers Stores India Private Limited neither incorporated nor communicated incorporation of the Special Purpose Vehicle within the stipulated period. 2.7. According to Respondent No.1, Readers Stores India Private Limited neither incorporated nor communicated incorporation of the Special Purpose Vehicle within the stipulated period. 2.7. Respondent No.1 also relies on Clause 3.12.8 of the Request for Proposal, which mandates submission of a Performance Bank Guarantee equivalent to six months of the total annual concession fee at the time of signing of the Operation and Management Contract and renewal of the same one week prior to expiry. Performance Bank Guarantee furnished by Petitioners expired on 19.09.2024 and was not renewed, even prior to filing of Writ Petition on 29.11.2024, constituting a clear violation of the tender conditions. Performance Bank Guarantee is a mandatory prerequisite for execution of the Operation and Management Contract, and that mere furnishing or existence of a bank guarantee does not result in a concluded contract. In this regard, Respondent No.1 stated that Petitioners failed to satisfy essential pre-conditions under the tender. Despite the aforesaid deficiencies, Petitioners proceeded to file this Writ Petition. Respondent No.1 conducted tender process in a fair and transparent manner, accommodated Petitioners' requests to the extent permissible, and that any further modifications sought, which were unilateral and commercially untenable, were rightly rejected by the Board in its 36 th meeting. 2.8. It is further contended that as per Clause 1.1.14, Operation and Management Contract alone sets forth the detailed terms and conditions governing the services and obligations of the contractor, and that issuance of Request for Proposal or Letter of Award did not mature into enforceable contractual obligations. Such limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J oshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India , (2015) 7 SCC 728 and Tata Cellular v. Union of India , (1994) 6 SCC 651 . Respondent No.1 places reliance on Clause 2.7.1 of the Request for Proposal, which reserves to it the right to accept or reject any bid and to annul the bidding process and reject all bids at any stage, without assigning reasons and without incurring any liability. It is contended that such contractual discretion, when exercised in public interest, is immune from judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide, as held in Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited , (2010) 6 SCC 303 2.9. It is contended that such contractual discretion, when exercised in public interest, is immune from judicial interference unless shown to be arbitrary or mala fide, as held in Shimnit Utsch India Private Limited v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited , (2010) 6 SCC 303 2.9. It is submitted that the Board of Respondent No 1 Corporation, in its 39 th meeting held on 03.09.2024, after detailed deliberation, decided to drop the Request for Proposal and utilise the CFS premises for its own requirements, including the need for additional storage space due to increased business volumes and establishment of a notebooks conversion centre approved earlier in the 31 st Board Meeting held on 28.09.2022. Despite lapse of Performance Bank Guarantee on 19.09.2024 and delayed incorporation of Special Purpose Vehicle, Petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. Subsequently, pursuant to interim direction dated 10.12.2024, the matter was placed before the Board again. Respondent No.1 states that the Board, in its 40 th meeting held on 07.01.2025, considered the matter and decided to cancel the Request for Proposal floated in 2022, in accordance with the provisions of the Request for Proposal and law, on the ground that the entire CFS premises were required for its own use, including additional storage requirements, establishment of an Irradiation Plant under a Government of India scheme, establishment of an E-Commerce Export Hub under the Export Policy of the Government of India, and other activities consistent with the objectives of the Corporation. 2.10. It is further stated that the Board resolved that the decision should be communicated by way of a speaking order, and accordingly, the decision dated 07.01.2025 was communicated to Petitioners by letter dated 31.05.2025, which was delivered on 14.06.2025. The decision to cancel the tender was taken after due deliberation, in public interest, and without arbitrariness or mala fides. Judicial interference in such administrative and contractual decisions is impermissible in view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Silppi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India , which emphasise judicial restraint and "fair play in the joints" in contractual matters involving State instrumentalities. For all the aforesaid reasons, Respondent No.1 contends that Petitioners have no enforceable legal right to compel execution of the Operation and Management Contract. 3. For all the aforesaid reasons, Respondent No.1 contends that Petitioners have no enforceable legal right to compel execution of the Operation and Management Contract. 3. In the reply affidavit, Petitioners state that Petitioner No.3 is well acquainted with the facts of the case and is duly authorised to depose on behalf of other Petitioners. They deny, at the outset, the preliminary objection regarding maintainability and assert that Writ Petition does not pertain to a mere private commercial dispute. Petitioners categorically deny the assertion that e mail dated 24.05.2023 amounted to rejection of Letter of Award. Petitioners reiterated almost the same averments made in the Writ Petition. With regard to the interim order dated 10.12.2024, it is asserted that Respondent No.1 acted in utter disregard thereof. Instead of executing the Operation and Management Contract within the stipulated time, Respondent No.1 failed to comply, resulting in initiation of contempt proceedings in C.C. No.1041 of 2025, which are pending. Petitioners deny service of the alleged speaking order dated 31.05.2025 and submit that no such order was served upon them in accordance with law. Subsequent unilateral action taken during pendency of Writ Petition does not render the lis infructuous and remain subject to judicial scrutiny. Petitioners therefore, reiterate that unilateral cancellation of tender after issuance of Letter of Award is arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice 4. Heard Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of Respondents. 5. The material facts, which are not in dispute, are that Respondent No.1 issued a Request for Proposal in September, 2022 for selection of Operation and Management Operator for the Container Freight Station at Mamidipally; Petitioner No.1 participated in the bidding process, the revised financial bid submitted by Petitioner No.1 on 27.03.2023 was accepted by the Board of Respondent No.1 in its 33 rd meeting held on 25.04.2023; and that a Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023 was issued in favour of Petitioners, containing specific terms and conditions. 6. 6. The principal questions that arise for consideration before this Court are: (i) whether issuance of Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, resulted in a concluded and enforceable contract so as to confer a legal right on Petitioners to seek a mandamus compelling execution of Operation and Management Contract; and (ii) whether the subsequent decision of Respondent No.1 to cancel the tender process is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, warranting interference under Article 226. 7. A careful examination of the Request for Proposal and the Letter of Award shows that parties clearly contemplated execution of a formal Operation and Management Contract as a future event. Clause 1.1.14 of the Request for Proposal expressly provides that Operation and Management Contract would set forth the detailed terms and conditions governing the services and obligations of the contractor for operation of the facility. Letter of Award itself did not purport to embody all contractual terms, but expressly stipulated several conditions precedent, including incorporation of a Special Purpose Vehicle, submission and maintenance of a Performance Bank Guarantee, and compliance with other requirements, before execution of Operation and Management Contract. 8. The structure of the tender documents, read as a whole, leaves no manner of doubt that Letter of Award was an intermediate step in the tender process and not the final contract itself. Letter of Award was intended to signify selection of the successful bidder, subject to fulfilment of stipulated conditions and execution of the formal Operation and Management Contract, which alone was to govern the detailed rights and obligations of the parties. In the absence of such execution, the contractual relationship cannot be said to have attained finality. 9. The contemporaneous correspondence placed on record further reinforces this conclusion. After issuance of Letter of Award, Petitioners sought amendments to several conditions, including permitted usage of facility, moratorium period, investment timelines, and handover of godown and EXIM warehouse space. These requests were considered by the Board of Respondent No.1 in its 34 th meeting dated 11.08.2023 and its 36 th meeting dated 30.12.2023, and were partly accepted and partly rejected. The very fact that negotiations continued on material aspects of the proposed arrangement demonstrates that terms had not attained finality and that parties were still in the process of arriving at mutually acceptable conditions. 10. The very fact that negotiations continued on material aspects of the proposed arrangement demonstrates that terms had not attained finality and that parties were still in the process of arriving at mutually acceptable conditions. 10. The Court is unable to accept the contention of Petitioners that issuance of Letter of Award, by itself, resulted in a concluded contract. Acceptance of bid and issuance of Letter of Award, when read in the context of the tender conditions, cannot be equated with execution of a binding contract where the tender documents themselves contemplate a subsequent formal agreement. In such circumstances, the doctrine of concluded contract cannot be mechanically applied divorced from the express terms of the Request for Proposal. 11. Petitioners placed emphasis on the doctrine of ‘legitimate expectation’. While it is true that issuance of Letter of Award may give rise to an expectation that the process would culminate in execution of a contract, such expectation, by itself, does not crystallise into an enforceable legal right. ‘Legitimate expectation’ cannot override express contractual provisions reserving discretion to the tendering authority, nor can it compel the State to enter into a contract contrary to its assessment of public interest. It is also of significance that Clause 2.7.1 of the Request for Proposal expressly reserves to Respondent No.1 the right to accept or reject any bid and to annul the bidding process at any stage, without incurring any liability. Such a clause forms part of the tender conditions to which Petitioners voluntarily subscribed while participating in the bidding process. Having accepted these conditions, Petitioners cannot seek to exclude or neutralise the operation of Clause 2.7.1 after being declared successful bidders. 12. The record shows that the Board of Respondent No. 1, in its 39 th meeting held on 03.09.2024, took a conscious decision to drop the Request for Proposal and to utilise the CFS premises for its own requirements, including increased storage needs arising from enhanced business volumes and other proposed projects. Pursuant to the interim directions of this Court dated 10.12.2024, the matter was reconsidered by the Board, and in its 40 th meeting held on 07.01.2025, the Board reaffirmed its decision to cancel the tender process and resolved to communicate the same by a speaking order, which was thereafter issued. 13. Pursuant to the interim directions of this Court dated 10.12.2024, the matter was reconsidered by the Board, and in its 40 th meeting held on 07.01.2025, the Board reaffirmed its decision to cancel the tender process and resolved to communicate the same by a speaking order, which was thereafter issued. 13. The reasons recorded by the Board for cancellation of the tender relate to operational exigencies and utilisation of Respondent No.1's own infrastructure for its institutional objectives. This Court finds that such reasons cannot be characterised as extraneous, irrational or perverse. The decision was taken by the competent authority after deliberation and is traceable to considerations of public interest and administrative necessity. 14. The scope of judicial review in matters relating to contracts and tenders involving State instrumentalities is well- settled. This Court does not sit as an appellate authority over administrative decisions, nor can it substitute its own view for that of the tendering authority. Interference under Article 226 is warranted only when the decision-making process is shown to be vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides, bias, irrationality or violation of statutory provisions. Mere disagreement with the decision or assertion of commercial inconvenience does not justify judicial intervention. 15. In the present case, Petitioners have not been able to place any material before this Court to demonstrate that the decision of Respondent No.1 to cancel the tender process was actuated by mala fides or was intended to single out Petitioners for hostile treatment. The decision applies uniformly to the entire tender process and is not targeted at Petitioners alone. The contentions relating to incorporation of Special Purpose Vehicle and furnishing of Performance Bank Guarantee, though disputed by the parties, do not advance Petitioners' case to the extent of establishing a concluded contract. Even assuming that Petitioners complied with certain preconditions, such compliance cannot override the express requirement of execution of Operation and Management Contract as the final step in creation of enforceable contractual obligations. 16. The Court is also mindful of the submission regarding alleged non-compliance with the interim order dated 10.12.2024. The said order directed consideration of Petitioners' request in accordance with law. The material on record shows that the matter was placed before the Board and was considered, culminating in a reasoned decision. Whether such decision is agreeable to Petitioners is a different matter; however, mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not render the decision illegal or contemptuous. The said order directed consideration of Petitioners' request in accordance with law. The material on record shows that the matter was placed before the Board and was considered, culminating in a reasoned decision. Whether such decision is agreeable to Petitioners is a different matter; however, mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not render the decision illegal or contemptuous. 17. Viewed cumulatively, the dispute between the parties essentially arises out of an unfinalised contractual process, ongoing negotiations, and exercise of contractual discretion reserved under the tender conditions. Such a dispute falls predominantly within the realm of contractual and administrative decision-making and does not raise issues warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that Petitioners failed to establish any enforceable legal right flowing from Letter of Award dated 08.05.2023, or any arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of Article 14 in the decision of Respondent No.1 to cancel the tender process. Consequently, no case is made out for issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling execution of Operation and Management Contract. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court holds that Writ Petition is devoid of merit and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of any contractual, civil or other remedies that may be available to Petitioners in accordance with law, and all such remedies, if any, are left open to be pursued before the appropriate forum. No costs. 20. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.