( 1 ) THE moment the state desires to enter into contractual relationship in the matter of its activities it is beset with various hurdles one such being the opposition of prospective business contenders. The state, like any other, is entitled to arrange its activities in a legitimate and reasonable manner. Various judgments have been rendered by the apex court and high courts laying down the principles to be followed by the state in the matter of bestowing any of its largess in favour of any person. In essence it discloses that it cannot show undue preference to any and it shall treat all competing parties equally giving them equal opportunity to compete and secure the contract. The courts have ruled that the ultimate decision is that of the discretion of the state and the power of judicial review do not confer the discretion on the court to sit as an appellate authority reviewing that decision. This limitation is of course, subject to the state satisfying the requirement that it has adopted the correct decision making process and that the authority has kept in mind correct parameters while forming its conclusion and has eschewed in that process irrelevant considerations. In a given case if the state satisfies these considerations the court cannot step in and conduct any judicial autopsy.

( 2 ) THIS is the considerations that should prevail while examining various contentions urged in the instant case. The 1st respondent who is a state, in exercise of its power formulated certain project for the purpose of supply of water to the public at large. This project was referred to as w (3b) project, to wit, to erect a clear water pumping station using mechanical and electrical equipment. In this behalf it invited tenders from intending tenderers to set up the project. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 were the competitors.

( 3 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it has to be noted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, there has been a change of circumstances, in that, the tender now stands awarded to the 4th respondent in consortium with the 5th respondent and the challenge relates to this awards. as such, other facts pleaded with respect to the merits and demerits of the other claimants vis-a-vis, which has consumed considerable part of the voluminous pleading can be conveniently omitted.

( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case as can be culled out from the petition is as follows: with reference to the project referred to in the writ petition, tenders were invited by the first respondent. It is seen from the tender document that there are two stages for consideration of tenders. The first stage being the prequalification bid which relates to the evaluation of the technical aspect of the tenders. Second stage is the financial bid. Certain paradigms are set in the tender document itself with respect to the consideration of two stages. The petitioner alleges the following circumstance to disqualify respondent 3, on the one hand and respondents 4 and 5 on the other. As far as the 3rd respondent is concerned the defects pointed out are the following: (i) that in the tender form they did not disclose the pending litigation; (ii) it did not disclose the details regarding the pending electrical work; (iii) the claim regarding the efficiency of the pump was incorrect. consideration of these disqualifications need not detain us inasmuch as, the 3rd respondent is not the tenderer to whom tender has been awarded. With respect to the consortium of respondents 4 and 5 are concerned, it was pointed out as under: (i) that the partner to submit tender bid along with 4th respondent was abs pumps international ab, and that joint venture has been changed to joining the 5th respondent. This change has taken place after the final prequalification evaluation stage, which is forbidden, under the tender condition. (ii) that the tender submitted by the 4th respondent was belated. (iii) that the tender did not include certain vital