( 1 ) ARBITRARY ? Is it arbitrary (on the part of State Govern- ment) to refuse to award a rupees 37 crore contract in respect of a work (Rock Fill Dams in the Head Reach of Narmada Project Main Canal) which will have tremendous impact on the life and well-being of the people of the entire State nay of the entire Nation to the lowest bidder the appellant ? And has it acted arbitrarily in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in awarding it in preference to the appellant to the respondent No. 6 Company which indubitably has (1) a vast experience of executing large contracts not only in India but in Iraq (2) vast organization and (3) vast resources as compared to the appellant ? These are the questions raised by the appellant; whose petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying that (1) the contract granted to the respondent No. 6 Company be set aside and (2) it be granted to the appellant has been rejected summarily. And in order to answer these questions following further questions will have to be posed. (1) What matters in the life of a Nation saving of a couple of corers of rupees or (i) satisfactory (ii) successful and (iii) timely execution of a work of National importance and significance ? (2) Does the Court exercise appellate jurisdiction against an admini- strative decision of the executive to grant a contract and take upon itself the responsibility to make contracts itself ? In other words will the Court run the administration for the executive ? How far can the Court probe when there is no charge of malafides or oblique motive ?the grievance of the appellant Society a State level Corporation is that it bid was the lowest and yet the contract has been entrusted to respondent No. 6 Company. It transpires from the affidavits that the contract was entrusted to respondent No. 6 Company for a sum of Rs. 37 10 70 561 though the appellant was prepared to execute the work for about Rs. 6 crores less. Counsel for the appellant has declared that the decision to award the contract to respondent No. 6 Company is not being challenged on the ground of mala fides but is being challenged only on the ground that it is arbitrary. It is argued that having regard to the fact that the appellant Society has executed numerous works satisfactorily in the past the contract should have been awarded to the appellant Society particularly having regard to the fact that the acceptance of its bid would have resulted in a saving of about Rs. 6 crores. The jurisdiction of this Court in a matter of this nature is understandably circumscribed. This Court will not sit in appeal against the administrative decision to award or not to award a contract and substitute its own decision for the decision taken by the State Government. The decision to award contract to respondent No. 6 Company can be quashed and set aside provided and only provided it is established that the decision is arbitrary and discriminatory so as to attract Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are not prepared to say that merely because the lowest bid is not accepted the decision is rendered arbitrary. We are also not prepared to say that a saving of about Rs. 6 crores is a consideration which should have weighed with the State Government. In fact it would appear that completion of the work in an efficient and satisfactory manner at the earliest and within the stipulated time limit is of much greater importance having regard to the nature of the work and its impact on the National economy not to speak of the economy of the State. It is a part of the work related to the Narmada Project. It is a very important link in the chain of works to be executed in connection with the main work It is no doubt true that global tenders for the main work have yet to be invited. It however stands to reason that meanwhile works which are capable of being completed are executed. The Nation can in afford to waste a moment of national time in the executio