Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.

The judgment dated 27.10.2016 passed in W.P.(C) No.27142 of 2016 is challenged in this appeal by the 1st respondent therein.

The said writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking to quash the stipulation in Ext.P8 tender notification that a tenderer should own minimum of 30 trucks manufactured on or after July 2006 having goods carriage permit for carrying un-hazardous goods. Certain other reliefs were also sought for.

The learned Single Judge having found that there is no justification in imposing such a condition in the tender notification, set aside the said condition incorporated in Ext.P8 tender notification. The learned Single Judge has concluded that such a clause found in the tender notification is illegal and arbitrary.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the records.

3. The writ petitioner/1st respondent herein is aggrieved by the following clause in Ext.P8 tender notification dated 22.7.2016 :-

".......... The tenderer should own a minimum of 30 (Thirty) trucks (Backhoe loaders/ Tankers/Tippers/LPG Gas Cylinder Carriers/JCBs/Hydraulic excavators/Container trailers and carriers without platform are not permitted) of at-least 9 MT capacity manufactured on or after July 2006, having valid goods carrier permit for carrying all kinds of unhazardous goods in their own name in Kerala as on 21.07.2016. The trucks should be registered in Kerala. The price bid should contain the rate quoted in the format."

According to the writ petitioner, there is no rationale behind stipulating the aforementioned condition in the tender notification, having regard to the nature of work to be carried on by the successful tenderers, if the work is allotted in their favour.

4. The appellant is a Government of Kerala undertaking. In order to transport finished products (cattle feed) from their plants to the southern and northern regions of Kerala State and parts of other States, they invited tenders from competent and experienced transport contractors with sound financial capacity. Certain other clauses were inserted in the tender notification, of which, we are not concerned.

The question to be decided is as to whether the aforementioned condition stipulated in the tender notification needs to be interfered or not while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The law is so well settled that the terms of the invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny as the same falls within the realm of contract. The Government or the authorities must have a free hand in settling the terms of the tender. The court is not expected to consider itself as an expert to substitute the commercial wisdom of the tender inviting authority with its own. The authority should have reasonable play in its joints. The court would interfere with the administrative policy decision only if it is arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide or actuated by bias. The courts are not to substitute its own terms in the tender on the opinion that some other terms in the tender would have been fair, wiser or logical. The wisdom or the sagacity of the authority in imposing the conditions is not liable to be interfered with in a writ proceedings unless it is shown that the condition is arbitrary or discriminatory. The terms of the notice inviting tender are not open for judicial review unless they offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The condition in the tender notice under challenge in this writ petition specifies certain pre qualifications in respect of eligibility. The authority in its commercial wisdom felt it appropriate to include such a condition. It would not be open for this Court to sit in judgment over the incorporation of such a condition. Consequent on the inclusion of the condition relating to qualification, certainly, the writ petitioner as well as many others are bound to be left out of consideration. However, in the business interest of the authority, it