Judicial review is not barred in contractual matters, and the State or its instrumentality cannot be relieved from its obligation to act fairly and justly on the pretext that the dispute falls within the domain of contractual obligations.

B.R. Arora, J.-This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 19-10-1995, passed by the learned single Judge, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant and held that the decision taken by the respondents is only on the administrative side and involves technicalities of the matter and no vested rights of the petitioner stand infringed by the action of the respondents.

2. Bids for contract of pre-qualification were invited by the Irrigation Department of the Government of Rajasthan for earth-work of main Earthen Dam from RD 355 to 595-M including pitching and rock toe and the construction of Head out-let sluice of Mewara Minor Irrigation Project constructed across Majam river about 35 kilometres from Dungarpur near Mewara village (district Dungarpur). The parties interested in the contract were asked to apply for pre-qualification in the manner set-out in the Tender form. It was, also, mentioned in the Tender Form that the tender will be issued subsequently only to those parties selected by the competent authority as having necessary qualification suitability to perform the contract(s) satisfactorily. The last date for submission of the pre-qualification tender documents was 7-10-1995 and 10-10-1995 was the date fixed for taking decision for short-listing the tenderers. 19 tenderers including the petitioner-appellant participated in the Pre-qualification bid for this Project and submitted their pre-qualification tender documents. The Committee constituted for the assessment of the pre-qualification of the tenderers and for short-listing the

applications, in its meeting held on 10-10-1995, assessed the qualification of all the 19 tenderers taking into consideration their comparative statement and examining the relevant documents of the individual party and found only ten tenderers as qualified tenderers and rejected the cases of the other nine tenderers. The case of the appellant-petitioner was also considered and the petitioner-appellant was found disqualified for want of sufficient experience in the work of similar nature. Since the appellant-petitioner did not qualify the pre-tender offer and was not found eligible for submitting the tender for the work, it, therefore, preferred the writ petition before this Court challenging the action of the respondents not allowing it to participate in submitting the tender. The writ petition, filed by the petitioner-appellant, was contested by the respondents and the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge by his Judgment dated 19-10-1995. It is against this Judgment that the petitioner-appellant has preferred this special appeal.

3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that (i) while inviting pre-qualification tender documents, there was no condition in the notice that the applicant must have to its credit five years’ experience of the work of similar nature and, therefore, later on this condition cannot be applied while short listing the applications; (ii) the principles of natural justice have been flouted and the appellant was not given any opportunity to plead its case at the time of short-listing the bids for contract; and (iii) the respondents acted arbitrarily while short-listing the bids for contract and the petitioner-appellant has been discriminated and has not been allowed to participate in submitting the tenders for the work while M/s. B.D.S. Associates, which, also had no experience of five years to its credit in the line and which was found ineligible at the initial stage, has been permitted to participate in submitting the tender. This clearly shows that there is complete non-application of mind by the Committee while short-listing the tenderers. It has also been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the contractual matter, where the administrative authority acts arbitrarily and unreasonably then their decisions are amendable to judicial review and the writ jur