JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.-By medium of the instant Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the NIT No. 59 of R&B/4727-37 of 2021-22 dated 28th of July, 2021 and NIT No. 60 of R&B/4899-4908 of 2021-22 dated 29th of July, 2021. A direction is also sought in the name of the Respondents to allow all the Contractors to participate in the bidding process for the works which have been put to tender in terms of the aforesaid tender notices.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Respondents, by incorporating the condition in the impugned NITs to the effect that all the Contractors shall upload card verification certificate, has deprived most of the Contractors in participating in the process, thereby resulting in reduction of competition. It is further submitted that the aforesaid condition has seriously prejudiced the rights and interests of the Petitioners and that the same has been done only with a view to give benefit to some blue-eyed Contractors.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter.

4. At the very outset, what requires to be stated is that as per settled legal position, the tender issuing authority is the best judge of its interests/ needs and that it is always open to the said authority to suitably prescribe the eligibility criteria so as to best serve its purposes. Whenever a term/ condition is prescribed in the eligibility criteria, it might hurt the interests of someone or the other, but, for that reason, the said term/ condition in the eligibility criteria cannot be labelled as malafide or arbitrary.

5. Besides, the Courts are expected to exercise judicial restraint in interfering with the administrative action, particularly in the matter of tender or contract. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the tender issuing authority ought not to be questioned, but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned, firstly, if the decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say that the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached or; second, if the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafide or intended to favour someone or; third, if the public interest is affected. In the case on hand, the decision of the Respondents in fixing the terms and conditions in the impugned NITs cannot be said to be one where they have acted in a manner in which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with the relevant law would have acted. Furthermore, a bare perusal of the pleadings on record, does not indicate that the decision made by the authority is malafide or intended to favour someone. Likewise, the third ground of public interest is also not affected in the present case because while it may be in public interest to have greater competition, it is also in public interest that all the tender conditions are complied with as prescribed by the tender issuing authority and that there is no uncertainty in that area.

6. Law on the subject of scope of judicial review in the matters of Contract is no more res integra.

7. In case titled ‘Tata Cellular V. Union of India: (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 651’, at Paragraph No.94, Hon’ble the Supreme Court of the country, while dealing with the issue similar to the one subject matter of the instant Petition, evolved the following principles:

1. “The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action;

2. The Court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made;

3. The Court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expe4rtise which itself may be fallible;

4. The terms of the invitation to tende