THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11268 of 2008 ORDER: The 1st respondent- Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (for short, “the TTD”) issued a tender notice inviting sealed tenders for supply of 30,000 bed sheets with pillow covers. The petitioner ﬁrm which claims to be a registered supplier of textile items to the 1st respondent as well as Southern Railways and also Ordinance Factories, submitted its tender within the time prescribed. However, the tender of the petitioner was rejected and the Earnest Money Deposit was returned vide proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 30.04.2008. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, this writ petition is filed. It is primarily contended by the petitioner that having stated in the tender notice that in the process of technical bids the samples submitted by the tenderers would be tested in the lab for the speciﬁcations/parameters mentioned in the Tender conditions and that the sealed covers of the ﬁnancial bids of those tenderers who pre-qualify in sample testing alone would be opened, the 2nd respondent is bound to assign the reasons for rejection of tenders. Since no reasons were assigned by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 30.04.2008 while rejecting the petitioner’s bid, the impugned action is arbitrary and illegal. It is also contended that the respondent No.2 ought to have sent the samples to the testing lab as per the accepted procedure and practice of the TTD and since the respondents failed to follow such procedure, the entire tender process is vitiated. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the Executive Officer, TTD ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit stating that the quality of the samples submitted by the tenderers were sent for the opinion of the user department of the TTD as mentioned in condition No.1 of the Tender conditions. Since the user department accepted the sample submitted by one M/s Sai Durga, Chirala, its bid was accepted. Though the petitioner quoted lesser rate than M/s. Sai Durga, Chirala, since the user department did not accept the quality of the sample submitted by the petitioner, its bid was rejected. Accordingly, the EMD submitted by the petitioner was returned under letter dated 30.04.2008 and the same was accepted by the petitioner without raising any objection. Thus, it is submitted that the tenders were ﬁnalized strictly in accordance with the Tender conditions and that the interference by this Court is not warranted. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is clear from the conditions mentioned in the Tender notiﬁcation that the selection criteria would be strictly on the basis of the test quality and that the user department of the TTD would select the test quality for procurement. It was also made clear that the ﬁnancial bid of those selected samples alone would be opened by the concerned committee of the TTD. It is the speciﬁc case of the respondents that the said procedure as mentioned in the Tender conditions was followed for testing the quality of the samples submitted by the bidders and that the sample given by the petitioner was not accepted by the user department of TTD. The petitioner could not dispute the same. However, the only contention raised by the petitioner is that the respondents ought to have sent the sample to the testing lab as per the accepted procedure and practice. It is contended that the user departments are the departments which are maintaining TTD Cottages and Guest Houses at Tirumala and that they have no technical knowledge to judge the quality of the samples. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had earlier supplied bed sheets and pillow covers to the TTD as per the prescribed standard which was accepted and approved by the testing lab of the TTD. It is further contended that there is no justiﬁable reason to deviate from the said procedure for testing the quality of the samples and that the selection process now followed on the basis of the opinion of the user departments which have no technical expertise is arbitrary and illegal. I do not ﬁnd substance in any one of the contentions raised by the petitioner. Admittedly, in the tender notiﬁcation itself it was made clear that the selection criteria of the technical bids would be on the basis of the decision of the user departments. The petitioner having participated in the tenders without raising any objection as to the said procedure proposed to be followed is now estopped from contending that the tender process is vitiated on the ground that the samples were not sent to testing lab. May be that the price quoted by the petitioner was lower than the price bid accepted by the respondents. However, the law is well settled that the price is not the only criteria. It is always open to the tender inviting authority to reject even the lowest price, if the tenderer failed to satisfy the technical speciﬁcations. In the present case, since the petitioner’s sample was not accepted by the user department of the Tirumal Tirupati Devasthanams, which was the authority to test the quality as per the tender conditions, the question of considering the price quoted by the petitioner does not arise and therefore the action of the 2nd respondent in declaring the petitioner as unsuccessful tenderer cannot be found fault with. The law relating to the scope of judicial review with regard to the awarding of contracts by the State and its Instrumentalities is well-settled. In this regard, it would be suﬃce to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Air India Limited v. Cochin International Airport Limited[1]. “..The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can ﬁx its own terms of invitation to tender and that it not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before ﬁnally deciding to accept one of the oﬀers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona ﬁde reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the oﬀer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms; standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala ﬁdes, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene.” It is relevant to note that in the present case there is no allegation that the condition in the Tender Notice for testing the quality was prescribed to suite some of the tenderers. There is also no reason to hold that the said condition is arbitrary, irrational or discriminatory. As noticed above, the petitioner never raised any objection as to the said condition and voluntarily submitted his bid. It is well-settled that the Tender inviting authorities can choose their own terms of invitation to tender and if the same do not suﬀer from any vice of arbitrariness, this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 will not sit in appeal and substitute its own opinion. It is also relevant to note that absolutely no element of public interest is involved in the dispute raised by the petitioner. Except vague allegations, there is also no material to establish that the decision making process is vitiated by any mala ﬁdes. Obviously the petitioner is an unsuccessful bidder who did not satisfy the qualifying criteria as mentioned in the tender notice. As expressed above, he participated in the tender process without raising any objection whatsoever as to the conditions imposed by the respondents in the tender notification. Hence, it is not open to the petitioner to question the rejection of his tender on the ground that the quality of the sample given by it was not in conformity with the speciﬁcations as per the opinion of the user Department of T.T.D. Accordingly, the writ petition which is devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. 28.07.2008. Kgr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11268 of 2008 Between: Senthil Agencies, Rep by its Propritor T.C. Sabapathi, S/o. T.R. Chithiram Pillai, Hindu Aged 60 years, Occ : Business, R/o. 29/32, Logammal Illam, TDk Pillai Road, Coonoor 643 102. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devesthanam, Tirupathi. 2 The Market Officer, Tirumala Tirupati Devesthanam, Alipiri, Tirupathi. 3 The Govt. of A.P., represented by its Principle Secretary, (Endowments) Dept. Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring action of the 2nd respondent rejecting the tender of the petitioner in his proceedings ROC No. M2/126/MRKT/2008 dated 30-4-2008 as illegal, arbitrary, intentional, mala ﬁde, without reasons and consequently set aside the same as illegal and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. K. V. BHANU PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: [1] (2000)2 SCC 617