ORDER
D. Biswas, J.
1. Heard Shri S. Deb, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Shri T.D. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. S. Talapatra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
2. The dispute relates to allotment of works order to respondent No. 3 by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner, respondent No. 3 and another firm submitted quotations in response to the tender notice for the purpose of clearing and unloading bitumen from New Gauhati Railway station to Agartala for the year 1998-99.
3. The petitioner’s case is that he was the lowest bidder, but in spite of that the respondent No. 2 issued the work order in favour of the respondent No. 3 in a biased and arbitrary manner.
4. It would appear that a contractor falling in one of the following three categories were made eligible to participate in the bid :
1) Enlisted contractors of Tripura Public-Works Department in appropriate class; or
2) Transport carriers duly registered under the Indian Banker’s Association; or
3) Contractors registered in MES, Railway, C.P.W.D.
5. From the comparative statement sheet submitted by the learned counsel for the State, it would appear that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 3 are enlisted contractors of appropriate class and they are also not registered contractors of C.P.W.D. Railway etc. The respondent No. 2 selected the respondent No. 3 only on consideration that he has been able to produce a certificate from Banker’s Association although the rate quoted by him is higher than the rate quoted by the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the comparative statement sheet, I find that the difference of rate between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 is marginal. The selection of respondent No. 3 has been made on consideration of the certificate issued by the Indian Banker’s Association and experience in discharging works of similar nature.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of certificate from Banker’s Association is superficial and, as such, non-submission of such certificate by the petitioner cannot be a valid ground for refusal of acceptance of his tender. It was further contended that in response to their query, the Banker’s Association vide letter dated 6th May, 1997 (Annexure-6) informed that the Association does not maintain any approved list of transport operators but they only recommend the name of transport operators to the member bank to enable them to decide whether they would accept the lorry receipts issued by the recommended transport operators for discounting or purchase. This is undoubtedly a privilege which the recommended transport operators are entitled to for the purpose of receipts issued by them for discounting or purchase.
8. The recommendation by the Banker’s Association is made on fulfilment of certain requirements. This is evident from the letter dated 26-8-1997 issued by the Syndicate Bank and the letter dated 20th March, 1998 issued by the Indian Banks’ Association while invalidating the recommendation for a further period of 3 years ending on 28th February, 2001. By this recommendation the transport operator become eligible to operate as transporters of the member Banks. This is clear from the letter dated 20-3-1998. Therefore, this recommendation is undoubtedly a symbol denoting credibilily and competence of the transport operator and, from this point of view, the stipulation that such recommended transporters shall be eligible to bid in the tender cannot be said to be superficial. What would be the eligibility criteria for participation in a tender is a matter to be decided by the Slate authority and this being a policy-decision, a Court in exercise of its discretionary powers will interfere with such decision only when it is arbitrary, unreasonable and irrelevant.
9. In Civil Rule No. 234 of 1996, the same question regarding certificate of Banks’ Association came up for consideration. The judgment passed by the learned single Judge shows that the same three stipulations were also incorporated in the tender notice which was the subject-matter of that case. The learned single Judge in that case observed that the terms of enlistment as well as the Bank approved guarantee were essential terms and they could not he overlooked or ignored before granting tender to any person. Civil Rule was dismissed as the petitioner in that case failed to submit the Bank approved guarantee as per stipulation in the tender notice. In appeal. (Writ Appeal No. 101 of 1996), the Division Bench confirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that Annexure-A filed by the petitioner of that Civil Rule which was issued by the Controller of the Reserve Bank, Exchange Control Department, Gauhati cannot be treated as Bank approved guarantee. Therefore, from the judgment of the learned single Judge as well as of the learned Division Bench, it transpires that the stipulation of requirement of certificate from the Indian Bank Association was considered as an essential eligibility criteria. This Civil Rule was dismissed evidently for non-submission of the certificate of Indian Banks’ Association by the petitioner referred to as “Bank approved guarantee” in the said judgments. This decision further reinforce the view that recommendation by the said Association is a symbol denoting credence and competence of a transport operator.
10. Shri S. Deb, learned senior counsel referred to the decision in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, New Horizons Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 478 : (1995 AIR SCW 275) and Union of India v. G. Ganyuthan, (1997) 7 SCC 463: (AIR 1997 SC 3387). Relying on the ratio laid down in the above cases, he emphasised the need of scrutiny of the stipulation which was relied upon by the respondents in coming to a decision to award the contract in favour of the respondent No. 3. According to him, the stipulation as to the requirement of certificate from Indian Banks’ Association is an arbitrary choice of criteria redundant for the purpose of execution of a contract relating to carriage of bitumen.
11. Referring to a decision in Niranjan Nath v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1998 Cal 16, Shri T.D. Majumder, learned Government Advocate submitted that it is a time-bound emergent programme and, as such, the works order issued by the Government may not be stayed considering the larger interest of the public. He further submitted that if the petitioner eventually succeeds, he has remedy in compensation. According to him, the State Government has also discretionary powers in the matter of allotment of contract taking into (sic) the financial capacity and experience of the contractor and, in their discretion, they are not bound to accept the lowest bid. Relying on the decision in K.L. Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Meghalaya, AIR 1996 Gauhati 17, Mr. T.D. Majumder, further argued that there being no legal right to get a contract, doctrine of legitimate expectation does not come into play unless a clear case of bias and unreasonableness is made out. Reliance has also been put in the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 : (1994 AIR SCW 3344) where the Supreme Court observed as follows (at page 25 of AIR):
“It cannot be denied that the principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitation in exercise of that power of judicial review, Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to He an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down.”
12. It would appear from the decisions submitted by both the parties, that the Government being guardian of public finance, it has the right to refuse the lowest or any other tender, but the refusal should not be arbitrary. In the instant case, the Government in their wisdom included registration under Indian Banker’s Association as an eligibility criteria and, therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the policy-decision of the Government in laying down the above criteria which cannot he branded as a useless stipulation in view of the observation made above. Since the petitioner did not file any recommendation from the Indian Banker’s Association, this Court has no option but to refuse the prayer for slay of the work order issued in favour of the respondent No. 3.
13. Accordingly, this Misc. petition stands rejected. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated.