M.KATJU, J. - (1.) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned advertisement dated 14 -4 -2003 Annexure -1 to the writ petition. It is alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner Company does the business of advertisement of hoardings. The impugned advertisement published on 14 -4 -2003 contains the conditions for granting of contract for displaying hoardings within the Nagar Nigam limits of District Ghaziabad vide Annexure -1 to the writ petition.
(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have invited tenders and are also holding auction. It is mentioned in the impugned advertisement that on 29 -4 -2003 at 4.00 p.m. the auction will be held and thereafter the tenders will be opened. It is alleged that this is arbitrary and discriminatory. A counter affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraph 6 of the same it is stated that the settlement of the contract by tender as well as by auction is a better method and there is more transparency. In this system only one security is to deposited and on the basis of the said security alone tender may be given, and the same person may also participate in the auction. After the auction is held and tenders are opened the person who is found to be the highest bidder will be granted the contract. It is alleged this is not illegal or arbitrary, rather it excludes manipulation by the contractors.
(3.) IN our opinion there is no merit in this petition. It is open to the respondents to adopt any reasonable and non -arbitrary system in giving the contract so long as Article 14 of the Constitution is not violated. The authorities can either have auction alone or have tender alone or have both. This Court does not sit as a Court of appeals over administrative decisions vide Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC. 11. We see no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in the system adopted by the respondents. The petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;