The court upheld the state's tender process for the supply and distribution of food kits, emphasizing the need for urgency and the impracticality of re-tendering. The court found no grounds to interfere with the tender conditions, highlighting the state's discretion in setting prequalification criteria and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.

1. Non-interference in Tender Process

The court decided not to interfere with the tender process, acknowledging the critical need for the timely supply and distribution of food kits. Given the urgency, re-tendering was deemed impractical and against the public interest. Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed.

2. Limits of Judicial Review

The judgment clarified the boundaries of judicial review, stating that while it serves to prevent arbitrary actions by public authorities, it does not allow for altering the terms of a contract. The court's role is confined to ensuring that the state acts within its legal authority and refrains from engaging in unfair or unreasonable practices.

3. Tender Specifications and State's Discretion

The tender in question required bidders to have specific experience, such as the ability to provide 300 laborers at 70 different locations. This requirement was justified based on prior challenges with untimely supplies and distribution issues. The court supported the state's right to set these prequalification conditions, emphasizing that the entity issuing the tender is best positioned to understand its operational needs.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, the court found no reason to challenge the tender process, considering the broader public interest and the specific circumstances of the case. The decision reinforced the principle that the state has the discretion to determine the terms and conditions necessary for fulfilling its responsibilities effectively.