that the technical drawing of the second respondent is not good. In any case, having scrutinized by the Expert Committee constituted by the men of knowledge in that field, the same is not open to the review by this Court. Admittedly, the second respondent has used the Galvanized Iron. The petitioner has not demonstrated as to how the second respondent has diluted the requirement qua mounting structures. On the contrary, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the type of panel mounting structure is not specified. It has also been cleared by the technical committee. A bid has to be seen as a whole, particularly, with reference to the technical drawing and when the technology that is being used by the petitioner and the second respondent is being different, there cannot be any comparison for each of the items and parts. Perhaps, for the technology used by the petitioner, the higher amount of usage of Galvanized Iron is required as against the second respondent. Suffice it is to state that this is an area, which this Court has to avoid consciously as the same has to be decided by the experts concerned. Thus, once a decision is made by the experts in the field, in the absence of any arbitrariness, the power of judicial review shall not be exercised. After all, this Court is concerned with the process of decision making rather than the process qua the element of fairness involved.
