As per case facts, the petitioners challenged a tender for a surveillance system, alleging their technical bid was unfairly rejected despite meeting experience criteria. They claimed that other respondents, who ... seemingly had similar or even deficient experience (like partial work completion or Union Territory experience accepted inconsistently), had their bids accepted. The petitioners participated in the tender even after their pre-bid requests for clarifications regarding Union Territory experience were not addressed. The question arose whether the rejection of the petitioners' bid and acceptance of others, despite inconsistent application of eligibility criteria, particularly concerning Union Territory experience, constituted arbitrary and discriminatory action by the tendering authority. Finally, the Court found the authorities' actions arbitrary and mala fide for treating bidders unequally regarding Union Territory experience and partial work completion. However, citing public interest due to upcoming elections and already issued work orders, the Court decided not to interfere with the contracts but permitted the petitioners to seek damages.