Page No.# 1/15 GAHC040004682025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/131/2025 M/s Naney Enterprises having its registered office at Village Seren, PO and PS Nari, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh represented by its proprietor Shri Pakyom Koyu, Son of Shri Tapak Koyu, Village Seren, PO and PS Nari, Lower Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented by the Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Chief Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Western Zone Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Superintending Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Circle Bam Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Tender Evaluation Committee Age: 0 Occupation : represented by its Chairman cu Superintending Engineer Page No.# 2/15 Rural Works Department Bam Circle Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Bam Leparada District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Executive Engineer Age: 0 Occupation : Rural Works Department Likabali Division Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:M/s East Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : having its registered office at Village Rote PO Koyu PS Nari Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh represented by its proprietor Shri Tekom Padung Son of Shri Tate Padung Village Rote PO Koyu PS Nari Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:M/s M K Enterprises Age: 0 Occupation : having its registered office at Village Kakki PO and PS Nari Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh by its proprietor Shri Nyamin Kakki Son of Shri Tanya Kakki Village Kakki PO and PS Nari Lower Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Bori, Rinchin Ledo Thungon Advocate for the Respondent : Gimi Tarak, Tao Tarin,Jumgam Jini,Binter Picha,SC (RWD) Page No.# 3/15 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE JUDGMENT Date : 03.07.2025 Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD representing respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. None appears for the respondent No.7, despite service of notice. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the rejection of the technical bid vide minutes of the technical bid evaluation and financial bid evaluation dated 19.03.2025, as well as the consequential award of the contract to the respondent No.6. By the said rejection the technical bid of the petitioner was found to be non-responsive for non fulfilment of the terms of the tender provided under Clause 1.3.2(B) of Section 3 of the Qualification Information and clauses 4.4(B)(a)(ii) and 4.7 of Section 2 of the Instruction to Bidders, to the NIT No. EERWD/LKB/Tender/SASCI (2024-25)/Nari/2 dated 06.03.2025, for construction of the 20 Bedded Hostel Building including Kitchen & Dinning Hall with Warden Room and 4-Unit Double Story Type-II Quarter at Govt UPS, Telam (Potte), inviting Online percentage rate in two stage system (Technical and Financial separately) from the eligible candidates as per the conditions laid down in the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professional (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015 (as amended in 2020). 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner is a Class-III (B&R) Contractor under the Civil Category in the Public Works Department (PWD), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, having its registered office at Seren Village, Lower Siang, Arunachal Pradesh. The Executive Engineer, RWD, Likabali Division, issued the NIT No. EERWD/LKB/Tender/ SASCI(2024-25)/Nari/2, dated 06.03.2025, inviting online bids in two stage system, from eligible contractors for construction of 20 Bedded Hostel Building including Kitchen & Dining Hall with Warden Room and 4-Unit Double Story Type-II Quarter at Government UPS, Telam Page No.# 4/15 (Potte) for an estimated cost of Rs. 2,05,54,000/-(Rupees Two Crore Five Lakh Fifty Four Thousand) only. The last date of submission of the bid was 19.03.2025. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid NIT, the petitioner submitted/ uploaded online its bid on 18.03.2025. The technical bid as well as financial bid were opened on 19.03.2025. After evaluation of the technical bids, the Tender Evaluation Committee vide minutes of technical bid evaluation dated 19.03.2025, declared the technical bid of the petitioner as non- responsive and the technical bids of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were declared as responsive. Altogether three tenderers participated in the tender process. The ground of rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner is non-fulfilment of Clause 1.3.2(B) of Section 3 of Qualification Information and Clauses 4.4(B)(a)(ii) and 4.7 of Section 2 of the Instruction to the Bidders. Thereafter, the financial bids of respondent Nos.6 and 7 were evaluated and vide minutes of financial bid dated 19.03.2025, the respondent No. 6 was recommended for award of work. Consequently, the work has been awarded to the respondent No.6. 5. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on a plain reading of Clause 4.4(B)(a)(ii) of Instruction to Bidders (ITB) makes it clear that along with the bid, a bidder has to submit an affidavit to the effect that the information furnished with the bid documents and such other certificates, as defined in the Appendix to ITB are true and correct. The said clause further provides that failure to produce the certificates shall make the bid non-responsive. As per Clause 4.7 of Instruction to Bidders, even if the bidder fulfils other qualifying criteria, his bid shall be subject to disqualification for 3 (three) reasons. Firstly, if the bidder has made misleading or false representations in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirements. Secondly, if there is record of poor performance, such as of abandoning the works, not properly completing the contract, inordinate delays in completion, litigation history or financial failures and lastly, if the bidder has participated in the previous bidding for the same work and had quoted unreasonably high or low bid prices and could not furnish rational justification for it to the employer. 6. He submitted that Clause 1.3.2(B) of the Qualification Information mandates a bidder provide information with regard to works for which the bids have already been submitted. As Page No.# 5/15 apparent from the Clause itself, this information is required to be given for the purpose of showing bid capacity of a bidder as on date of submission of the bid, meaning thereby that the information as required under Clause 1.3.2(B) shall be in respect of only those works for which the bids have already been submitted prior to submission of the bid in respect of the present NIT. He further submits that from the conjoint reading of Section 2 of Instruction to Bidders (ITB) and Section 3 of Qualification Information, it is understood that the qualification criteria for bidders are provided under Clause 4 of the Instruction to Bidders (ITB) and in order to meet those criteria, a bidder has to provide the information with regard to eligibililty under Section 3 of the Qualification Information. 7. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel, submits that the petitioner along with the bid documents submitted an attachment by mentioning "NIL", as provided under Clause 1.3.2(B). He submits that apart from the present NIT, the Executive Engineer, RWD, Likabali Division had also issued 2 (two) other NITs. The petitioner along with the bid in respect of the present NIT, other 2 (two) NITs, sumbitted on the same day i.e. on 18.03.2025 and had not submitted bid for any other work. Therefore, the petitioner has correctly mentioned "NIL" under Clause 1.3.2(B). He submits that the Tender Evaluation Committee, except for mentioning of Clauses, has not mentioned the actual grounds for declaring the petitioner's technical bid as non-responsive. Assuming that the technical bid of the petitioner was declared non-responsive for mentioning "NIL" under Clause 1.3.2(B), however, the petitioner has properly explained the reason as to why mentioning of "NIL" under Clause 1.3.2(B), for which the bid of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected. 8. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel, submits that on rejection of petitioner's technical bid, he verified the work completion certificate submitted by respondent No.6 and having found some discrepancies, approached the concerned authorities. The said purported completion certificate dated 20.05.2020, in respect of construction of 100 Bedded Girls Hostel at GHSS, Diyun under RMSA", for an estimated cost of Rs. 203.00 Lakhs, clearly indicates to be a fake/forged documents, in as much as, the respondent No.6 was enlisted as Class-III (B&R) under Civil Category Contractor, vide dated 18.02.2021 and the completion certificate dated 20.05.2020 purportedly for the works of 2019 and in a different district. Therefore, the Page No.# 6/15 respondent No. 6 could not have executed the work for an amount of Rs. 203.00 Lakh, prior to his enrolment as a Class-III Contractor. The Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015 (as amended in 2020), the Class-III & II Contractors are only eligible to participate and execute the works for Rs. 2 to 3 Crore. He submits that an employer cannot disqualify a bidder, who otherwise fulfills all the eligibility criteria as required under the terms and conditions of the NIT. In the present case, the Tender Evaluation Committee in a very illegal and arbitrary manner has declared the technical bid of the petitioner as non-responsive on non-existing grounds. Therefore, the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the technical bid and consequential award of the contract to the respondent No.6 is liable to be interfered with and prays for a direction to issue fresn NIT in respect of the said work. 9. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 5, submits that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on 3 (three) grounds, viz. : (I) Clause 4.4(B) (a) (ii) of Section 2 of the Instruction to bidders, (II) Clause 4.7 of Section 2 of the Instruction to bidders and (III) Non- fulfilment of Clause 1.3.2(B) of Section 3 of the Qualification Information. 10. He submits that Clause 4.4(B) (a)(ii) of Section 2 provides that the bidders were required to submit Geo-Tagged Photographs of the site visit taken along with EE/AE/JE and a certificate for the same, countersigned by EE/AE along with the bid documents. However, the petitioner neither obtained the counter signature from EE/AE, nor submitted the geo-tagged photographs taken with EE/AE/JE. The petitioner stated in his site inspection statement that he had visited the site of the proposed project and inspected it jointly with the Executive Engineer of the Rural Works Department and had obtained the counter signature from EE, which was found to be false and misleading. As per the clause 4.7 (ii) of section and 4.4 B (a) (ii) of section 2, the petitioner had submitted an affidavit stating that the information furnished in the bid documents was true and correct in all respects. 11. He submits that as per Clause 4.7 (i) of section of section 2 , the annual turnover documents of the petitioner did not tally with the records, nor were any supporting documents submitted regarding the extent and volume of the works executed in each year. Page No.# 7/15 Therefore, the information was evidently false and misleading. For clause 1.3.2 (B) on Bid Capacity, the petitioner was required to state the works for which bids had been submitted and works which were yet to be completed as on the date of the instant bid. However, the petitioner submitted “NIL” in both categories. It revealed from the records that the petitioner had participated in all 3 (three) nos. of packages under the Nari Sub Division in the same tender process at that time. Therefore, the petitioner has concealed and submitted misleading and false bid which automatically attract clause 4.4 B (a) (ii) of section 2. 12. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD further submits that after rejection of technical bid of the petitioner firm, the financial bid of other participant bidders were opened. Eventually, after complete exercise of tender process, a formal Letter of Acceptance dated 20.03.2025 was issued in favour of M/s East Enterprises. Thereafter, an agreement dated 24.03.2025 for execution of work was also drawn. Subsequently, the deponent has also issued a Notice to Proceed with the work on 24.03.2025. It is submitted that by now, already 30% (thirty percent) of tender work has already been completed by the contractor. He submits that at this stage, any interference by this Hon'ble Court will frustrate the entire developmental work meant for School children who have been deprived of better hostel facilities. Therefore, he prayed, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased not to interfere with tender work for private interest of the petitioner. 13. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD further submits that Clause 1.3.2(B) of Section 3 requires filling format as "Works for which bids have been submitted". In the format, the petitioner has filled "NIL". On verification, it was found that the petitioner had already participated and submitted 2 bids in other separate NITs. Finding that the petitioner had also submitted 2 separate bids in other tender works, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of a false affidavit, and misleading and false representation in the forms, which was in direct violation of Clause 4.4(B) (a) (ii) and Clause 4.7 of Section 2 of the instruction to Bidders. Thus, upon proper scrutiny by the tender boards, the technical bid of the petitioner was found non-responsive. He further contends that since the petitioner itself has admitted to its mistake, there is nothing left to be adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court. By applying conditions of ITB to NIT, the Tender Board has rightly found the technical bid of the Page No.# 8/15 petitioner to be non-responsive. No arbitrary or unreasonable or malafide exercise of power can be attributed to the action of the Tender Board. 14. Mr. G. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel, RWD further submits that the petitioner was found to be non-responsive and therefore rejected by the tender evaluating committee, and the grounds of rejection were categorically stated. As such, the representation of the petitioner was adequately addressed. Even otherwise, the tender process could not have been stalled on ground of the representation made by the petitioner, as the process for opening and evaluation of the technical and financial bid was conducted on the same date, mention is hereby made of points no. 11 and 23 of the NIT/clause 28.1 of the Instruction to bidders, wherein the employer reserves the right to accept or reject any bid and to cancel the bidding process and reject all bids without incurring any liability and without any obligation to inform the affected bidder or bidders of the grounds. 15. Mr. Tarak, learned standing counsel further submits that the respondent No.6 has submitted a completion certificate issued by the office of the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Changlang, as per the records submitted, the respondent No.6 is registered in Class III (Civil) category, and as such, there was no reason for disqualify the bid of respondent No.6. Furthermore, it is contended by Mr. Tarak that the Diploma certificate in Civil Engineering of Shri Tai Padung and another, as site engineers, was submitted by the respondent No.6. As such, there was no ground for in disqualifying the bid of the respondent No.6. He submits that it is categorically denied that this was brought to its notice by the petitioner during the tender process and subsequent award of the work. Therefore, Mr. Tarak, learned Standing Counsel submits that the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner and acceptance of bid of the respondent No.6 and consequential award of the work is absolutely legal. 16. Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the technical bid of the petitioner was found non-responsive and since, the petitioner has not challenge rejection of his technical bid and being out of tender process, the petitioner has no locus standi to maintain instant writ petition challenging the tender process. He submits that the technical bid of the petitioner was rightly rejected under Clause 1.3.2 (B). Despite submission of bids in Page No.# 9/15 two other tenders, the petitioner has made false representation in the forms by filling "NIL". In fact, the petitioner had admitted the same in paragraph 11 and 12 of the writ petition. It is due to such false representation, the tender board has rightly rejected technical bid of the petitioner. 17. Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel, submits that the interpretation of terms and conditions of tender rest with the authorities, as they being author of tender documents. The petitioner cannot maintain writ petition assailing that the tender board should have known about his other 2 (two) bids or should have read or interpreted tender conditions on such note as it deems fit for the petitioner. When the false representation is apparent and the same has been admitted by the petitioner, there is nothing to be adjudicated. The petitioner cannot by means of writ petition challenge application of mind by the tender board. He submits that site engineer Shri Tai Padung, Diploma (Civil), has been the engineer of the deponent firm, however, he never informed the deponent regarding his new appointment as a government employee. Be that as it may, the deponent has already engaged 2 (two) new site engineers namely (i) Shri Ayushman Dubey, B.Tech (Civil Engineering) and (ii) Miss Tengam Padung, Bachelor of Engineering, for execution of work. 18. It is submitted by Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel, that there is no prima facie case in favor of the petitioner. Being the author of tender clauses, the Tender Board has rightly rejected the Technical Bid of the Petitioner firm and the same is not open to judicial review. The petitioner cannot approach this Hon'ble Court citing that the Tender Board should have interpreted the Tender Clauses as per his convenience. In dispute between two tenderers / bidders, this Hon'ble Court should see presence of public interest. Mere disagreement with the decision-making process is no reason for a Court to interfere with tender process on the instance of the bidder whose technical bid has been rejected for non-fulfilling of requisite criteria. If still the petitioner has any grievance, he may be directed to approach Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. Besides, it is to submit that finding financial bid of the respondent No. 6 as responsive, the Tender Board had recommended for awarding of tender work in favor of the deponent firm. Pursuant thereto, the authority concern has issued formal Letter of Acceptance dated 20.03.2025 to the respondent No. 6. He further contends that Page No.# 10/15 upon the awarding of the work, the respondent No.6 has already completed more than 30% (thirty percent) of the work and he has been paid Rs.532 lakhs by the respondent authorities, through two cheques on 19.05.2025, as a running bill. 19. Mr. B. Picha, learned counsel, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the following judgements:- 1) Smti. Khetoli Yupthomi -Vrs- State of A.P & Ors., W.A No. 44(AP)/2017. 2) Shri Gichik Tami -Vrs- State of A.P & Ors., W.P 53 (AP)/2024. 3) Asian Energy Services Mumbai and Anr. Vs. Oil India Limited and Anr., reported in 2022 (3) GLT 485. 4) Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India, reported in 1994 (6) SCC 651. 5) Prism Logistics Private Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India, service through the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Micro, Small and medium Enterprises & Ors., reported in 2023 (2) GLT 563. 6) Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. vs. Airports Authority of India and Others, reported in 2006 (10) SCC 1. 7) Reliance Airport Developers (P) Ltd. vs. Airports Authority of India and Others, reported in 2006 (10) SCC 1. 8) Sterling Computers Limited vs. M/s M & N Publications limited and Ors., reported in 1993 (1) SCC 445. 9) Silppi Constructions Contractors -Vrs- Union of India & Anr., reported in 2020 (16) SCC 489. 10) Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Anr., reported in 2016 (16) SCC 818. 11) Bibekananda Dev Goswami vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And Ors, Page No.# 11/15 reported in 2009 (4) GLR 291. 12) Central Coalfields Limited and Anr. Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and Ors, reported in 2016 (8) SCC 622. 13). Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in 2007 (14) SCC 517. 14) N.G. Projects Limited vs. Vinod Kumar Jain and Ors, reported in 2022 (6) SCC 127. 15) Tata Motors Limited vs. Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (Best) and Ors., reported in AIR 2023 SC 2717. 16) Naseem Bano vs. State of U.P & Ors, reported in 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46 20. Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record, including the tender documents of the writ petitioner and the respondent No.6. 21. Pursuant to the NIT dated 06.03.2025, for construction of the 20 Bedded Hostel Building including Kitchen & Dinning Hall with Warden Room and 4-Unit Double Story Type-II Quarter at Govt UPS, Telam (Potte), three bidders including the petitioner had participated in the tender process. The Tender Evaluation Committee, vide minutes of technical bid of the petitioner dated 19.03.2025, declared the technical bid of the petitioner as non-responsive for non-fulfilment of Clause 1.3.2(B) of Section 3 of Qualification Information and Clauses 4.4(B) (a)(ii) and 4.7 of Section 2 of the Instruction to the Bidders. Vide minutes of the financial bid evaluation dated 19.03.2025, the financial bid of the respondent No.6 was accepted and the respondent No. 6 was recommended and consequently awarded the work. 22. The rejection of technical bid of the petitioner is on the ground of non-fulfilment of Clause 1.3.2(B) of Section 3 of Qualification Information and Clauses 4.4(B)(a)(ii) and 4.7 of Section 2 of the Instruction to the Bidders. To appreciate the same, I deem it apposite to refer to those clauses, which are reproduced here-in-below :- Page No.# 12/15 “Section 2 (Instruction to Bidders) Clause 4.4(B)(a): Each bidder must produce: (ii) an affidavit that the information furnished with the bid documents is true and correct in respect and such other certificates as defined in the Appendix to ITB. Failure to produce the certificates shall make the bid non-responsive. Clause 4.7: Even though the bidders meet the above qualifying criteria, they are subject to be disqualified if they have: (i) made misleading or false representations in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirements; and/or (ii) Record of poor performance such as of abandoning the works, not properly completing the contract, inordinate delays in completion, litigation history or financial failures, etc. (iii) participated in the previous bidding for the same work and had quoted unreasonable high or low bid prices and could not furnish rational justification for it to the employer. Section3 (Qualification Information) Clause 1.3.2: Information on Bid Capacity (works for which bids have been submitted and works which are yet to be completed) as on date of this bid. (A): Existing commitments and on-going construction works: (B): Works for which bids have been submitted”. 23. Bare perusal of the above clauses, show that as per Clause 4.4(B)(a)(ii), a bidder has to submit an affidavit to the effect that the information furnished with the bid documents and such other certificates, as defined in the Appendix to ITB are true and correct. The said clause further provides that failure to produce the certificates shall make the bid non- responsive. As per Clause 4.7 of even if the bidder fulfils other qualifying criteria, his bid shall be subject to disqualification for 3 (three) reasons- if the bidder has made misleading or false representations in the forms, statements, affidavits and attachments submitted in proof of the qualification requirements, if there is record of poor performance, such as of abandoning the works, not properly completing the contract, inordinate delays in completion, litigation history or financial failures and if the bidder has participated in the previous bidding for the same work and had quoted unreasonably high or low bid prices and could not furnish rational Page No.# 13/15 justification for it to the employer. Clause 1.3.2(B) mandates a bidder to provide information with regard to works for which the bids have already been submitted. This information is required to be given for the purpose of showing bid capacity of a bidder as on date of submission of the bid, meaning thereby that the information as required under Clause 1.3.2(B) shall be in respect of only those works for which the bids have already been submitted. 24. On perusal and consideration of the records and as admitted by the petitioner, the petitioner has filled "NIL" for the clause 1.3.2(B), which requires filling of form as "Works for which bids have been submitted", whereas it is found that the petitioner had already participated and submitted 2 bids in other separate NITs. Since the petitioner had also submitted 2 separate bids in other tender works, which ought to have been mentioned in the form of submission of 2 bids in other tenders. Thus, I am of the view that the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of a false affidavit, and misleading and false representation in the forms, which amounts to violation of Clause 4.4(B) (a) (ii) and Clause 4.7 and accordingly, the technical bid of the petitioner is found non-responsive and as such rejection cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or malafide exercise of power on the part of the respondents. Since the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions and therefore, the rejection of his bid is not illegal. 25. Although, the petitioner made an attempt to justify to the effect that along with the bid documents submitted an attachment by mentioning "NIL", as provided under Clause 1.3.2(B) and apart from the present NIT, the Executive Engineer, RWD, Likabali Division had also issued 2 (two) other NITs and the petitioner along with the bid in respect of the present NIT, other 2 (two) NITs, sumbitted on the same day i.e. on 18.03.2025 and had not submitted bid for any other work., therefore, the petitioner has correctly mentioned "NIL", same is considered for rejection for the reason that the petitioner has failed to indicate that the present bid was first submitted in the present NIT and other 2 bids were submitted at later point of time. 26. 26. Regard being had to the submission of completion certificate by respondent No. 6, the record reveals that the respondent No.6 was enlisted as Class-III (B&R) under Civil Category Page No.# 14/15 Contractor in the year 2021, whereas the completion certificate in respect of the work experience, as required in the tender, was issued in the year 2020, showing the execution of work in a different district, which clearly shows that the respondent No.6 could not have executed such work before enlisted as Class-III (B&R) under Civil Category Contractor, that too in a differet district, which is in violation of the Arunachal Pradesh District Based Entrepreneurs and Professionals (Incentives, Development and Promotional) Act, 2015 (as amended in 2020). The concerned authority also clarified that there is no record to show that the respondent No.6 has executed as due to shifting of the office, no records could be found. In view of such fact, the completion certificate in respect of the work experience, submitted by the the respondent No.6 ought not to have been accepted by the respondent authorities for the present tender. However, it would not be appropriate to termed the certificate fake or forged without there being any clinching record as writ Court cannot make a roving enquiry to find fault with the decision-making process so as to return another finding than that of the finding arrived at by the tender Board and where two views are possible and view has been taken, in such case, in absence of malafide, taking one view cannot be ground of judicial review and by way of Judicial Review the Court is not expected to act as a Court of appeal while examining administrative decision. 27. In the matter of tender, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a bidder whose technical bid having being rejected, and there being no specific prayer challenging as to rejection of his own technical bid, the writ petitioner has no Locus Standi to challenge selection of successful bidder. Requisites of valid tender is that it must conform to the terms of obligation, it must be in the proper form and the person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations. Writ not maintainable by a firm whose bid is not in conformity with NIT and also not in proper form and whose bid validity has expired. Judicial Review in tender matter, the basic test is to see whether there is any infirmity in the decision-making process and not in the decision itself. Where two views are possible and view has been taken, in such case, in absence of malafide, taking one view cannot be ground of judicial review. By way of Judicial Review the Court is not expected to act as a Court of appeal while examining administration decision. The author is the best person to interpret. For interference, there should be overwhelming public interest. Mere disagreement Page No.# 15/15 with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a Court to interfere. Court deciding which condition of NIT is essential and non-essential would amount to re-write the arrangement which would not be permissible. Attempt by unsuccessful bidder with imaginary grievance, pride, should be resisted. Court only to whether process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favor someone or Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Writ Court cannot make a roving enquiry to find fault with the decision-making process so as to return another finding than that of the finding arrived at by the tender committee. It has also observed to the extent that even if there is total arbitrariness, Court should refrain from interfering, instead should relegate parties to seek damages. 28. Reverting back to prsent case, as noted hereinabove, the petitioner has not fullfiled the terms and conditions as provided under the relevant Clauses, in as much as, the Clause 1.3.2 (B) of Section 3 which requires the bidder to provide information, interi-alia, showing the bids have already been submitted, if any, as the petitioner has shown as ‘NIL’, whereas the petitioner has submitted two bids in 2 other tenders. Requisites of valid tender is that it must conform to the terms of obligation, it must be in the proper form and the person by whom the tender is made must be able and willing to perform his obligations. Thus, the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. 29. For the forgoing reasons, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out to ineterfere with the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Cost(s) made easy. JUDGE Comparing Assistant