ORDER : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is presented to assail a bid evaluation process undertaken by the respondent authorities in the Excise Department in connection with a bidding process initiated by a e-Bid Notice dated 15.12.2023 published by the respondent no. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition after opening of the financial bids of the technically qualified bidders on 13.02.2024 to challenge the emergence of the respondent no. 6 as the highest bidder [H-1] with the petitioner emerging as the second highest bidder [H-2]. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition can be stated, briefly, as follows:- By the e-bid Notice published on 15.12.2023, the respondent no. 3 invited online bids through E-tender system from intending bidders for grant of India Made Foreign Liquor [IMFL] Retail ‘Off’ License to successful bidders. The bidding was a two-bid system consisting of Technical Bids and Financial Bids. In the e-Bid Notice, the eligibility requirements for participation in the bidding process were laid down. As per Clause 2.1, an individual, a partnership firm, a limited liability partnership [LLP] or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or subsequent enactments were made eligible to participate in the bidding process. 3. Finding herself eligible, the petitioner responded to the e-Bid Notice by submitting her bid. In addition to the petitioner, seven other bidders including the respondent no. 6, submitted their bids in response to the e-Bid Notice. At the stage of Technical Bid evaluation, Technical Bids of three bidders were rejected and the Technical Bids of the remaining five bidders including the petitioner and the respondent no. 6, were accepted for evaluation of their Financial Bids. The said fact is reflected in the Tender Summary Report generated and updated on 20.01.2024 after opening of the Technical Bids on 20.01.2024. 4. The Financial Bids of the five technically qualified bidders were thereafter, opened on 13.02.2024. On opening of the Financial Bids, the respondent no. 6 had emerged as the highest bidder [H-1] with the petitioner as the second highest bidder [H-2]. Thereafter on 19.02.2024, the petitioner submitted a Representation before the Tendering Authority, that is, the respondent no. 3 alleging a nos. of irregularities in the process of evaluation of the Technical Bid of the respondent no. 6. 6 had emerged as the highest bidder [H-1] with the petitioner as the second highest bidder [H-2]. Thereafter on 19.02.2024, the petitioner submitted a Representation before the Tendering Authority, that is, the respondent no. 3 alleging a nos. of irregularities in the process of evaluation of the Technical Bid of the respondent no. 6. The Tendering Authority taking the Representation of the petitioner on board, considered the alleged irregularities highlighted by the petitioner and after consideration, the Representation was disposed of by a Communication dated 23.02.2024 recording a view that the bidding process needed no interference. It was after disposal of the Representation, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on 01.04.2024. 5. I have heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. M.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5; Mr. G. Bokolial, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent no. 3; and Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 6. Mr. Nath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to various clauses in the e-Bid Notice. He has specifically referred to Clause 7 wherein the procedure for submission of bid was laid down. He has submitted that as per Clause 7.6, all pages of the documents submitted by the bidder shall be signed by the bidder and in the case of the respondent no. 6, he did not upload his bid with his signatures and seal in all the pages. When the said discrepancy was highlighted, the Tendering Authority in its Reply had responded by stating that such discrepancies were minor irregularities or not mandatory and the same can be waived by the Tender/Bid Committee in view of Clause 19.2 of the Bid Document. Mr. Nath has further referred to Clause 13.3 and Clause 20.3 of the Bid Document in support of his submissions that compliance of Clause 7.6 was mandatory. He has further referred to a decision of this Court in Dipankar Das vs. State of Assam and others , 2023 (6) GLR 214. 7. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department and Mr. G. Bokolial, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents have submitted in similar lines to support the process followed in evaluation of the Technical Bids. 7. Mr. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Excise Department and Mr. G. Bokolial, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the official respondents have submitted in similar lines to support the process followed in evaluation of the Technical Bids. It has been submitted that the Bid Document can be submitted by an individual also and in case of a bid submitted by an individual, Clause 7.6 of the Bid Document would not be applicable. It has been further submitted that it is not the case of the petitioner that the pages in the hard copy of the Bid Document including Technical Bid submitted by the respondent no. 6 were not signed by him. Even if the Tender/Bid Committee had the right to waive minor irregularities and the Tendering Authority in its Reply dated 23.02.2024 had mentioned the absence of signatures in the online Technical Bid as waived, the relevant clause, Clause 7.6 is clear and unambiguous that Clause 7.6 is applicable only in case of an entity submitting its bid through its Authorized Signatory. 8. Mr. Abedin, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 has canvassed that the Technical Bids were opened on 20.01.2024. When the Technical Bid of the petitioner was accepted, the petitioner did not raise any grievance at that point of time regarding acceptance of the Technical Bid of the respondent no. 6. The petitioner chose to wait till after the opening of the Financial bids. When upon opening of the Financial Bids on 13.02.2024, the petitioner emerged as H-2 with the respondent no. 6 emerging as H-1, the petitioner chose to submit a Representation on 19.02.2024. Accepting the line of submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the official respondents, Mr. Abedin has referred to Clause 10.4.4 of the Bid Document to contend that the hard copy of the Technical Bid had signatures of the petitioner. In case an individual submits his bid himself and no other submits the bid on his behalf, then Clause 7.6 would not be applicable. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. 10. As the petitioner has laid stress on Clause 7.6 of the Bid Document to support her case, it would be apposite to refer to Clause 7.6, at first. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. 10. As the petitioner has laid stress on Clause 7.6 of the Bid Document to support her case, it would be apposite to refer to Clause 7.6, at first. Clause 7.6 reads as under:- 7.6 All pages of the documents submitted by the bidder shall be signed by the authorized signatory and shall also be affixed with the Bidder entity’s stamp. 11. It is also relevant to reproduce Clause 2.1 of the Bid Document which reads as under :- 2.1 An individual, a partnership firm, a limited liability partnership [LLP] or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or subsequent enactments who has proof of filing Income Tax Returns for the three financial years out of the last four financial years [2019-20, 2020-21, 2021- 22 and 2022-23] duly certified by a Chartered Accountant, is eligible to participate in the bid. 12. From Clause 2.1, it is evident that in response to e-bid Notice dated 15.12.2023, either an individual or a partnership firm or a limited liability partnership [LLP] or a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or subsequent enactments can submit a bid. The other requirement of Clause 2.1 was that the bidder should have proof of filing income tax returns for three financial years out of the last four financial years [2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23] and such income tax returns were to be duly certified by the Chartered Accountant. 13. Clause 10.2.2 of the Bid Document mentioned that the bidder shall submit both Technical Bid and Financial Bids through online. One hard copy of the Technical Bid along with supporting documents [Application Fee, EMD, Affidavits and undertakings in original and other self-attested documents] shall be submitted in the envelope containing the ‘Technical Bid’ by marking the envelop clearly ‘Hard Copy of Technical Bid’. It is not the case of the petitioner that the hard copy of the Technical Bid did not bear the signatures of the respondent no. 6. 14. In Clause 10.4.4, it was made clear that the hard copy shall be signed by the bidder or his authorized signatory with entity seal, if any. It is not the case of the petitioner that the hard copy of the Technical Bid did not bear the signatures of the respondent no. 6. 14. In Clause 10.4.4, it was made clear that the hard copy shall be signed by the bidder or his authorized signatory with entity seal, if any. From Clause 10.4.4, it is apparent that in case a bid was submitted by an entity other than an individual, then the Authorized Signatory of the entity was required to sign the Hard Copy along with the seal of the entity, if any. In case the bidder was an individual, there was no requirement either to sign the bid through its Authorized Signatory with the entity seal. From a reading of the afore-stated clause in the Bid Document, it would clearly emerge that the Tendering Authority had clearly distinguished an individual bidder form an entity. 15. When keeping Clause 2.1 in consideration, Clause 7.6 is examined, it would be evident that all the pages of the documents submitted by the bidder were required to be signed by the Authorized Signatory and shall also be affixed with the bidder entity’s stamp. The meaning of the word, ‘authority’, ascribed in Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition, is the official right or permission to act, esp. to act legally on another’s behalf; esp., the power of one person to affect another’s legal relations by acts done in accordance with the other’s manifestations of assent; the power delegated by a principal to an agent. The meaning of the word ‘authorization’ as per the Dictionary: [i] official permission to do something; sanction or warrant and [ii] the official document granting such permission. As per Oxford Dictionary of English, Third Edition, ‘authorize’ means give official permission for or approval to [an undertaking or agent], and ‘authorized’ means having official permission or approval. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, Tenth Edition, ‘entity’ means an organization [such as a business or a government unit] that has a legal identity apart from its members or owners. Oxford Dictionary of English, Third Edition, has assigned the meaning of ‘entity’ to a thing with distinct and independent existence. From the above meanings, it is evidently clear that an authorized signatory is an individual appointed by an entity like a company, a firm, etc., which has a distinct and independent existence other than an individual. Oxford Dictionary of English, Third Edition, has assigned the meaning of ‘entity’ to a thing with distinct and independent existence. From the above meanings, it is evidently clear that an authorized signatory is an individual appointed by an entity like a company, a firm, etc., which has a distinct and independent existence other than an individual. In other words, an authorized signatory is an individual formally designated by an entity – such as a company, a firm, etc. – to sign legal documents, contracts etc. on its behalf and the authority is given to the Authorized Signatory through official document such as a Board of Director’s Resolution, Power of Attorney, etc. The Authorized Signatory of such an entity’s signature with the seal on a document legally binds the entity to the obligations mentioned in the document. Such an authority is not required in case of an individual which signs a document on his own behalf. 16. From a reading of Clause 7.6, it is found applicable in cases of bids which are submitted by bidders falling in categories of either a partnership firm or a limited liability partnership or a company registered under the Companies Act. In case of such an entity, the bid was to be submitted and signed with seal by a person having authorization of the competent authority in such entity delegating such power to an individual to represent such entities on its behalf. For example, in case a bid was submitted a company, the provisions of the Companies Act would require that the person who would submit the bid on its behalf must have authorization to submit such bid pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company. In case of an individual such authorization was not required in case the individual himself had submitted the bid in his individual capacity. In the case in hand, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 had submitted their individual bids. 17. In Dipankar Das [supra], the process was an e-auction process for a mining contract. In the Bid Document, as per sub-clause [1][d][viii] of Clause B of Schedule-I, format of technical bid required that all the documents should be digitally signed. In the case in hand, both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 had submitted their individual bids. 17. In Dipankar Das [supra], the process was an e-auction process for a mining contract. In the Bid Document, as per sub-clause [1][d][viii] of Clause B of Schedule-I, format of technical bid required that all the documents should be digitally signed. It was in presence of such clause, the Court reached an observation that the bid submitted by the petitioner was not in accordance with the bid document as the petitioner did not sign any of the bid documents digitally. 18. A decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom and even a slight distinction in fact or an additional or different fact may make a lot of difference in the decision-making process. When facts of the case in Dipankar Das [supra] and the condition in the bid document vis-à-vis the facts in the present case and the condition in the bid document are examined, the said decision is found not relevant for application in the present case. 19. In Central Coalfields Limited and another vs. SLL-SLM [Joint Venture Consortium] and others, (2016) 8 SCC 622 , it has been held that the issue of acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. The terms of NIT cannot be ignored as redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. There must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision-making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision that no responsible authority acting reasonably in accordance with relevant law could have reached. The Hon’ble Court has proceeded to observe as under :- 48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. The Hon’ble Court has proceeded to observe as under :- 48. Therefore, whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 . However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot. 20. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and another , (2016) 16 SCC 818 , the Supreme Court has observed that in a tender process, a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional court to interfere. The owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or the employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given. 21. Having analyzed the relevant terms and conditions of the bid document, this Court has arrived at a view that from Clause 7.6 it does not emerge that the condition therein is applicable in respect of an individual person submitting his/her bid in his/her individual capacity because such an individual need not authorize himself to submit the bid. Even if in the opinion of the Tendering Authority is of the opinion that the omission on the part of the respondent no. Even if in the opinion of the Tendering Authority is of the opinion that the omission on the part of the respondent no. 6 to subscribe his signature in the pages of the documents submitted online being a minor irregularity, permissible to be waived exercising power available under Clause 19.2 of the Bid Document, such a interpretation is not one, which can, by any stretch, be termed as arbitrary. The Court is required to defer to such understanding and appreciation, more particularly, in the absence of any element of mala fide or perversity. 22. When Financial Bids were opened on 13.02.2024, the Tender Committee prepared Minutes after financial evaluation of the bids for grant of IMFL ‘Off’ shop license at the advertised location. The system generated BOQ summary details of financial bids were as under:- 23. It was after emergence of the respondent no. 6 as the highest bidder [H-1], the Tendering Authority had taken a decision to issue a Letter of Acceptance to the H-1 bidder, that is, the respondent no. 6 who, in turn, was required to complete the formalities, indicated therein. On 19.02.2024, the Tendering Authority notified about acceptance of the financial bid of the respondent no.6 at Rs. 1,22,03,456/- and he was informed to deposit the said amount within a period of 7 [seven] days from the date of issuance of the Letter of Acceptance for grant of license. In response, the respondent no. 6 had already deposited the license fee as well as the security deposit of 23.02.2024 at the Treasury. 24. From the timeline, it clearly emerges that when the petitioner’s Technical Bid was qualified to enter into the Financial Bid Evaluation stage, the petitioner opted to wait till the opening of the Financial Bids of the technically qualified bidders. The Technical Bids were opened on 20.01.2024 and the Financial Bids were opened on 13.02.2024. As per Clause 27.1.1, the Tender/Bid Committee constituted by the Tendering Authority would open the bids online and after such opening, the bids could be viewed by the bidders also online. The Technical Bids were opened on 20.01.2024 and the Financial Bids were opened on 13.02.2024. As per Clause 27.1.1, the Tender/Bid Committee constituted by the Tendering Authority would open the bids online and after such opening, the bids could be viewed by the bidders also online. The basis of evaluation of Technical Bids was laid down in Clause 27.1.5 and the basis were – [i] Deposit of Application Fee and EMD; [ii] Submission of specified documents; [iii] Eligibility of the bidder and that of the proposed premises in terms of the extant law; and [iv] Outcome of any enquiry that may be conducted by the Tender/Bid Committee. Though it was open for the petitioner to raise objection as regards any deficiency in the Technical Bid of the respondent no. 6 right after the opening of the Technical Bids on 20.01.2024, the petitioner had opted to wait till after 13.02.2024 to raise that the Technical Bid of the respondent no. 6 had deficiencies, which after consideration, this Court has found them to be not sustainable. The present writ petition was filed on 01.04.2024. 25. In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa and others , (2007) 14 SCC 517 , the Supreme Court has laid down following two tests to determine the extent of judicial interference in tender jurisprudence:- 22. … [i] Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : ‘the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached;’ [ii] Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. 26. In the light of the discussion made above, after taking into consideration the terms and conditions of the Bid Documents, this Court has already reached a view that there is no infirmity in the decision-making process. Moreover, as the bid value offered by the respondent no. 6 as H-1 bidder is substantially higher than the bid value offered by the petitioner as H-2 bidder, this Court finds that no public interest has been affected in accepting the respondent no. 6 as the successful bidder for grant of IMFL Retail ‘Off’ License at the advertised location. Moreover, as the bid value offered by the respondent no. 6 as H-1 bidder is substantially higher than the bid value offered by the petitioner as H-2 bidder, this Court finds that no public interest has been affected in accepting the respondent no. 6 as the successful bidder for grant of IMFL Retail ‘Off’ License at the advertised location. Therefore, the answers to the two questions are found in the negative and against the petitioner. 27. Consequently, the writ petition is found to be without merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.