JUDGMENT : Ziyad Rahman A.A., J. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is registered as a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise [MSME] with UDYAM Registration No.UDYAM-KL-12-0006179. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition relates to the tender process at the instance of the 3 rd and 4 th respondents for the purpose of supply of Electronic Weighing Scales [EWS], to be connected to the ePoS machines that are being used by the 3 rd respondent for distributing the articles through the Public Distribution System [PDS]. Ext.P1 is the Request For Proposals (RFP), wherein, the terms and conditions, including the specifications of the devise are set out. One of the requirements is that, the Electronic Weighing Scales [EWS] should be that of Bluetooth version 2.0 to 5.1 compliant. 2. In response to the tender notification, the petitioner, as well as the 6 th and 7 th respondents, have submitted bids. As part of the technical evaluation, a test of the equipments were initially conducted on 29.07.2025. However, during the said process, the Electronic Weighing Scales [EWS] supplied by the petitioner as well as the 6 th respondent could not be connected to the ePoS machines due to some technical glitches. Apart from the above, certain further clarifications are also required with respect to the documents furnished by the petitioner as well as the 7 th respondent. Accordingly, the decision was postponed to be taken at a later stage, as evidenced by Ext.P7. 3. Thereafter, a further meeting of the technical evaluation Committee was convened on 23.09.2025, and the minutes of the said meeting is produced as Ext.P26 in this writ petition. It is discernible from Ext.P26 that, before the test began, the technical evaluation Committee obtained a patch file from the NIC, Hyderabad, which was required for the purpose of connecting the ePoS machine, which is used for testing. During the test conducted, the EWSs provided by the 6 th and 7 th respondents could be connected through Bluetooth and also USB. Thereafter, the officers of the said respondents have explained, by way of Power Point Presentation, as to the modes through which, their respective EWSs can be operated. For the purpose of the test, the petitioner had provided two EWSs, one with Bluetooth version 2.0 and the other with Bluetooth 4.0 version. Thereafter, the officers of the said respondents have explained, by way of Power Point Presentation, as to the modes through which, their respective EWSs can be operated. For the purpose of the test, the petitioner had provided two EWSs, one with Bluetooth version 2.0 and the other with Bluetooth 4.0 version. During the test, it was found that even though EWS with Bluetooth version 2.0 could be connected with the ePoS machines, the EWS with Bluetooth 4.0 version could not be connected with the machine. Thereupon, the petitioner raised a grievance before the technical evaluation committee that, the probably the connection could not be established, due to two reasons, i.e., either the Bluetooth version of the ePoS machines is outdated or that the Bluetooth version of the 6 th and 7 th respondents was not that of version 4.1 or above. After taking note of the aforesaid objection, the technical evaluation Committee had taken three decisions in the said meeting, which are as follows: 1) An explanation should be sought from NIC, Hyderabad why despite installing patch file made available by the NIC, Hyderabad to the ePoS, the EWSs brought by the petitioner could not be connected through Wi-Fi (sic). (Action to be taken by IT Cell). 2) Since the petitioner had expressed doubts about the Bluetooth versions in the EWSs brought for demonstration by the sixth and seventh respondents and since the members of TEC also required clarity on this aspect, directions should be issued to all three participants to produce Bluetooth version certificates of their EWSs and data sheets regarding the same within 2 days. (Action to be taken by IT Cell). 3) The NIC, Hyderabad should be directed to examine the ePoS No. 1802504789 used for the demo and its backend data to find out the Bluetooth versions of the EWSs brought for demonstrations and connected to it by all three participants. (Action to be taken by IT Cell).” 4. Thereafter, certain communications by way of email are seen to have been sent by the officers as evidenced by Ext.P45 on 22.09.2025 itself by the IT Cell, to one Gmail ID apuma.nic.in> with regard to the implementation of the said decision. Later, a further meeting of the technical evaluation committee was convened on 29.09.2025 and Ext.P31 is the minutes of the said meeting. Later, a further meeting of the technical evaluation committee was convened on 29.09.2025 and Ext.P31 is the minutes of the said meeting. The aforesaid document would indicate that, the evaluation of the data sheet furnished by the 6 th and 7 th respondents showing the version of the Bluetooth was examined. With regard to the decision No.1 and 3, the observation in Ext.P31 is to the effect that, the 4th respondent had informed the technical evaluation committee that, on contacting the NIC Hyderabad, it was telephonically informed that, since the EWS furnished by the respondents 6 and 7 can be connected with the ePoS machines, there is no problem with the software used and no explanation can be given as to why the EWS provided by the petitioner could not be connected with the ePoS machines. 5. Thus, based on the said information, the technical evaluation Committee is seen to have proceeded further, rejecting the bid of the petitioner and processing the bids submitted by the 6 th and 7 th respondents. In the proceeding followed, the 6 th respondent is found to be L1, and the respondents are under the process of executing the contract, as evidenced by Ext.P33. 6. The petitioner had submitted representations highlighting his grievances with regard to the non- implementation of the decisions taken by the technical evaluation Committee, as in Ext.P26, by way of Exts.P32 and P46 to the 2nd respondent herein and also to the Minister of Civil Supplies. According to the petitioner, none of the representations was responded to. The grievances highlighted by the petitioner before the 4 th respondent were answered as per Ext.P37 communication dated 23.10.2025 wherein objections raised by the petitioner were rejected. According to the petitioner, none of the representations was responded to. The grievances highlighted by the petitioner before the 4 th respondent were answered as per Ext.P37 communication dated 23.10.2025 wherein objections raised by the petitioner were rejected. It was in these circumstances, the writ petition was submitted, challenging the proceedings and the reliefs sought by the petitioner are as follows:- a) issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction to respondents 2 – 4 calling for the originals of Exhibits P 31, P33 and P 37 and all connected files relating to the procurement of EWSs by the third respondent and quash Exhibits P 31, P33 and P 37 as unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable; b) direct the fifth respondent to evaluate the EWSs brought for demonstration by the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7 as well as the ePoS 1802504789 used during the demonstration and file a report before this Hon. Court on Bluetooth connectivity of the EWSs with the ePoS and the versions of Bluetooth used for achieving connectivity to each of the EWSs; c) direct respondents 2 to 5 to conduct a fresh technical evaluation of the EWSs offered by the petitioner, the sixth and seventh respondents and test their specifications as well as Bluetooth connectivity with the ePoS No. 1802504789 used for the demonstration through competent officers of the fifth respondent in the presence of the petitioner, the sixth and the seventh respondents; d) direct respondents 1 and 5 to provide pro-active effective assistance as called for in the facts and circumstances of the case for a fair, non-arbitrary, detailed and appropriate evaluation of the EWSs offered in response to the RFP by the petitioner, the sixth and seventh respondents to enable connectivity of each EWS to ePoS No. 1802504789 through Bluetooth version 4.0 to 5.1 and through USB; e) direct respondents 3 to 6 to return forthwith, the EWS sent by the petitioner to the sixth respondent as instructed by Exhibit P 6 with the full concurrence of the third and fourth respondents through their IT Cell; f) dispense with the requirement to file English translations of vernacular documents; g) issue any other writs, orders or directions as may be prayed for by the petitioner from time to time and as may be deemed fit and proper to issue in the interests of justice in this case; h) award costs to the petitioner. 7. Separate counter affidavits were filed by the 4th, 6th and 7 th respondents. The 5 th respondent, NIC, Hyderabad, has a statement in response to the averments contained in the writ petition. Averments in the counter affidavit submitted by the respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7 contain the explanation regarding the procedure followed while taking a decision to award the contract. The statement of NIC contains an averment that, at no point of time, NIC Hyderabad was a part of the RFP/tendering process for the Electronic Weighing Scale e- Tender nor was it a member of the Technical or Financial Evaluation Committee. It was asserted in the said statement that the entire evaluation process was carried out solely by the Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of Kerala. 8. I have heard Sri M.Ajay, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahadev M.J, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 5, Renjith.S, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, Sri S.Sanal Kumar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the 6 th respondent and Smt Anu Balakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the 7 th respondent. 9. The specific contention raised by the petitioner is by highlighting the non-implementation of the decision taken by the technical evaluation Committee in Ext.P26, which includes seeking opinion from the NIC, Hyderabad, as to why the Electronic Weighing Scales [EWS] furnished by the petitioner could not be connected to the ePoS machines, despite installing the patch file, provided by the NIC Hyderabad and also to verify the ePoS machine bearing no. 1802504789 by examining the back-end data of the said machine to find out the details of the version of the Electronic Weighing Scales [EWS] connected to the system. However, on going through the documents made available before this Court, it is seen that, apart from some emails forwarded in this regard to one person, who claims to be the Officer of the NIC Hyderabad, from IT Cell, which is entrusted with the task of coordination with this testing, no official communication is seen exchanged. 10. From Ext.P29, by which further proceedings were continued, it is evident that the technical evaluation Committee acted upon a telephonic conversation claimed to gave occurred between some of the officers of the NIC and the 4th respondent, with respect to the clarifications referred to Ext P26. 10. From Ext.P29, by which further proceedings were continued, it is evident that the technical evaluation Committee acted upon a telephonic conversation claimed to gave occurred between some of the officers of the NIC and the 4th respondent, with respect to the clarifications referred to Ext P26. The name of the officer, with whom such communications have been made and the official channel through which such communication took place, are not on record. Thus, what the documents reveal is that, even though a specific decision was taken by the technical evaluation committee in Ext.P26, to seek certain clarifications/opinion from the NIC, Hyderabad, for the purpose of finalising tender process, the same has not been pursued through any official channel and the same has never ended in a logical conclusion officially. This is very conspicuous in the facts and circumstances of the case, because of the reason that, in the statement submitted by the NIC Hyderabad, it is made clear that, at no point of time, NIC, Hyderabad was part of the tender evaluation process and according to them, the entire valuation was being done by the 3rd and 4th respondents. 11. Reliance placed on the conversations claimed to have taken place between the 4th respondent and an officer of NIC, Hyderabad, cannot be treated as a proper material to conclude that, the decisions taken by the technical evaluation committee as evidenced by Ext.P26 were implemented in letter and spirit. 12. Of course it is true that, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent, Ext.P1 would indicate that, the failure to connect EWS supplied by the petitioner with ePoS machine would result in immediate disqualification of the tenderer and therefore, it is the case of the learned senior counsel that, since the petitioner’s EWS could not be connected, the proper course ought to have followed by the technical evaluation committee is to disqualify the petitioner then and there. However, on going through Ext.P26, it can be seen that, even though the petitioner could not connect the Electronic Weighing Scales [EWS] provided by them with the ePoS machine, taking note of the objections raised by the petitioner, a decision in this regard was postponed, and it was decided to be taken after implementing three decisions specifically referred to therein. However, on going through Ext.P26, it can be seen that, even though the petitioner could not connect the Electronic Weighing Scales [EWS] provided by them with the ePoS machine, taking note of the objections raised by the petitioner, a decision in this regard was postponed, and it was decided to be taken after implementing three decisions specifically referred to therein. Since the technical evaluation committee, which is having the expertise to finalise the matter and to select a proper person for entrusting the work, has taken such a decision, being convinced of the necessity of such clarifications, the same ought to have been implemented in letter and spirit. The deviation from the course, which was sought to be adopted by the technical evaluation committee as per Ext.P26 in the midway, without following it up, appears to be very conspicuous, particularly in view of specific stand taken by the 5th respondent to the effect that, they were not party to any of the transaction relating to the selection process, whereas, the decision to deviate from the course adopted in Ext.P26 was evidently taken in Ext.P31 decision on 29.09.2025, apparently based on the opinion claimed to have been obtained from the NIC Hyderabad. Therefore, I am of the view that, there is some lacuna in the process adopted while finalising the entire tender process. 13. Of course, the learned Government pleader as well as the learned senior counsel appearing for the 6th respondent have raised the question of maintainability of this writ petition in view of the alternate remedy available to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions in Ext.P1. Ext.P1 indeed contains a remedial mechanism for settling the dispute which is as follows:- “Settlement of Disputes The decision of the Evaluation/Technical Committee appointed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies shall be final & binding on participating firms. In the event of any grievance, the aggrieved party may make a representation before the Secretary to Government, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Government of Kerala, within 3 working days of the announcement of the successful bidder. The Secretary to Government, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Kerala, will decide upon the issue raised by said aggrieved party and will give his finding in writing on receipt of said representation. The Secretary to Government, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Kerala, will decide upon the issue raised by said aggrieved party and will give his finding in writing on receipt of said representation. The findings of the Secretary to Government, Department of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Kerala will be final and binding upon the aggrieved party. If the matter still remains unresolved, then the same may be settled as per the provision of the arbitration and conciliation Act 1996." In the light of the above, it is pointed out that, the petitioner will have to move the Secretary to the Government, Food & Civil Supplies Department and in case, a favourable decision could not be obtained from the said authority, the same could be settled as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 . 14. However, in this case, it is seen that, the petitioner had indeed submitted Ext.P32 and P45 representations before the Secretary to the Department of Food & Civil Supplies, highlighting this aspect, but the same were not responded to. It is also noted in this regard that, going by the clause relating to settlement and dispute, there is a stipulation that, in case a representation in this regard is submitted before the Secretary, he will decide upon the issue raised by the said aggrieved party and will give his findings on writing on receipt of the said representation. 15. In this case, representation submitted by the petitioner has not been responded to, despite the fact that, the clause contemplates a mandatory decision at the instance of the Secretary to the Department of Food & Civil Supplies. Therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to invoke the further remedy of arbitration. Even if it is assumed that the arbitration is contemplated as one of the remedies available to the petitioner, that by itself would not preclude this Court from entertaining a writ petition. This is particularly because, the existence of alternate remedy by itself cannot be a reason, not to entertain a writ petition and in cases where, the unreasonableness or arbitrariness in the tender process are revealed from the records produced before this Court, nothing would preclude this Court from exercising the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. 16. In this regard, the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v. Chief Executive Officer [2024 KHC 6342] are relevant, wherein, the circumstances under which the writ jurisdiction can be invoked, are clearly specified. In the said decision, the observations made in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in [ (2015) 7 SCC 728 ] , where the position in this regard was summarised was referred to which reads as follows:- 54.The law on the subject with which we are dealing was laid down exhaustively by this Court in its decision in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 728 , and the position was summarised as under: - "69. The position thus summarised in the aforesaid principles has to be understood in the context of discussion that preceded which we have pointed out above. As per this, no doubt, there is no absolute bar to the maintainability of the writ petition even in contractual matters or where there are disputed questions of fact or even when monetary claim is raised. At the same time, discretion lies with the High Court which under certain circumstances, it can refuse to exercise. It also follows that under the following circumstances, "normally", the Court would not exercise such a discretion: 69.1. The Court may not examine the issue unless the action has some public law character attached to it. 69.2. Whenever a particular mode of settlement of dispute is provided in the contract, the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution and relegate the party to the said mode of settlement, particularly when settlement of disputes is to be resorted to through the means of arbitration. 69.3. If there are very serious disputed questions of fact which are of complex nature and require oral evidence for their determination. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. 70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under: 70.1. 69.4. Money claims per se particularly arising out of contractual obligations are normally not to be entertained except in exceptional circumstances. 70. Further, the legal position which emerges from various judgments of this Court dealing with different situations/aspects relating to contracts entered into by the State/public authority with private parties, can be summarised as under: 70.1. At the stage of entering into a contract, the State acts purely in its executive capacity and is bound by the obligations of fairness. 70.2. State in its executive capacity, even in the contractual field, is under obligation to act fairly and cannot practise some discriminations. 70.3. Even in cases where question is of choice or consideration of competing claims before entering into the field of contract, facts have to be investigated and found before the question of a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution could arise. If those facts are disputed and require assessment of evidence the correctness of which can only be tested satisfactorily by taking detailed evidence, involving examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the case could not be conveniently or satisfactorily decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such cases the Court can direct the aggrieved party to resort to alternate remedy of civil suit, etc. 70.4. Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution was not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred. 70.5. Writ petition was not maintainable to avoid contractual obligation. Occurrence of commercial difficulty, inconvenience or hardship in performance of the conditions agreed to in the contract can provide no justification in not complying with the terms of contract which the parties had accepted with open eyes. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so: and he can challenge the conditions under which he agreed to take the licence, if he finds it commercially inexpedient to conduct his business. 70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages. 70.7. 70.6. Ordinarily, where a breach of contract is complained of, the party complaining of such breach may sue for specific performance of the contract, if contract is capable of being specifically performed. Otherwise, the party may sue for damages. 70.7. Writ can be issued where there is executive action unsupported by law or even in respect of a corporation there is denial of equality before law or equal protection of law or if it can be shown that action of the public authorities was without giving any hearing and violation of principles of natural justice after holding that action could not have been taken without observing principles of natural justice. 70.8. If the contract between private party and the State/instrumentality and/or agency of the State is under the realm of a private law and there is no element of public law, the normal course for the aggrieved party, is to invoke the remedies provided under ordinary civil law rather than approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. 70.9. The distinction between public law and private law element in the contract with the State is getting blurred. However, it has not been totally obliterated and where the matter falls purely in private field of contract, this Court has maintained the position that writ petition is not maintainable. The dichotomy between public law and private law rights and remedies would depend on the factual matrix of each case and the distinction between the public law remedies and private law field, cannot be demarcated with precision. In fact, each case has to be examined, on its facts whether the contractual relations between the parties bear insignia of public element. Once on the facts of a particular case it is found that nature of the activity or controversy involves public law element, then the matter can be examined by the High Court in writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to see whether action of the State and/or instrumentality or agency of the State is fair, just and equitable or that relevant factors are taken into consideration and irrelevant factors have not gone into the decision making process or that the decision is not arbitrary. 70.10. 70.10. Mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, in such a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right, but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render the decision arbitrary, and this is how the requirements of due consideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principle of non-arbitrariness. 70.11. The scope of judicial review in respect of disputes falling within the domain of contractual obligations may be more limited and in doubtful cases the parties may be relegated to adjudication of their rights by resort to remedies provided for adjudication of purely contractual disputes." (Emphasis supplied) 17. Apart from the above, the petitioner also relied on SM/s. Popcorn Entertainment and Another v. City Industrial Development Corpn and Another [2007 KHC 3233] wherein, this Court observed that, when a case of unreasonableness or denial of level playing field is established from the documents in relation to contract matters, it is the duty of this Court to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and to set right the defects in the procedure. 18. Thus, when the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions are applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am convinced that this is a case in which interference is required, despite the fact that, there is an alternate remedy contemplated in Ext.P1. 19. This is particularly because, as observed above, Ext.P26 would indicate that, certain decisions were taken by the technical evaluation Committee after being convinced by the objections raised by the petitioner. However, the proceedings were apparently finalised without implementing those decisions. The circumstances under which the deviations from the proposals made in Ext.P26 appears to be very conspicuous, as observed above, since no effective attempt through an official channel has been made to have a contact with NIC Hyderabad, as decided in Ext.P26 for getting necessary clarifications in this regard. 20. Since the decision has already been taken in Ext.P26 to get necessary clarifications from NIC Hyderabad, the same should have been implemented in letter and spirit by following it up, by the competent officers under the 3rd and 4th respondents, to ensure fairness in the proceedings. 20. Since the decision has already been taken in Ext.P26 to get necessary clarifications from NIC Hyderabad, the same should have been implemented in letter and spirit by following it up, by the competent officers under the 3rd and 4th respondents, to ensure fairness in the proceedings. This is particularly because, the petitioner has expressed his doubts at the time when the decision in Ext.P26 was taken with regard to the Bluetooth versions of the products provided by the 6 th and 7 th respondents. Besides, the petitioner has also raised a doubt as to whether the patch file provided by the NIC Hyderabad, is sufficient to make the ePOS machine compatible with Bluetooth version 4.0 or would it be capable of making it compatible only with a Bluetooth version 5.1. As regards the doubt expressed by the petitioner with regard to the patch file, it is because of the reason that, the EWS provided by the 6 th and 7 th respondents are with the Bluetooth version 5.1, whereas, the EWS furnished by the petitioner is that of Bluetooth 4.1 version. Since this doubt was already entertained by the technical evaluation committee, it is only proper that the said doubt along with the other doubts be clarified by the NIC Hyderabad, by following the best known procedure, as the NIC Hyderabad may deem fit. Such an exercise has not done so far and hence it is only proper that, before finalising the tender process, the same be carried out. In such circumstances, an interference is required. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- i The respondents 3 and 4 shall issue a communication through the official channel, to the 5th respondent, seeking clarifications as decided in Ext.P26, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ii Thereupon, the 5 th respondent shall consider the same, examine the matter and give a clear opinion with respect to the same, particularly the decision nos. 1 and 3 in Ext.P26. It shall be open to the 5 th respondent to adopt any method for giving such opinion, as they deem fit. ii Thereupon, the 5 th respondent shall consider the same, examine the matter and give a clear opinion with respect to the same, particularly the decision nos. 1 and 3 in Ext.P26. It shall be open to the 5 th respondent to adopt any method for giving such opinion, as they deem fit. In case the 5th respondent is of the opinion that, examination of the EWSs of the parties, .ie., the petitioner, 6 th respondent and 7 th respondent, and ePOS machines are necessary, the same shall be provided by the petitioner, the 4 th respondent, as well as the 6 th and 7 th respondents. As far as the petitioner is concerned, EWS is already provided by the petitioner to the 3 rd and 4 th respondent and hence the same shall be sent, if found necessary. As regards the other party respondents, the same will be made available by them and it is for the 3 rd and 4 th respondent to ensure that the very same machines that were made available for testing on 22.09.2025 are forwarded for such test as well. iii The opinion shall be communicated to the 4th respondent by the 5 th respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the communication or the machines whichever is later. iv Thereupon, a fresh decision on the finalisation of the tender shall be taken, based on the opinion expressed by the 5th respondent. It is clarified that, if the opinion is not in favour of the petitioner, it shall be open to the 3 rd and 4 th respondent to con taken in favour of the 6 th respondent and continue the process. However, if it is otherwise, the tender process shall be revised by considering the financial bids of the petitioner as well.