JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a Contractor 'AA' Class registered and approved on the Public Works Department, Rajasthan. The respondent No. 3 had invited tenders for the construction of Nabard road in District division Bharatpur (package No. Nabard 97-98/P/1) for Rs. 70 lacs and for Rs. 80/- lacs. An advertisement was published in the news paper, the last date for receipt of tenders was 31.7.1998 upto 3.00 p.m. and were to be opened at 3.30 p.m. on the same day in the presence of the Contractors. The petitioner states that he had purchased both the tender documents and submitted it in a sealed cover on 31.7.1998 before 3.00 p.m. It is stated that instead of opening the tenders in regard to financial tender, only technical bids were opened and in violation of NIT, the financial bids were opened subsequently on 12.8.1998 whereas according to the petitioner, it should have been opened on the 3rd day of the receipt of the tenders. It is alleged that the respondent No. 1 had acted malafidely to help respondent No. 4. On receiving no information, the petitioner lateron came to know that negotiations were held with the respondent No. 4 Shri R.R Goyal and Harinder Singh on 28.8.1998 and 2.9.1998, when respondent No. 4 reduced the rates and finally his bid was accepted vide Annexure 3. It is stated that the petitioner issued notice Annexure 6 on 29.9.1998. The petitioner is challenging the action of the official respondents for accepting the bid in favour of respondent No. 4. It is one of the ground of the petitioner that there was no question of rejecting the bid of the petitioner on technical ground i.e. called the technical bid on 31.7.1998 itself and not to open the financial bid of the petitioner subsequently for the reason that the petitioner was an approved qualified Contractor of the Department and further there was neither any provision nor any necessity for submitting the attested copies of the certificates attested by the Executive Engineer and in any case if the documents were not attested, in that situation the petitioner should have been asked to get the matter attested and thus by giving tenders to the respondents according to the petitioner the State has been robbed of more then Rs. 20 lacs and enquiry is also asked for. 2. 20 lacs and enquiry is also asked for. 2. The petitioner has attached Annexure 2, the copy of the publication inviting tenders. Annexure-3 is examination of tenders of two contractors i.e. respondent No. 4 and Harinder Singh. 3. Reply has been filed by the State and also by respondent No. 4. It is stated by the State that according to the special conditions of contract, technical bid envelop was to be opened first on the same day on the receipt of the bid/tenders and after evaluating the technical bids and other qualifications of the Contractor, the financial bid was to be opened. It is admitted that the financial bid was to be opened within 3 days of 31.7.1998. It is stated that the petitioner could not qualify for the technical bid and, therefore, he was not eligible to participate in the financial bid. The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had not annexed the certified copies of the documents and similarly the technical bid of many other contractors were also rejected. The bid of Shri R.R Goyal was ultimately accepted. 4. The respondent No. 4 has also filed the written statement, stating therein that the contractor was to submit two envelops of the bid, one called the 'technical' and the second 'financial'. Both were required to be sealed separately as envelop, one technical bid and second financial bid. Both were to be placed in the third envelop bearing the name of the Contractor, it was provided that the technical bid envelop was to be opened first on the day of the bid itself and was to be evaluated for the criteria for post-qualification under the provisions of contract for post qualification. For certain reasons, the financial bid was opened on 12.8.98 i.e. after five days late. 5. Parties had agreed that the matter can be decided finally at admission stage. For the purpose of determining the dispute, it was essential that the record be called for and perused. Record was called. From the record it is revealed that as many as thirteen bids were received for opening on 31.7.1998, out of thirteen, eleven bids were rejected on technical grounds. The bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that true copies of the documents have not been attached. Only two bidders remained. Record was called. From the record it is revealed that as many as thirteen bids were received for opening on 31.7.1998, out of thirteen, eleven bids were rejected on technical grounds. The bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that true copies of the documents have not been attached. Only two bidders remained. A noting had been made on 7.8.98 that out of thirteen bids, eleven were rejected and therefore, remaining two be called for negotiation and after negotiation the bid of respondent No. 4 was accepted, being the lowest. 6. On the special conditions of the contract as per application made by the petitioner, it has been mentioned therein that two envelop system will be adopted for the post qualification envelop-1 being technical bid and envelop 2 being the financial bid. Both envelops will be sealed separately and superscribed envelop-1 technical bid and envelop-2 financial bid respectively. Both envelops will be placed in a third envelop bearing the name of the work by the contractor/bidder bidding for the work. It was further mentioned that the technical bid envelop will be opened first on the same day of the receipt of the bid/tender and the bidder/contractor will be evaluated according to the criteria for post qualification and the financial bids will be opened only of the bidders/contractors who qualify in the technical bid. The conditions as mentioned and produced are as under:The system of post qualification will be as under: a. A 2 (two) Envelop system will be adopted for post qualification Envelop 1 being the Technical Bid and Envelop 2 being the financial Bid. Both Envelops will be sealed separately and superscribed Envelop 1. Technical Bid and Envelop 2. Financial Bid respectively. Both Envelops will be placed in a third Envelop bearing the name of the work by the contractor/bidder bidding for the work. b. The Technical Bid envelop will be opened first on the same day on the receipt of bid/tender and the bidders/contractors will be evaluated according to the criteria for post qualification herewith under Special conditions of Contract for post qualification. c. Financial Bids will be opened only of the bidders/contractors who qualify in the Technical Bid such Financial Bids shall be opened three days after the opening of the Technical Bid. In case this day is a holiday then such bids will be opened on the next working day. c. Financial Bids will be opened only of the bidders/contractors who qualify in the Technical Bid such Financial Bids shall be opened three days after the opening of the Technical Bid. In case this day is a holiday then such bids will be opened on the next working day. d. All other terms and conditions as already prescribed under standard agreement froms/rules and regulations shall be applicable in addition to these special conditions of contract for post qualification. 7. in the application form other conditions in regard to qualifications and work have been mentioned. The bidder was to furnish the following alongwith the bid. "The bidder shall furnish with his bid : "a. The full information regarding financial resources and capability, in Schedule I. b. (i) Details of works of similar type and magnitude completed by the tenderer in Schedule II(a). (ii) Details of items of works executed for the last five years in Schedule II-B, c. Details of works bid and works to be completed in Schedule III. d. Details of technical and supervisory personnel which he proposes to utilise for this work. Schedule IV. e. Details plant and equipment proposed for use in the works in Schedule V. f. A certificate from the Engineer-in-charge conforming the details furnished under (b) and (c) and proof for items (d) and (e). g. The bidder should demonstrate that they have adequate financial resources (overdraft/Credit line/Letter from Bank) sufficient to sustain the contract case flow for 3 months at the peak construction period i.e. Rs. 10.00 lakhs. h. Bidder should demonstrate the availability of qualified personnel viz. Project Manager/Supervisor/Engineer with not less than five years of experience in similar works. 4. Bid Capacity: (1) Bidders who meet the minimum qualifying criteria are to be evaluated further for bid capacity as under: A. Maximum value of similar Engineering works executed in any one year during the last 5 years (up-dated to the current price level) which will take into account the completed and on going works. B. Value of existing commitments, works (complete or partial) to be completed in the coming 12 months (updated to-the current price level). (All certificates should be countersigned by Engineer-in-charge not below the rank of Executive Engineer)." 8. It was mentioned that all certificates would be countersigned by the Engineer-in-charge not below the rank of Executive Engineer. 9. The petitioner had applied on the prescribed form. (All certificates should be countersigned by Engineer-in-charge not below the rank of Executive Engineer)." 8. It was mentioned that all certificates would be countersigned by the Engineer-in-charge not below the rank of Executive Engineer. 9. The petitioner had applied on the prescribed form. Alongwith the form there were required documents running in about fifty-five pages. All were photostat copies. On the form the petitioner had mentioned the required certificates of the Executive Engineer are available to be at page 20, 21, 21A and 22 which are the photostat copies with counter signatures of the Engineer. 10. I have also gone through one of the technical bid of the respondent No. 4 who has similarly written in the form to see the counter signatures. His certificate is also photostat copy signed by Executive Engineer with the only difference that it is attested by the Oath Commissioner i.e. certain schedule attached with the forms even though respondent No. 4 has produced photostat copies of the signature of the Engineer but has been attested by the Oath Commissioner, Jaipur. Except that the respondent has got the photo copies attested by the Oath Commissioner, everything else is equal, so far as the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are concerned. 11. I have gone through the instructions which have been reproduced above. Even though it is stated in the instructions that all the certificates are to be counter signed by the Engineer-in-charge not below the rank of Executive Engineer under the heading of 'Bid Capacity', but nowhere it has been mentioned that the copies are further to be attested by the Oath Commissioner. The petitioner and the respondent No. 4 had submitted the photostat copies of the schedule of the certificates bearing the signatures (photostat copies and signatures) of the concerned Engineer and upto this level both the application forms were similar except that the respondent No. 4 has also got it attested from the Oath Commissioner. 12. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it is not a true attested copy. There is no such provision under the heading "Bid Capacity" that any such schedule is to be again attested by the Oath Commissioner. 12. The application of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that it is not a true attested copy. There is no such provision under the heading "Bid Capacity" that any such schedule is to be again attested by the Oath Commissioner. It seems that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 had submitted the photostat copies of the certificates bearing the counter signatures of the Executive Engineer, which may be prevalent practice, but for the reason that respondent No. 4 had got it further attested by the Oath Commissioner, where the petitioner had not, which was not even the requirement mentioned in the rules that any such counter signatures is to be further attested by the Oath Commissioner, it is not understandable as to why the bid of many other persons including the petitioner were rejected on the ground that the certificate on the schedule is not the true copy. In any case it was not such a deflect which could not have been removed. If the bids were opened on 31.7.98, the contractors could be told to either produce the original of the photostat copy or if any attestation is required by the Oath Commissioner, to get it attested. It is not understandable as to why an Oath Commissioner was to again attest the counter signature. Primarily Oath Commissioner, is supposed to attest the affidavit of oath or affirmation by a deponent, and in such a situation, in my opinion, there was hardly any difference in the application forms submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No. 4, and, it can safely be said that the respondent had not applied its mind in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. 13. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the decision in the case of Ramana D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and others, 1979(3) SCC 489 wherein it was held the administrative authority is equally bound by the norms, standard and procedure laid down by it for others and disregard of the norms or standard would invalidate its action unless based on some valid principle which is neither irrational or un-reasonable nor discriminatory. Rule of a wider application binds the Government and all corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government in the grant of largesse, jobs, Government contracts and issue of quotas and licences etc. Rule of a wider application binds the Government and all corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government in the grant of largesse, jobs, Government contracts and issue of quotas and licences etc. It was further held that the standard of eligibility laid down in the notice for tenders cannot be departed from arbitrarily and it will amount to denial of equality of opportunity to those who felt bound by the standard of eligibility. 14. From the record it is also clear that the petitioner was registered contractor of this very department having all infrastructure and was handling number of contracts. It seems that the matter has not been dealt with properly had to reject eleven tenders on totally un-sound grounds out of thirteen tenders cannot be called fair opportunity of competition between the contractors, where Public money was involved. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it is stated that the respondent No. 4 has already started the work and has even got the running bill of payments. It is the case of public utility service of construction of roads and if any further delay is caused, it is ultimately the public who is going to suffer. 15. To know the latest position about the construction, the case was fixed up under the heading To Be Mentioned' when the Chief Engineer had also attended the court. It has been revealed that on both the contracts involved in the present case about 47% work has already been completed on one road and 27%-30% has been completed on the second part of contract as stated by the Chief Engineer and in such circumstance even though the tender has been illegally rejected by the respondents and where the construction of the roads is involved, quashing of such tender would definitely cause a-delay in construction work resulting inconvenience to the public at large. In any case public is to suffer on both the counts i.e. if the tender is accepted at the higher rate by ignoring the tenders of the other contractors, it is the public money which is wasted and if at this stage the construction is stopped, it is again the public at large who is likely to suffer. To my mind, it shall not be proper to interfere at this stage. 16. To my mind, it shall not be proper to interfere at this stage. 16. Even though the action of all the officers who had illegally rejected the tender of the petitioner cannot be appreciated and atleast this would be a fit case where the State Government should move immediately to take departmental action against such officers who on the face of it had tried to favour the respondent by rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner and other contractors for no reasons what-so-ever. A loss of about Rs. 15 Sacs is said to have been caused to the exchequer. It is up to the Government to take action accordingly and to see that no such illegal actions are repeated in future by the officers. 17. Even though the petitioner had merit in his submission, but for the reason mentioned above, it shall not be appropriate to allow the writ petition when the work has already been progressed upto 50% and about 30% in both the tenders in regard to constructions of the roads. However, it is a fit case where an exemplary cost should be imposed on the respondents. The petitioner shall be allowed a cost of Rs. 20,000/- which shall be paid by the State Government, but shall be recovered from the salary of the defaulting officers under the intimation to this court. 18. With the above-said observations, the writ petition is dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed with Costs of Rs. 20,000/- to Petitioner. *******