Judgment 1. What is the purpose of getting the school text books printed? The common man may feel nonplussed by such a question and answer the obvious that text books were meant to be read by school children. In this litigation this simple and self-evident truth appears to have been overlooked by everyone, unfortunately including this court, and this case seems to suggest that the object of getting text books printed was that a handful of private printers and contractors may make their profits. 2. The Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) issued a tender notice inviting nationwide bids for printing of over seventy five lacs volumes of books in different subjects for classes 1 to 7, described in the 25 schedules of the tender notice. The books were intended to be supplied to the girl students and children belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the academic session 2001, commencing from January and ending on December, 2001. There arose a dispute between the petitioner firm, one of the bidders, and the Corporation over the Corporations refusal to give to the petitioner the contract for printing of books under seven different schedules of the tender notice, in respect of which the petitioner was the lowest bidder. The petitioners brought the dispute to this court by filing this writ petition on 14.5.2001 and for the past three and half months this matter has lingered on in this court. At one stage, an interim order was passed restraining the Corporation from accepting the supplies of any printed books in pursuance of the tender notice in question. Unfortunately, the interim order was couched in the widest terms and it forbade the supply of books to the Corporation even under those schedules of the tender notice which were never in dispute in this litigation. On 13.8.2001 when the interim order was passed no one showed sufficient responsibility to point out to the court that the dispute was in respect of only seven schedules and there was no occasion for the court to pass an order restraining the Corporation from accepting supplies of books even under those 18 schedules of the tender notice which were not in dispute in this case. This position could only be rectified when the case was taken up for hearing for its final disposal on 30.8.2001 and then this court modified and clarified the interim order of stay passed earlier. 3. During the past three decades a substantial amount of case law has accumulated on the question of award of government contracts and a lawyer with sufficient skills may without difficulty press into service certain observations from the earlier decisions in any dispute relating to the award of government contracts. But while hearing learned arguments from the counsel appearing for the parties I was unable to keep out of my mind for a moment the fact that the contract in dispute was for printing of school text books for the academic year 2001 and though two out of the three parts of the year is already over, the school children are yet to receive the books intended for them. While lengthy arguments were advanced on the plea of upholding the rights of the individual and much reliance was placed on a number of Supreme Court decisions, I was unable to relinguish (sic) the thought that the contract for printing of school text books for a particular academic year was basically different from and could not be viewed in the same way as a contract for ten years for extraction of resin from forests [Kasturi Lal; (1980) 4 SCC 1 ] or the contract for the supply of fresh milk for the Military Farms [Harminder Singh Arora; (1986) 3 SCC 247 ] or the contract for allotment of damaged stocks of rice (Food Corporation of India; A.I.R. 1993 SC 1601) or the grant of licence for the operation of Cellular Mobile Telephone Service [Tata Cellular, A.I.R. 1996 SC 11] or the contract for publication of telephone directories of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (Sterling Computers Ltd; A.I.R. 1996 SC 51) or the contract for development and exploration of oil fields (Centre for Public Interest Litigation; A.I.R. 2001 SC 80). 4. To my mind, upholding of individual rights and the enforcement of the individuals rights by the intervention of the writ court is undoubtedly important but in doing so the court must not over look the damage that might be caused to a larger public cause, as in this case. 4. To my mind, upholding of individual rights and the enforcement of the individuals rights by the intervention of the writ court is undoubtedly important but in doing so the court must not over look the damage that might be caused to a larger public cause, as in this case. Speaking for myself I would not have entertained this writ petition and thrown it out at the very threshold, indeed leaving it open for the petitioner to claim damages by bringing an action against the Corporation before a Civil Court. Such a course would not have rendered the petitioner remediless and at the same time it would also have saved this Court from finding itself in a position where it may be seen as causing obstruction in the expeditious and timely supply of text books to school children. 5. Such a course, however, is no longer possible in this case because this case has now been heard for more than three and half months, notices were issued to the different respondents who have appeared and filed their returns/affidavits. The petitioner in his turn filed rejoinder affidavits, supplementary affidavits etc. adding greatly to the bulk of the brief. Further, the case has been heard on merits at length and, therefore, it can now only be disposed of on merits taking into consideration the rival contentions. 6. The District Primary Education Programme (DPEP-III), is the name of a project sponsored by the World Bank. Under the project school text books in different subject from classes l to VII were to be supplied free (for the academic sessions 2001) to the girl children and children belonging to the SCs and STs. This naturally required printing of books in very large number. The implementation of this programme is under the overall control and supervision of the Ministry of Human Resources Development and another Central agency called Ed-Cil (Education Consultants India Limited). In this State the implementation of the programme is in the hands of a body called the Bihar Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad. The Parishad assigned the task of procurement of text books in such large numbers to the Text Book Corporation as getting text books printed is the normal job of the Corporation. Under the final scheme the Corporation was to get the text books printed in required numbers through private printers by awarding them contracts for the purpose. The Parishad assigned the task of procurement of text books in such large numbers to the Text Book Corporation as getting text books printed is the normal job of the Corporation. Under the final scheme the Corporation was to get the text books printed in required numbers through private printers by awarding them contracts for the purpose. The Corporation and the Parishad prepared detailed documents dealing with the bidding procedure, the terms and conditions of the contract and other allied matters and on approval by the Ed Cil & the Central authorities the compendium was called the National Competitive Bidding Document For Text Book (N.C.B.D. for short). 7. On the finalisation of the N.C.B.D. a tender notice was issued on 14.11.2000 in some national dailies. All the required books were described in 25 schedules in the tender notice out of which the seven schedules in dispute in this case are reproduced below: SI. No. Schedule Brief Description Unit Qnty. Delivery Schedule Bid Security (Rs) Hindi Medium Books 1. Schedule l Hindi l (Class l) No. 30000 Within three months from the date of signing of the contract at office of BSTBC Ltd. White House, Budh Marg, Patna 5000 2. Schedule ll Ganit l (Class l) No. 800000 Do 120000 3. Schedule lll Hindi lI (Class II) No. 645000 Do 120000 4. Schedule lV Ganit Il (Class Il) No. 365000 Do 45000 6. Schedule VI Paryawaran Aur Hum-l (Class III) No. 565000 Do 50000 7. Schedule VII Paryawaran Aur Hum-I (Class III) Social Studies No. 565000 Do 87000 9. Schedule IX Ganit IV (Class IV) No. 485000 Do- 112000 8. At this stage it may be noted that having regard to the nature of the contract an adequate supply of printing paper was naturally felt to be of utmost importance and this was made a stringent condition for the bidders. Section ll of the N.C.B.D. contained instructions to bidder and Clauses 13.2 (a) and 13.3 (g) in this section provided as follows: "13.2 The documentary evidence of the Bidders qualifications to perform the Contract if its bid is accepted, shall establish to the Purchasers satisfaction. Section ll of the N.C.B.D. contained instructions to bidder and Clauses 13.2 (a) and 13.3 (g) in this section provided as follows: "13.2 The documentary evidence of the Bidders qualifications to perform the Contract if its bid is accepted, shall establish to the Purchasers satisfaction. (a) that, in the case of a Bidder offering to supply goods under the contract which the Bidder did not manufacture or otherwise produce, the Bidder has been duly authorized (as per authorization form in Section XII) by the good Manufacturer or producer to supply the goods in India." "13.3 The following information shall be provided in support of each Bidders qualifications: (g) A Confirmation in writing from the concerned paper mill indicating its willingness to supply in time paper of the required quantity and specifications, in case an order is placed by the bidder for the same." 9. It may further be noted that even before the last date for submission of the bid papers a Pre-Bid meeting was held on 27.12.2000 (Annexure-1) and on that oasis certain clarifications and amendments were made in the NCBD-2001 and necessary intimation was given to all concerned, (including the writ petitioner) by letter, dated 27.12.2000 issued by the Corporation. From clause 6 of this Setter it appears that in the meeting held on 27.12.2000 the bidders requested that representatives from Paper Mills should also be called and asked to ensure timely supply of paper to the awardees and a rate contract tor this programme should be evolved. On this issue it was firmly resolved in the meeting that the arrangement of requisite supplies of paper would De the bidders sole responsibility. 10. It is thus to be seen that ensuring sufficient and timely supply of the requisite type of printing paper was one of the conditions of utmost importance in awarding the contract This crucial condition of the contract needs to be borne in mind as it was for this reason that the petitioners bid appears to have floundered. 11. The writ petitioner firm was one of the parties who purchased the bid documents and it was one of the 26 parties who finally submitted the bid documents on 6.1.2001, the extended iast date for submission of the bid papers. The petitioners bid papers included a letter dated 2.1.2001 issued by the Sheryans industries Limited and signed for Sheryans Industries Limited by one J.S. Rathour, A.G.M. Marketing. The petitioners bid papers included a letter dated 2.1.2001 issued by the Sheryans industries Limited and signed for Sheryans Industries Limited by one J.S. Rathour, A.G.M. Marketing. In this letter addressed to the petitioner an assurance was given "to supply 60 GSM Virgin Pulp Water Mark Creamwove/White Printing Paper with minimum 75% brightness with watermark paper". It is significant to note, however, that in this letter there was no reference to the bid in question or for the printing of text books under DPEP- III programme. Another fact of which notice must be taken is that though the writ petitioner had made a bid for books under 16 schedules ot the tender notice, his bid for the 7 schedules in dispute were admittedly the lowest. 12. A technical committee thereafter took up all the bids for scrutiny from 17.1.2001 and on 18.1.2001 a letter (Annexure-9 series) was issued by the Corporation which was addressed to 31 parties, including the writ petitioner, asking them to submit the audited balance sheets of the concerned paper mills for the last three years and/or supporting evidence within seven days. The petitioner gave its reply by letter dated January 29, 2001 (Annexure-9 series). In this letter it was stated that the balance sheet and technical specifications etc. would be sent to the Corporation by the Paper Mill directly as the Corporations letter was addressed to the Mills as well. Along with this letter, however, the petitioner firm enclosed two more letters of authorisation for supply of paper. One of them was from Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited and the other from Sheryans Industries Limited. The letter from Sheryans was dated 23.1.2001 and it was on the letter head of Sheryans Industries Limited but the letter was signed by the authorised signatory for Sheryans Paper Mills Ltd. and not by any one representing Sheryans Industries Limited. From the materials on record it appears that this letter dated January 23, 2001 apart from being sent along with the writ petitioners letter dated 29.1.2001 was received in the Corporations office by fax. 13. From the materials on record it appears that this letter dated January 23, 2001 apart from being sent along with the writ petitioners letter dated 29.1.2001 was received in the Corporations office by fax. 13. As noted above, the letter of Sheryans Industries Limited, dated January 2, 2001 submitted by the petitioner along with the bid documents made no reference to this bid or to the printing of books under DPEP-lll programme and the letter from Sheryans Industries Limited dated 23.1.2001 suffered from an apparent anomaly, as the letter was signed by someone being the authorised signatory for Sheryans Paper Mills Limited. In those circumstances the Corporation cannot be faulted for seeking a direct confirmation from the Sheryans Industries Limited. It appears that while the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee which had commenced on January 31, 2001 and had gone on till February 1, 2001 was still in progress, a fax message was sent from the Corporation to the Sheryans Industries Limited. Along with the faxed message, copies of the letters dated 2.1.2001 and 23.1.2001 purportedly issued by the Sheryans Industries Limited were also faxed requesting for confirmation whether those letters had been issued by the Sheryans Industries Limited and sent to the Corporation on its fax number. The reply from the Sheryans Industries Limited was received on the same day at 9 minutes past 5 P.M. It will be appropriate to reproduce the entire letter sent by the Sheryans Industries Limited in response to the query made by the Corporation. The Managing Director, Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corpn. Ltd., PATNA (BIHAR) Ref : Your Fax dated 1.02.2001 Reg: Clarification regarding authorisation of Bidders for purchase of paper for Printing of books under DPEP-III Bihar-2001 Dear Sir, We would like to inform you that we have authorised M/s National Paper House/ M/s Ashok Manufacturing Company, Patna to supply 60 GSM Water Mark Creamwove Paper and Cover Paper for above mentioned tender. We are also authorised their various printers, as per details given below: 1. M/s Tarang Press & Publication, Patna 2. M/s Sanajay Shree Offset Printers, Patna 3. M/s H.L Printers, Patna 4. M/s Jankalyan Press, Patna 5. M/s Samrat Offset, Patna 6. M/s Bihar Offset, Patna 7. M/s Sunrise Plastic Works, Patna 8. M/s Bharat Printing Works, Patna Apart of that, we have not given any authority to any printers for this tender. M/s Tarang Press & Publication, Patna 2. M/s Sanajay Shree Offset Printers, Patna 3. M/s H.L Printers, Patna 4. M/s Jankalyan Press, Patna 5. M/s Samrat Offset, Patna 6. M/s Bihar Offset, Patna 7. M/s Sunrise Plastic Works, Patna 8. M/s Bharat Printing Works, Patna Apart of that, we have not given any authority to any printers for this tender. We have not given any commitment to supply the material except M/s National Paper House/ M/s Ashok Manufacturing Company and their authorised printers as mentioned above. In this regard, our representative Mr. Rajesh Verma has already submitted a letter to your goodself on 24th January 2001. This is for your kind information. Thanking You, Yours faithfully for Shreyans Industries Limited sd/-(J.S. Rathour) AGM, Marketing" 14 From the above letter it appears that though Shreyans Industries Limited did not say in so many words that the letter dated 2.1.2001 and 23.1.2001 were fake or were not issued by them it was evident from their above quoted letter that Shreyans had not given any authorisation to any one of the bidders directly. It appears that for certain commercial reasons Shreyans Industries Limited had given commitments only to two of its wholesale dealers in Bihar and had authorised them in turn to give commitment and assurance for supply of sufficient amount of printing paper to individual bidders. In this fax message names of 8 bidders were also mentioned who had received due assurance and commitments from the wholesale dealers of Shreyans Industries Limited. 15. It may also be noted that in the above quoted fax message there was also a reference to the letter dated 24.1.2001 written earlier by the Shreyans Industries Limited and sent directly to the Corporation through its representative. A copy of this letter is at Annexure-8. In this letter also substantially the same thing was said, that is to say, the Paper Mill had authorised two of its wholesale dealers in Bihar to make commitments for supply of adequate amount of printing paper to individual bidders and the names of the eight bidders were also mentioned in the letter who had received commitments and assurances from the authorised dealers of the manufacturer. It is also significant to note that in the letter dated 24.1.2001 there was a disclaimer in respect of any party other than the eight firms named in that letter. It is also significant to note that in the letter dated 24.1.2001 there was a disclaimer in respect of any party other than the eight firms named in that letter. The relevant portion of the letter is reproduced below: "Further we will not take any responsibility if award is given to the Bidders who have not got authorization from NATIONAL PAPER HOUSE/ ASHOK MANUFACTURING CO., KADAMKUAN, PATNA-800003." 16. It was in these circumstances that the Scrutiny Committee in its meeting held on 1.2.2001 found and held that the authorisation submitted by the petitioner was fake as it was not confirmed by the Paper Mill by whom it was purportedly issued. The bid submitted by the petitioner was accordingly treated as non-responsive and was rejected in terms of clause 36. 1 (b) of the Instructions to Bidder. 17. At this stage the petitioner seems to have obtained another letter dated 5.2.2001 from the Shreyans industries Limited. In this letter Shreyans seems to have laboured much to explain away the contents of its two earlier letters to the Corporation and tried to patch up the damage caused to the petitioner. On a mere reading of the letter dated 5.2.2001 it appears that Shreyans were now trying to go out of their way to bail out the petitioner and were trying to eat their own words. From this letter it also appears that Shreyans were informed that a first information report was lodged against the petitioner and they were trying to save the petitioner from criminal prosecution. 18. On a careful consideration of all the correspondences, I am satisfied that no reliance can be placed on the letter, dated 5.2.2001 of Shreyans Industries Limited and in my view the Scrutiny Committee was not in error in refusing to take into account the letter of 5.2.2001 from Shreyans Industries Limited. 19. Coming back to the process of scrutiny of the bids and the selection of bidder(s) for awarding the contract, it is noted above that the Technical Committee had examined the bids on January 17, 18, 19 and again on January 31 and February 1, 2001 and had held the petitioners bid to be non-responsive in its meeting dated 1.2.2001. It may be pointed out here that the Technical Committee did not consist of only the officials of the Corporation but it was a much larger, representative body. It may be pointed out here that the Technical Committee did not consist of only the officials of the Corporation but it was a much larger, representative body. In the Technical Committee were the representative of Ed-Cil apart from two representatives from Bihar Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad, an Executive Director from the Bihar Paper Mill and five representatives of the Corporation. From the Technical Committee the matter went to the Bid Evaluation Committee which held its meeting on 2.2.2001. The bid evaluation report was then sent to the Ministry of Human Resources Development where the evaluation report was duly considered and the comments on the bid evaluation report were sent to the Managing Director of the Corporation along with the letter dated 17.2.2001 (Annexure-J) from the Director in the Ministry of Human Resource Development. One of the comments pertained to the bid of the writ petitioner and it was as follows: "In para-8, as already pointed out, the two other bidders who have furnished BG with lesser validity period have not been included. Further the bid of M/s Prem Printing Press, Lucknow is rejected in terms of the ITB Clause 36.1 (b) without giving any details whatsoever of the alleged corrupt or fraudulent practices. In this connection a copy of the representation dated 8-2- 2001 from UPEKSHIT AWAM ATYANT PICHHRA WARG SANGHARSH SAMITY. BIHAR disputing the grounds of rejection of the bid is enclosed for further consideration and appropriate action." 20. The comments from the Ministry of Human Resources Development were duly considered in the meeting of the Technical Committee held on 14.3.2001 and in respect of the petitioner it was observed as follows: "As regards M/s Prem Printing Press, Lucknow it was found in course of scrutiny of tender papers that this bidder has produced forged documents knowing it to be forged for obtaining contract from the Corporation. There was a prima facie case of forgery and cheating. Immediate legal action was called for. Hence an FIR was lodged by the M.D. BSTBPC against this bidder. The case is under investigation. No further comments because the case is subjudice. Copy of FIR is enclosed." 21. There was a prima facie case of forgery and cheating. Immediate legal action was called for. Hence an FIR was lodged by the M.D. BSTBPC against this bidder. The case is under investigation. No further comments because the case is subjudice. Copy of FIR is enclosed." 21. The matter was finally sent to the Ministry of Human Resource Development where the evaluation report was approved and accepted and by letter dated 28.3.2001 (Annexure-N) the Managing Director of the Corporation was advised : As our observations have been incorporated in the revised bid evaluation report, you are requested to proceed further for award of contracts to lowest evaluated bidders as per the prescribed procedures. 22. Following the approval of the Ministry of Human Resource Development contracts were awarded for printing of books of the seven schedules in dispute in this case to respondents 4 to 8. Among the awardees, respondent no. 5 walked away on account of the uncertainty resulting from an interim order passed in an earlier writ petition filed by another unsuccessful bidder. The schedules awarded to respondent no. 5 were thereafter awarded to a certain Jan Kalyan Press which has come in this case as an intervenor respondent. From the chart at Annexure-F, giving the position of supplies made by the awardees of NCB-2001 till 9.8.2001 it appears that the books under Schedules ll and IX were yet to be supplied. Apart from schedules II and IX about 60,000 copies of the books under schedule VII also remained to be supplied. As regards the other schedules in dispute the supplies were completed either wholly or substantially. 23. In the facts and circumstances narrated above, can it be said that the action of the Technical Committee, the Evaluation Committee and finally the Ministry of Human Resource Development in holding the petitioners bid as non-responsive was so unreasonable and arbitrary as to warrant an interference by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 24. In my view the answer can only be in the negative. It is noted above, that an assured arrangement for sufficient supplies of printing paper was of paramount consideration, having regard to the nature of the contract. It is also noted that the petitioner had submitted a letter dated 2.1.2001 from the Paper Mill. which had no reference to this bid or to the printing of text books. It is noted above, that an assured arrangement for sufficient supplies of printing paper was of paramount consideration, having regard to the nature of the contract. It is also noted that the petitioner had submitted a letter dated 2.1.2001 from the Paper Mill. which had no reference to this bid or to the printing of text books. The petitioner then sent to the Corporation another letter, dated 23.1.2001 from the paper mill which on the face of it appeared suspicious and questionable. When the copies of the two letters were faxed to the manufacturer for confirmation, the manufacturer responded by stating that it had given no direct authorisation to any bidder and the bidders who had received authorisations from its wholesale dealer were also named in that letter. In those circumstances the inference arrived at by the Technical Committee and the Evaluation Committee cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable by any stretch of imagination. This court would not like to use any strong expressions like forgery, fraud or use of fake letters as that aspect of the matter is the subject matter of the criminal prosecution. Suffice it to note, that the petitioner had failed to satisfy clause 13.3 (g) of the instructions to bidder and on that ground alone its bid was liable to be put out of consideration. 25. At this stage i must take notice of the specific points advanced by Mr. Vinod Kumar Kanth, learned Sr. Counsel appearing in support of this writ petition. 26. Mr. Kanth submitted that the petitioners bid was rejected in terms of paragraph 36.1 (a) (ii). Paragraph 36 makes a bid liable to rejection for corrupt or fraudulent practice. Mr. Kanth pointed out that the power under paragraph 36.1 could only be exercised by the Bank which means International Development Association and the petitioners bid, therefore, could not be rejected in terms of that paragraph by the Technical Committee or the Evaluation Committee. 27. i am unable to accept the submission. As noted above, the evaluation of bids was finalised not at the level of the Corporation or the Evaluation Commitee. The matter had gone finally to the Ministry of Human Resource Development where the evaluation of bids made by the Evaluation Committee was finally approved. Moreover, any mistake in referring to the relevant clause would not affect the ultimate result. As noted above, the evaluation of bids was finalised not at the level of the Corporation or the Evaluation Commitee. The matter had gone finally to the Ministry of Human Resource Development where the evaluation of bids made by the Evaluation Committee was finally approved. Moreover, any mistake in referring to the relevant clause would not affect the ultimate result. It has been pointed out earlier in this judgment that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the condition laid down in paragraph 13.3. (g) of the Instructions to bidder that required confirmation in writing from the concerned Paper Mill and, therefore, the petitioners bid was liable to be kept out of consideration for failure to comply with that provisions. 28. Mr. Kanth next submitted that the petitioners bid was rejected in the meeting of the Technical Committee held on 1.2.2001 at 12 Noon. Learned counsel laid stress on the fact that the meeting was held at 12 Noon. He then pointed out that the fax message from the Shreyans Industries Limited was received in the Corporations office at 9 minutes past 5 P.M. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the Technical Committee had rejected the petitioners bid even before the fax message was received from the Shreyans Industries Limited. I am not impressed by this submission either. 12 Oclock is the time of the commencement of the meeting and the fact that the meeting started at 12 Oclock does not mean that all business were also transacted at that moment. From the materials on record it appears that the meetings of the Technical Committee were being held on a day to day basis. It is noted above, that the Technical Committee had held its meeting on January 17, 18, and 19 and then again on January 31 and February 1, 2001. In the minutes of meetings of the earlier dates it is also shown that the meeting started at 12 Oclock. This does not mean that the meeting might not have proceeded till late hours in the evening and till after the fax message was received in the Corporations office. 29. It was next submitted that a confirmation from the Paper Mill was sought only in the case of the petitioner and in case of no other bidders. It was also stated that though respondent no. 29. It was next submitted that a confirmation from the Paper Mill was sought only in the case of the petitioner and in case of no other bidders. It was also stated that though respondent no. 6 had also submitted a letter from the Shreyans Industries Limited, there was no difficulty in his getting the contract for printing of books under some schedules of the tender notice. These two facts are not clearly pleaded in the writ petition or in any of the number of affidavits filed on behalf of the petitioners. But on clarification sought from Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation Mr. Sharma stated that the confirmation from Paper Mills were sought in case of all the bidders and necessary confirmation was received in case of respondent no. 6. 30. Mr. Kanth submitted that apart from the authorisation from the Shreyans Industries Limited the writ petitioner had also filed an authorisation for the supply of requisite amount of printing paper by the Hindustan Paper Corporation Limited but that was not considered while rejecting the petitioners bid. The point is not that the petitioner had filed an authorisation from the other manufacturer of paper but the point is that the petitioner had tried to use as genuine letters from another manufacturer of paper which on verification turned out to be otherwise. 31. Mr, Kanth lastly submitted that there was no requirement for submitting the commitment or assurance for supply of paper from the paper manufacturer with reference to this particular bid and the letter, dated 2.1.2001 though in general terms and not making any reference to the bid, was quite sufficient to satisfy the requirement of paragraph 13.3 (g). The point in issue in this case is not whether the commitment from the Paper Mill was required with or without reference to this particular bid. The point in issue in this case is that Shreyans Industries Limited did not confirm the letter, dated 2.1.2001 and, therefore, I find no substance in this submission either. No other submission was made on behalf of the petitioner. 32. For the reasons discussed above, I am satisfied that in rejecting the petitioners bid the respondents did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily. No relief can be granted to the petitioner by this court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 33. All the interim orders stand vacated. 34. No other submission was made on behalf of the petitioner. 32. For the reasons discussed above, I am satisfied that in rejecting the petitioners bid the respondents did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily. No relief can be granted to the petitioner by this court. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 33. All the interim orders stand vacated. 34. In case the petitioner makes an application for refund of Bank guarantee (s) offered by him his request will be considered in accordance with law and if he is found entitled, the refund of the Bank guarantee(s) will be made without any undue delay. 35. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed but with no order as to costs.