D. BISWAS, J.— This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.2.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 532 of 2002 filed by the appellant M/s D.S. Trading challenging the selection of respondent No. 4 for allotment of the construction work of the Trade Centre at Suterkandi in the District of Karimganj, Assam in pursuance of the NIT dated December 11, 2001. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on the following consideration :- "The Committee further noted that while opening the tender box, it was found that M/S D.S. Trading has submitted a separate sealed envelope containing an unstamped letter, whereby they have offered 4% (four percent) rebate on their quoted rates on items Buildings, Roads, work, arch filling, Sanitary and Boundary wall. The committee was of the opinion that since this offer was not included in their tender document and has been submitted separately in a sealed envelope without affixing court fee stamp this offer of rebate can not be considered as a valid offer for consideration by the committee, unlike the offer of 1 % rebate made by M/S Frontier Engineering, which formed a part of their tender document. The committee thereafter considered the sum total of the rates offered by the firms for price bid-(A) except electrical works and noted that Shri P. Gogoi has offered the lowest rate of Rs. 3,80,61,371.00. Similarly for the price bid (B) m Shri P. Gogoi has quoted the lowest rate of Rs. 82,775.00. For price bid-(C) the lowest bid was offered by M/S D.S. Trading at Rs. 20,00,000.00 while Sri P. Gogoi's offered rate was Rs. 24,50,000.00/- The committee after detailed consideration of all factors involved as stated above and in the interest of the early & smooth execution of the project unanimously recommended to offer the works under price bid-(A), price bid (B) at lowest rate offered by Shri P. Gogoi and price bid (C) also to Sri P. Gogoi at the lowest rate of Rs. 20,00,000.00." 2. Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assailed the decision making process as malafide and arbitrary. 20,00,000.00." 2. Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel assailed the decision making process as malafide and arbitrary. It is pointed out that the respondent No. 4 Which has been allotted with the contract had not submitted the Sales Tax Certificate contrary to the terms of the NIT and that favour has been shown to him by excluding the electrical works at the time of consideration by the Expert Committee in order to advance his case. Shri Mazumdar, pointed out that the sum total of the rates offered by the parties would show that the appellant had quoted less than the respondent No. 4 and the Expert Committee excluded the electrical works to make the rate of respondent No. 4 lower than that of the appellant. According to Shri Mazumdar, the rate quoted by the appellant was lower than that of the respondent No. A and, hence, it was wrong on the part of the authority to enter in negotiation with respondent No. 4 alone despite later's tender papers being defective. 3. Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4 in reply submitted that the tender documents submitted by the appellant are also not complete in as-much-as the Sales Tax Assessment Order for the last three years was not submitted. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel further argued that the terms and conditions in the NIT permits exclusion of any item of work and, in the instant case, the authorities excluded the electric works to be undertaken at a later stage because of high variation in the rates. 4. To appreciate the respective submission we may refer to the terms and conditions of the NIT as below :-"TERMS AND CONDITION: 1. Court fee stamp of Rs. 8.25 to be affixed oh their tender. Detailed tender documents can be obtained from the office of the Executive Engineer (CIO) & Manager (Construction) AIIDC at Bamunimaidam upto 4.00 PM on all working days on payment of Rs. 1,500.00 (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) only either in cash or bank draft duly pledged in favour of the undersigned (Non-Refundable). 2. Detailed tender documents can be obtained from the office of the Executive Engineer (CIO) & Manager (Construction) AIIDC at Bamunimaidam upto 4.00 PM on all working days on payment of Rs. 1,500.00 (Rupees one thousand and five hundred) only either in cash or bank draft duly pledged in favour of the undersigned (Non-Refundable). 2. The rates should be quoted on flat percentage basis i.e. above/below/at par of the APWD Schedule of rates of C.E. (Building) for the year 2001-2002 for the building, boundary wall, sanitary & water supply and earth works, for roads of the APWD schedule of rates of C.E. (Roads) for 2000-2001 and for electrical works APWD schedule of rates for the year 1991 -1992 for price bid (A). 3. Rates are to be quoted as per items given in price bid (B), (C) & (D) separately. All pages of the tender document along with the drawings are to be duly signed and stamped by the tenderer. 4. The rates should be quoted both in figure and in words. 5. Undersigned reserves the sole authority to reject or accept any tender in part or in whole without assigning any reason and notice thereof. 6. If the tender submission date falls on holiday/bandh etc. for any reason, the subsequent working day will be the date of submission. 7. Any cut marks/over writing/correction are to be initiated by the tenderer. 8. The tenderers should quote their up to date registration number in their tender (attested copy of registration certificate to be enclosed.) 9. The corporation is not bound to allot the work to lowest tenderer only." 5. At this stage, for better appreciation of the rival contentions, we would like to place on record the minutes of the proceedings of the Expert Committee held on 25th January, 2002, it reads as follows "Under the circumstances the last date for submission of the tender was extended upto 17th Jan'02 upto 2 P.M. on 17th Jan'02 only three tenders were received from 1. M/S Frontier Engineering 2. M/S D.S. Trading. 3. Sri Padum Gogoi (Apart from these, one closed envelope containing a letter without any court-fees was also received which however could not be treated as a tender paper.) M.D. AIIDC then placed all the tender papers and a C.S. copy before the committee for consideration. M/S Frontier Engineering 2. M/S D.S. Trading. 3. Sri Padum Gogoi (Apart from these, one closed envelope containing a letter without any court-fees was also received which however could not be treated as a tender paper.) M.D. AIIDC then placed all the tender papers and a C.S. copy before the committee for consideration. The M.D., AIIDC, informed the committee that the implementation of this important project has already been delayed for various reasons and that the current construction season at Suterkandi is almost nearing its end and Govt. . of India is pressing hard for utilisation of fund early. Hence there is the need to finalise the matter urgently. On going through documents submitted the committee noted that only M/S Frontier Engg. Has submitted S.T. clearance for the years 2000 & 2001, and the other two parties failed to submit the same. On detailed discussion and on consideration of the fact that there was no response from any parties to submit tender by 5.1.02 and that this time also bare minimum number of three parties only submitted tender papers and that sufficient time has already passed in the process of the receipt of the tenders, the committee decided to relax the condition of submission of STCC as was stipulated in the tender notice since all the three tenderers submitted particulars of their sales tax registration. In the beginning the committee went through all the papers submitted by the parties in their tender documents. The committee went through the organisation strength, technical competency and resourcefulness as well as previous experience of the firms as submitted before it by the parties. It was found that Shri P. Gogoi has adequate stock of equipment and varied experience of executing different types of works and sound organisational strength. They have successfully completed the construction of Udyog Bhawan. M/S Frontier Engineering has completed Numaligarh Marketing Terminal and they are found to be a resourceful party. In case of M/S D.S. Trading they have submitted proof of completing residential construction for AIR at Tura. It was found that the level of resourcefulness & experience of M/S D.S. Trading as could be inferred from the documents submitted by them, is not up to the mark, while considering the nature & scope of works of the present job of Suterkandi project. It was found that the level of resourcefulness & experience of M/S D.S. Trading as could be inferred from the documents submitted by them, is not up to the mark, while considering the nature & scope of works of the present job of Suterkandi project. The Committee after detailed discussion found that M/S Frontier Engineering and Shri P. Gogoi are having the required experience and expertise and resourcefulness as required for the present job. The committee thereafter considered the financial rates offered by each of the firms as computed in the C.S. prepared and presented before the committee. While going through the rates, the committee noted that M/S Frontier Engineering has offered 1% rebated on the quoted rates in their tender documents if the whole job is allotted to them. The committee further noted that while opening the tender box, it was found that M/S D.S. Trading has submitted a separate sealed envelope containing an unstamped letter, whereby they have offered 4% (four percent) rebate on their quoted rates on items Buildings, Roads works, Earth filling, Sanitary and Boundary wall. The committee was of the opinion that since this offer was not included in their tender document and has been submitted separately in a sealed envelope without affixing court fee stamp this offer of rebate cannot be considered as a valid offer for consideration by the committee, unlike the offer of 1 % rebate made by M/S Frontier Engineering, which formed a part of their tender document. The committee while considering individual rates quoted by the three firms, noted a total 29 % difference in the quoted rates for electrical items, and observed that the rate variation is too high. It was also observed that since electrical works can be taken up after works like earth-filling etc. are completed and hence this item can be deferred at present. It was therefore resolved that this item will be retendered in due course. The committee thereafter considered the sum total of the rates offered by the firms bid - (A) except electrical works and noted that Shri P. Gogoi has offered the lowest rate of Rs. 3,80,61,371.00. Similarly for the price bid - (B), Shri P. Gogoi has quoted the lowest rate of Rs. 82,775.00. For price bid (C) the lowest bid was offered by M/S D.S. Trading at Rs. 20,00,000.00 while Shri P. Gogoi's offerqd rate was Rs. 24,50,000.00. 3,80,61,371.00. Similarly for the price bid - (B), Shri P. Gogoi has quoted the lowest rate of Rs. 82,775.00. For price bid (C) the lowest bid was offered by M/S D.S. Trading at Rs. 20,00,000.00 while Shri P. Gogoi's offerqd rate was Rs. 24,50,000.00. The committee after detailed consideration of all factors involved as stated above and in interest of the early & smooth execution of the project unanimously recommended to offer the works under price bid- (A), price Bid-(B) at lowest rate offered by Shri P. Gogoi and price bid (C) also to Shri P. Gogoi at the lowest rate of Rs. 20,00,000.00. Regarding price bid - (D) the committee decided to consider the same later on, when the consultant (Architect) will prepare the drawing and detailed estimate which will enable the corporation to issue item rate tender. It was decided to submit the recommendations to the competent authority accordingly." 6. The above recommendation of the Expert Committee was approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 2nd February, 2002. Apparently they did not address the matter in details. The minutes of the proceeding is quoted below :- "The M.D. AIIDC welcomed the Chairman and the members of the Board of Directors present in the meeting and briefly narrated the background of the agenda items which necessitated convening an urgent meeting of the Board. The Board thereafter considered the recommendations made in the minutes of proceedings of the expert committee in respect of selection of tender bids for the trade centre project at Suterkandi against NIT No. AIIDC/ M/l 1/2001-2002/3 dated 11th Dec.' 2001 issued by the AIIDC. After detailed discussion, the board approved the recommendation of the expert committee allotting the work to M/S P. Gogoi against price bid (A) for Rs. 3,80,61,371.00, Price bid (B) Rs. 82,775.00 and Price bid (C) Rs. 20,00,000.00. The Board observed that the allotted work should be completed within the stipulated 15 (fifteen) months without any escalation of cost as per terms & conditions of the N.I.T. The Board also desired that work order to the selected firm should be issued immediately with out delay so that the work can be taken up at Suterkandi without any further loss of time. Regarding requirement of technical manpower in AIIDC, the Board approved engagement of Shri B.C. Deka retired observer (elect.) of the E.E. (CIO) office for a period of 6(six) months only under the Corporation at a monthly honorarium (fixed) for Rs. 4000.00 per month. In the matter of maintenance of security within the I/E at Bamunimaidam, the Board desired that adequate police help be requisitioned as may be necessary from time to time. The meeting ended with vote of thanks from the Chair." 7. It is evident from the minutes of the proceeding of the Expert Committee that M/S Frontier Engineer (not a party in the proceeding), M/S D.S. Trading (appellant) and Shri Padum Gogoi (respondent No. 4) submitted tender papers in response to the NIT. The comparative statement in respect of their tender documents (Annexure-C at page-20 of the memo of appeal) shows that the tender documents of M/S Frontier Engineering were all perfect. The appellant M/S D.S. Trading did not submit S.T. Assessment Order for the last three years and the respondent No. 4 Shri Padum Gogoi did not produce the Sales Tax Clearance Certificate. Therefore, the tender documents of the appellant and the respondent No. 4 were defective on one count each. In all respect the tender bid of M/S Frontier Engineering was perfect. The Expert Committee in the proceeding quoted above held as follows :- "The Committee after detailed discussion found that M/S Frontier Engineering and Shri P. Gogoi are having the required experience and expertise and resourcefulness as required for the present job." 8. In view of the above observation and since the offer made by M/S Frontier Engineering was perfect in all respects, the Expert Committee ought to have considered the case of M/S Frontier Engineering at the first instance. The rate offered by M/S Frontier Engineering was undoubtedly higher than that of the appellant and the respondent No. 4 in respect of Price Bid-(A), Price Bid-(B) and, in respect of Price Bid-(C), so far the appellant is concerned. The Expert Committee decided to settle the contract with the respondent No. 4 at the rates quoted by him in respect of Price Bid-(A) after exclusion of electrical works and at the rate quoted by the appellant in respect of price bid -(C). Obviously, there was negotiation with respondent No. 4. The Expert Committee decided to settle the contract with the respondent No. 4 at the rates quoted by him in respect of Price Bid-(A) after exclusion of electrical works and at the rate quoted by the appellant in respect of price bid -(C). Obviously, there was negotiation with respondent No. 4. Negotiation, if any, ought to have been made with M/S Frontier Engineering, the only valid tenderer. In case M/S Frontier Engineering refused to accept the rates so offered, alternative available was to re-tender the matter. As already stated hereinabove, the appellant did not submit the S.T. Assessment Order and the Respondent No. 4 did not submit the Sales Tax Clearance Certificate. The Expert Committee while taking the decision relaxed the requirement of Sales Tax Clearance Certificate and thus retrieved the defective tender document of Respondent No. 4 while they remained silent with regard to non-submission of S.T. Assessment Order by the appellant. The pre-qualification requirements embodied in the NIT with regard to Sales Tax Clearance Certificate and Sales Tax Assessment Order is quoted below :- "4. The intending contractor must be registered with sales tax department, Govt. of Assam and a copy of valid S.T.C.C. (Sales tax clearance certificate) indicating his registration no. with sale tax department shall be furnished along with the tender, failing which the tender will be summarily rejected. The contractor should also enclose sale-tax assessment orders for the last three years as a proof of his turn over." 9. The above condition shows that the tender of Respondent No. 4 was liable to be rejected summarily for non-submission of Sales Tax Clearance Certificate. So also the tender of M/S D.S. Trading for non- submission of Sales Tax Assessment Orders for last three years. But the Committee embarked upon evaluation of the merit of the invalid tenders and, in the process, salvaged Respondent No. 4. Such alteration of the terms of the NIT is not permissible after the tenders have already been submitted. In para -12 of the Judgment in M/S Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Appellant v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others, Respondent reported in AIR 2000 SC 2272 the Supreme Court held as follows :- "12. Such alteration of the terms of the NIT is not permissible after the tenders have already been submitted. In para -12 of the Judgment in M/S Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Appellant v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others, Respondent reported in AIR 2000 SC 2272 the Supreme Court held as follows :- "12. If we bear these principles in mind, the High Court is justified in setting aside the award of contract in favour of M/S Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. because it had not fulfilled the conditions relating to clause 6(a) of the Tender Notice but the same was deleted subsequent to the last date of acceptance of the tenders. If that is so, the arguments advanced on behalf of M/S Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. in regard to allegation of mala fides of the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation in showing special favour to M/S Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. or the other contentions raised in the High Court and reiterated before us are insignificant because the High Court had set aside the award made in favour of M/S Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. The only question therefore remaining is whether any contract should have been awarded in favour of M/S Konark Infrastructure (P) Ltd. The High Court had taken the view that if a term of the tender having been deleted after the players entered into the arena it is like changing the rules after it had began and, therefore, if the Government or the Municipal Corporation was free to alter the conditions fresh process of tender was the only alternative permissible. Therefore, we find that the course adopted by the High Court in the circumstances is justified because by reason of deletion of a particular condition the wider net will be permissible and a larger participation or more attractive bids could be offered." 10. The above decision of the Supreme Court is best fitted in the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. In our .opinion it was totally wrong on the part of the Expert Committee to waive the requirement of the Sales Tax Clearance Certificate in deviation of the NIT specification during the course of the 'decision making'. The waiver was intended to assist Respondent No. 4 out of turn in an unreasonable and unfair manner. 11. The next objection relates to electrical works. It was one of the items included in the price bid-(A). The waiver was intended to assist Respondent No. 4 out of turn in an unreasonable and unfair manner. 11. The next objection relates to electrical works. It was one of the items included in the price bid-(A). This was excluded by the Expert Committee in the midst of decision making and not before hand. The reason given by the Expert Committee is as follows :- "The committee while considering individual rates quoted by the three firms, noted a total 29% difference in the quoted rates for electrical items, and observed that the rate variation is too high. It was also observed that since electrical works can be taken up after works like earth-filling etc. are completed and hence this item can be deferred at present. It was therefore resolved that this item will be retendered in due course." 12. The electrical works have been deferred on the ground that it is to be done at a later stage and also because of variation in the price quoted. As per the NIT the tenderers were asked to quote rates on percentage basis at flat rate i.e. above/ below/at par of the APWD Schedule of rates for the year 1991-92. It was a schedule of 10 years old. Naturally variation in the price quoted would be high. M/S Frontier Engineering quoted 48%, the appellant quoted 65% and the respondent No. 4 quoted 77% above the schedule. Even then, it was open to the Expert Committee to go for a negotiation in this matter with the eligible bidder only. Instead they preferred to defer. The other plea is to be done at a later stage. These reasons do not sound well and, in our considered opinion, the electrical work was excluded by the Expert Committee, while taking a decision, only to favour the respondent No. 4. There is no indication in the NIT that the electric work would be done at a later stage and decision thereon might be deferred. By this exclusion the Committee promoted the cause of Respondent No. 4 by relegating him as lower bidder from higher in respect of sum total of the rate offered. Despite that, this Court would have condoned the act of exclusion had it been purely in public interest. The way the decision has been taken smacks foul and, therefore, it cannot be condoned. Despite that, this Court would have condoned the act of exclusion had it been purely in public interest. The way the decision has been taken smacks foul and, therefore, it cannot be condoned. The Board while approving the recommendation of the Expert Committee did not record any reason and had lost sight of the above defects. In a casual manner the Board had approved the decision of the Expert Committee. 13. Next question is whether this Court will interfere with the above erroneous decision of the authority. In Air India Ltd. Appellant -vs.- Cochin International Airport Ltd and others, Respondents, reported in (2000)2 SCC 617 , the Supreme Court in para-7 held as follows :- "7. The law relating to award of a contract by the State, its corporations and bodies acting as instrumentalities and agencies of the Government has been settled by the decision of this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, Fertilizer Corpn. Kamgar Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., Tata Cellular v. Union of India, RamniklalN. Bhutta v. State of Maharashtra and Raunauq International Ltd. v. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. The award of a contract whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the State, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The State can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bonafide reasons, if the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or the lowest. But the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by malafides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by malafides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene." 14. M/S Frontier Engineering is not before us seeking justice. The process of judicial review of the impugned decision led us to examine the selection process as a whole and the startling revelation of the review is that the Expert Committee and the Board considered the case of the defective tenderers to the exclusion of the valid one. No reason has been cited as to why M/S Frontier Engineering was not considered though the tender document submitted by it was all perfect. Even, there is not a word on the bid of this firm except that it has the requisite resource and experience. Though discrimination has been alleged by one invalid tenderer against another invalid, yet the Court in exercise of inherent powers and in the interest of justice may pass orders as may be necessary to render complete justice. 15. The defects ingrained in the impugned decision are undoubtedly grave in nature. Therefore, it is to be seen whether interference with the decision taken by the authority would be permissible in public interest. We have been told at the Bar that the project is meant for establishment of a Centre for International Trade with Bangladesh at the border town of Suterkandi, and the Central Government is also pressing hard for early completion thereof. It has been further brought to our notice that the Trade Agreement with Bangladesh is yet to be signed and the construction of the Trade Centre will take about two years from now. If that be so, two/three months further delay in the matter will definitely not be contrary to public interest. It has been further brought to our notice that the Trade Agreement with Bangladesh is yet to be signed and the construction of the Trade Centre will take about two years from now. If that be so, two/three months further delay in the matter will definitely not be contrary to public interest. This is a case where the authority exceeded its powers and acted in total deviation from the NIT specifications. The breach of the rules of natural justice is manifest in the proceeding of the Expert Committee and the decision taken to allot the contract with the respondent No. 4 was in abuse of powers. Malafide and arbitrariness emerge as disturbing factors in the tender process floated by the State and its instrumentalities. In the result, law is the victim. If such brazen and glaring malafide and arbitrary exercise of powers by the State and its instrumentalities are allowed to survive in the realm of public projects and properties, it will lead to rampant abuse of powers by the State and its instrumentalities adversely -affecting thereby public cause and public interest. Viewed from this angle, public interest and rule of law will be the ultimate casualties of such abuse of powers unless the Court chooses to interfere. The case at hand is not of mere technicalities. They changed the rules of the game after the game started to favour a particular invalid tenderer. We have considered the matter in-depth and are of the opinion that it would be contrary to the cause of justice if we reconcile with the decision making process in the instant case where there is no pressing public interest. Delay in execution, escalation of costs and freedom of executive in economic matters cannot always act as safety valves where breach of law is shocking. Hence, we decide to interfere. 16. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 22.2.2002 passed in' WP(C) No. 532 of 2002 and also quash the decision of the Expert Committee arid the Board of Directors. If the woiks-order has already been issued in favour of respondent No. 4, the same shall also stand quashed. The matter be reconsidered by the authorities in the light of the discussion made above for decision afresh in accordance with the provisions of law. If the woiks-order has already been issued in favour of respondent No. 4, the same shall also stand quashed. The matter be reconsidered by the authorities in the light of the discussion made above for decision afresh in accordance with the provisions of law. Needless to say, negotiation in the instant case without going for re-tender will be permissible only with the valid tenderer and none else. Cost easy.