( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. C. Misra, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Manik Sinha, learned Standing Counsel the Respondents 1 to 3. ( 2 ) IN view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order we propose to pass, it is not necessary to issue Notice to Respondent No. 4. ( 3 ) THE petitioner claims that it is a registered partnership Firm engaged in the business of Printing, Supply and Manufacture of Stationery and other allied items for about 14 years. ( 4 ) THE Registrar, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad, Respondent No. 2 issued Invitation to Offer dated 13-12-2001 inviting Tenders from eligible Contractors for supply of Answer Books. The petitioners along with two others i. e. M/s. Shanti Press, Respondent No. 4 and M/s. Pratibha Press submitted their Tender Documents on 31-12-2001. It appears that the Tenders were opened and a decision was taken not to proceed further and fresh Invitation to Offer be made and, therefore, the impugned Short-term Tender Notice dated 5-1-2002 was issued by the Registrar, Respondent No. 2 for supply of Answer Books. ( 5 ) THE Petitioners have questioned the legality and justification in issuance of the Tender Notice dated 5-1-2002 (Annexure 1) and the propriety and legality on the part of the Respondents in not proceeding to consider the Tenders submitted by the Petitioners and two other Tenderers on their own merits in terms of the Tender Notice dated 13-12-2001 (Annexure 2 ). ( 6 ) SRI Manik Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for the University has produced before us the original records including the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Purchase Committee dated 1-1-2002 and 5-1-2002 for our perusal and examination. ( 6 ) SRI Manik Sinha, learned Standing Counsel for the University has produced before us the original records including the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Purchase Committee dated 1-1-2002 and 5-1-2002 for our perusal and examination. ( 7 ) CONTENTION of Sri Manik Sinha is that the essential condition contained in Terms and Conditions of Tender required that the Tender Document should be placed in an Envelope and should be sealed with sealing wax/lakh Batti and since the Petitioners Tender Documents were kept in an Envelope which was sealed by adhesive Cellotape, the Petitioners did not comply with the Condition No. 14 and, therefore, the Petitioners Tender was ignored and accordingly it was decided not to consider the Petitioners Tender and to invite fresh Tenders in view of the fact that under the terms and conditions, guidelines and the decision of the University there should have been at least three Tenders and since out of the three Tenders the Petitioners Tender was to be ignored, there was justification for issuing the impugned Tender Notice dated 5-1-2002 contained in Annexure 1 as only two Tenders were left. ( 8 ) IT appears that the University had constituted a Purchase Committee comprising of Teachers and Officers of which Dr. M. Y. Khan, Member of the Executive Council, was Chairman, besides three other Teachers and the Finance Officer, the Registrar and the Deputy Registrar of University. ( 9 ) A perusal of the proceedings of the Purchase Committee dated 11-11-2001 reveal that it was found that the Tender Documents of the Petitioners were in an Envelope sealed by adhesive Cellotape and it was decided to open all the three Tenders in the presence of the three Tenderers. ( 10 ) AS noticed above although it was obviously apparent that the Tender Documents submitted by the Petitioners were sealed with adhesive Cellotape, yet the Finance Officer after consultation with the Vice-chancellor on telephone the Purchase Committee decided that all the three Tenders be opened and a Table of Comparative Rates in the three Tenders be prepared for being placed before the Purchase Committee in the next meeting, since the Registrar of the University was not present on 1-1-2002. ( 11 ) A perusal of the Minutes of the Proceedings dated 5-1-2002 of the Purchase Committee reveals that all the Members had participated in the meeting of the purchase committee and it was unanimously resolved that since the Tender Documents submitted by the petitioners were in an Envelope sealed by only adhesive Cellotape and not by Red Sealing Wax, the Tender of the petitioners be ignored and since under the relevant Guidelines/rules there should be minimum three Tenders, it was decided to invite fresh Tenders. ( 12 ) IT is, thus, obvious that the only reason for refusing to consider the petitioners Tender was that although the Tender Document was closed in an Envelope and was duly sealed but it was sealed by an adhesive Cellotape instead of sealing it with Red Sealing Wax. ( 13 ) SRI Manik Sinha, learned Standing Counsel did not dispute that the confidentiality and secrecy of the Tender Document was not, in any manner, breached or impaired by sealing with Envelope containing the Tender Document by adhesive Cellotape instead of sealing it by Red Sealing Wax. ( 14 ) IN our opinion object and purpose of the Condition No. 14 of the Terms and Conditions of the Tender Document is only that the confidentiality and secrecy of the Tender Documents should be strictly maintained which, in the facts and circumstances of this case, admittedly has not been breached or imparied, and, therefore, refusal to consider the petitioners Tender with the Tenders of the other two Tenderers i. e. M/s. Shanti Press, Respondent No. 4 and M/s. Pratibha Press is wholly illegal and unreasonable. ( 15 ) THE fact remains that notwithstanding that the Envelope was sealed by adhesive Cellotape, yet the Envelope was opened and Table of Comparative Rates of all the three Tenders was prepared as appears from the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Purchase Committee dated 11-11-2001 and it was in these circumstances that it was not open for the Respondents 1 to 3 to drop further action on a ground so flimsy that does not stand the test of reasonableness. ( 16 ) THE facts noticed above establish that the petitioners have complied with Condition No. 14 in substance, may not be in form, but under no facts and circumstances can it be said that the object and purpose of condition No. 14 has in any manner been defeated by the petitioners in sealing the Tender Documents in the Envelope with adhesive Cellotape. It is the substance and not the form which matters for compliance of a condition of the nature in question and, therefore, the impugned actions of the Respondents 1 to 3 in not proceeding to consider the Tender on merits and in issuing the impugned short-term Tender Notice dated 5-1-2002 (Annexure 1) cannot be sustained and are laible to be quashed. ( 17 ) IN view of the above discussions, the Short-term Tender Notice dated 5-1-2002 (Annexure 1) is quashed and Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to proceed to consider the three Tender Documents submitted by the three Tenderers i. e. the petitioner, Respondent No. 4, M/s. Shanti Press and M/s. Pratibha Press and shall not ignore the petitioners Tender Documents merely because they were placed in an Envelope which was sealed by an adhesive Cellotape. Decision in this behalf shall be taken by the considered authority finally at the earliest preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order by the Registrar, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Avadh University, Faizabad, Respondent No. 2. ( 18 ) WITH the above observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .