Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner aggrieved by rejection of technical bid Annexure P-4, dated 22-11-2003 for the contract of providing and laying Global Category Synthetic Hockey Surface has filed this petition. ( 2. ) THE short facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated in India under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner is representative of various international suppliers in India, for supply of material relating to sports and providing assistance in procurement of the business in India by various international companies. Petitioner is also a representative of M/s. Desso DLW Sports Systems, Netherlands, which is engaged in the manufacture and supply of synthetic turf surfaces for installation in sports stadium. The firm M/s. Desso DLW Sports System, Netherland is having ISO Certificate 9001 for process of manufacture of yarn and process of installation thereof. This firm also manufactures and supplies artificial grass. ( 3. ) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 acting for an on behalf of respondent No. 1 floated a tender for installation of Synthetic Hockey Surfaces at Central Regional Centre of Sports Authority of India (for short sai) at Bhopal. NIT was issued on 6-11-2003. This NIT was issued for providing and laying Global Category Synthetic Hockey Surface I/c Dense Bituminous Concrete as under layer with certain specifications. The aforesaid NIT was called with a special condition that the trade name of the product quoted for, must be written in full and the same must tally exactly what is indicated in the FIHs approval certificate as also in the test report of the FIH accredited laboratory. On 15-11-2003, petitioner representing M/s. Desso DLW, Netherlands submitted its bid documents in respect of the aforesaid tender in sealed envelope. The envelope "b" was containing technical bid alongwith all relevant data, specifications under cover of the letter written on the letter head of M/s. Desso DLW, Netherlands. The technical bid as submitted by petitioner is on record as Annexure P-2. Petitioner also submitted its financial bid in separate sealed envelope, i. e. , envelope "c" and deposited earnest money Rs. 6/- lacs in envelope "a". These envelopes were handed over by the representative of the petitioner before due date and were opened in the presence of petitioners representative. It is alleged that at the time of opening envelopes "a" and "b" nothing was pointed out against the petitioner. 6/- lacs in envelope "a". These envelopes were handed over by the representative of the petitioner before due date and were opened in the presence of petitioners representative. It is alleged that at the time of opening envelopes "a" and "b" nothing was pointed out against the petitioner. The technical bid in envelope "b" submitted by the petitioner and others were put up before Technical Bid Evaluation Committee. By the aforesaid Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, petitioners bid was cancelled on the ground that it was not in accordance with the specifications of the respondent and the financial bid was returned to the petitioner on 22-11-2003 by letter (Annexure P-4) alongwith earnest money deposit. The technical bid was cancelled on the ground that the name of product which was mentioned by the petitioner as sportilux SL 31/6 while the product which was approved by FIH was "dd Sportilux SL 31/6. Petitioners contention is that the aforesaid product was offered on the letter head of M/s. Desso DLW and the product was same which is in the approved list of FIH. The petitioner on rejection of the bid submitted its protest vide letter dated 21-11-2003, Annexure P-3 but no action was taken by the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed this petition, on 22-12-2003. ( 4. ) ON 26-12-2003 the matter was placed before the Court and the Court ordered that respondents are restrained from proceeding further with the acceptance of any other tender till the next date of hearing. The case was fixed for 7-1-2004. On this date respondents caused their appearance. M/s. SRI Sports International also filed application for intervention. This application for intervention was allowed as he was the successful rival of the petitioner in the aforesaid bid. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed application for vacating ex parte interim order dated 26-12-2003 alongwith certain documents, while the intcr-venor filed return in the case on 9-1-2004. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 also filed additional submissions in support of their application for vacating ex parte interim order, on 12-1-2004. As the respondents had agreed that the aforesaid application and the reply may be treated as a return in the case, the matter was heard finally. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bid was in three envelopes, "a" envelope for earnest money, "b" envelope for technical bid and "c" envelope for financial bid. As the respondents had agreed that the aforesaid application and the reply may be treated as a return in the case, the matter was heard finally. ( 5. ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the bid was in three envelopes, "a" envelope for earnest money, "b" envelope for technical bid and "c" envelope for financial bid. As per tender notice (Annexure R-l), the requirements for acceptance of technical bid were as under:- " (i) The product offered/quoted for must be approved by FIH and the validity of approval should be at least up to the date of opening of financial bid. (ii) The trade name of the product quoted for must be written in full, and the same must tally exactly with what is indicated in the FIHs approval certificate as also in the test report of the FIH accredited Laboratory. " Petitioners technical bid was in conformity with the tender notice. In this regard he has placed his reliance to the technical bid submitted by the petitioner which is filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 alongwith their application, as Annexure R-6. The relevant portion which has been referred lo by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is as under :- (i) That , from Annexure R-6 it is apparent that the aforesaid offered produced was sportilux SL 31/6 and this offer was made on the letter head of M/s. Desso DLW Sports System which shows that the product sportilux SL 31/6 is the product of m/s Desso DLW Sports System in short dd, which is on the letter head of M/s Desso DLW Sports System and the words dd indicate that it is the product of M/s Desso DLW Sports System. (ii) The letter dated 30-1-2003 on page 48 of the application filed by respondents, shows that the aforesaid product is having ISO 9001 quality award. (iii) On page 50 of the reply, it is specifically stated that dd Sportilux SL 31/6 is petitioners PP based quality with well-known references such as : Commonwealth Games 1998, Malaysia and others. (iv) One page 56 of the reply, petitioner has specifically enclosed detailed technical specifications of the product and on page 57 of the reply a letter is enclosed which describes characteristics of the product "dd Sportilux SL 31/6. (iv) One page 56 of the reply, petitioner has specifically enclosed detailed technical specifications of the product and on page 57 of the reply a letter is enclosed which describes characteristics of the product "dd Sportilux SL 31/6. (v) On page 58 of the reply, the FIH certificate of registration is enclosed which certifies that Desso DLW Sports System Int. is an organisation registered with the Federation. (vi) On page 59 of the reply, where the technical specifications have been enclosed, these specification shows that these technical specifications are relating to the dd Sportilux SL 31/6. (vii) On page 60 of the reply, where the system guidelines have been described again shows that the product offered is dd Sportilux SL31/6. (viii) The product approval certificate issued by FIH is a certificate that the dd Sportilux SL 31/6 has been tested and found to comply with all the performance requirements established by the Federation. (ix) On page 62 of the reply, there is Laboratory Test Report of FIH which also confirms that the product is fulfilling all the requirements of FIH and was successful in the Laboratory Test. (x) On page 72 of the reply, there is a letter of Product Guarantee Scheme which also specifices that the dd Sportilux SL 31/6 was tendered. (xi) On pages 74 to 81 of the reply, procedure for Installation of dd Sportilux has been described. Drawing attention to the aforesaid, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the perusal of entire technical bid there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner offered his technical bid for dd Sportilux SL 31/6 and the respondent has wrongly rejected the technical bid of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted that from the perusal of Annexure R-4 the Report of Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, it is apparent that the Committee has not properly evaluated the technical bid of the petitioner in the same manner in which the technical bid of intervenor was considered. He has relied on Paras 2 and 3 of the aforesaid minutes, which are as under :- " (2) M/s Desso DLW vide Para 2 of their forwarding letter have offered their product with the trade name as "sportilux SL 31/6", where as the trade name of the product as mentioned in the FIH certificate as well as in the test report is "dd Sportilux SL 31/6". This violates the basic condition of the NIT as given in the tender notice para (ii) of page 3 as also the condition stipulated in para 9. 1 (v) of the NIT. They have also not mentioned their trade name of the product in Appendix-I In view of the above their technical bid does not qualify for opening of financial bid. (3) M/s. SRI Sports International Inc. has offered product "astroturf System-5", but have attached test reports (of FIH accredited lab.) for the product "astroturf System-5 : SDX545pa". However, they have attached a letter of FIH dated 26-9-2003 enclosed with the technical bid which clarifies that Astroturf product SDX 545p A has been reclassified as Astroturf System-5 in the list of FIH approved products. In the light of above the product is recommended for qualifying the technical bid, as the same is approved by FIH for Global Category. Hence they qualify for opening of financial bid. " Drawing attention to the minutes, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the respondent has considered the entire technical bid of M/s. SRI Sports International to ascertain the product, then the same criteria has not been applied to the petitioner. The product offered by SRI Sports "astroturf System-5" which was not the same which was in the approved list of FIH but on the perusal of the entire technical bid, respondents themselves have clarified that the product which was offered by M/s. SRI Sports International was reclassified in the list of FIH and thereafter the same product was approved, while in the case of petitioner all the documents were in conformity with the technical bid, only on first page the words "dd" was missing because the product of m/s. Desso DLW namely, sportilux SL 31/6 was offered on the letter head M/s. Desso DLW (in short "dd" ). If all the documents of technical bid are seen, there is no doubt that the product offered was "dd sportilux SL 31/6" and no other. In these circumstances, the respondents have committed a grave error in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. If all the documents of technical bid are seen, there is no doubt that the product offered was "dd sportilux SL 31/6" and no other. In these circumstances, the respondents have committed a grave error in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner. He has placed his reliance to the Apex Court judgments in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India ( AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) and G. J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488 , and contended that this petition may be allowed and petitioners technical bid be directed to be accepted by the respondents and petitioner be permitted to participate in the financial bid. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 supported the action of the respondents, and contended that the tender notice was very specific and it was made clear that the trade name of the product quoted for, shall be exactly the same as given in the certificate of approval issued by FIH, as also in the test report of FIH accredited Laboratory. If it is written otherwise or in the incomplete manner, the product shall be disqualified and the technical bid shall be summarily rejected. The petitioner in the bid has not quoted correct name of the product approved by FIH. In the circumstances, the petitioners bid was rightly rejected and the other technical bids were accepted. It is also contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the matter was examined by the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee, which is a technical committee for the same purpose and the technical Bid Evaluation Committee after considering the technical bid of the petitioner found that the product quoted for by the petitioner in the bid is not the product as mentioned in the FIH Certificate, as well as in the test report of FIH accredited laboratory. Consequently, the Committee has rightly rejected the technical bid of the petitioner. Apart from this, the petitioners financial bid was also returned to the petitioner immediately. In the circumstances, there is no question of acceptance of technical bid for the petitioner. ( 7. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the intervenor also vehemently opposed the petition. Consequently, the Committee has rightly rejected the technical bid of the petitioner. Apart from this, the petitioners financial bid was also returned to the petitioner immediately. In the circumstances, there is no question of acceptance of technical bid for the petitioner. ( 7. ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the intervenor also vehemently opposed the petition. His contentions in nut shell are as under :- (1) That, the present bid was called by the respondents after failure of two calls of the same tender by various firms, because the tenderers tried to be fool, by changing nomenclature of the product. (2) Before inviting the third bid for the same product, there was a pre-bid conference in the office of respondent on 5-11-2003 to educate the prospective tenderers on the salient features, which is the requirement of the bid, when preparing technical and financial bid. The petitioner in spite of the aforesaid pre-bid conference malafidely omitted the words "dd" in the technical bid which shows the malafide intention of the petitioner in this regard. He has also drawn attention to page 18 of the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in which in column No. 1 the product name is not filled by the petitioner. In Annexure R-6 also the words "dd" are missing where the petitioner has quoted the product offered "sportilux SL 31/6" The omission of the words "dd" in Annexure R-6 and in Appendix-I shows that the petitioner was not sure about the offering product and the product offered by the petitioner was something else and not the "dd Sportilux SL 31/6". When the tender notice specifically says that in case of non-confirmation of the product name with the certificate of approval issued by FIH and also with the Test Report of FIH technical bid shall be summarily rejected, in these circumstances, petitioner has not submitted the technical bid correctly and his bid was rightly rejected by the respondents. In support of his contention, learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor has relied on the Apex Court judgments in Dr. In support of his contention, learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor has relied on the Apex Court judgments in Dr. H. S. Rikhy v. New Delhi Municipality ( AIR 1962 SC 554 ), Tata Cellular v. Union of India ( AIR 1996 SC 11 ), Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M/s. M. and N. Publications Ltd. ( AIR 1996 SC 51 ) and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Swaroop Chand Jain v. D. S. P. Chhatarpur ( 1973 MPLJ 219 ) and contended that when the consequences are provided, requirement is mandatory. It is an exceptional technical contract and petitioner ought to have remained vigilant in submitting his technical bid. The High Power Committee has considered the bid of petitioner and has decided that the technical bid of the petitioner is not in conformity with the tender notice and the product name has been wrongly quoted by the petitioner. It is further contended that in the tender matter scope of judicial review is limited. In the present case when the petitioner before entering into the bid participated in pre-bid conference, and even then wrongly quoted the product name, in the circumstances, bid of the petitioner was rightly rejected. Petitioner has not alleged any malice against the respondents. The respondents have acted in accordance with the tender notice, In the circumstances, in this petition there is no scope for interference, in the decision of the Technical Bid Evaluation Committee and this petition may be dismissed. ( 8. ) TO consider rival contentions of the parties, firstly it is necessary to look into the report of Technical Bid Evaluation Committee (Annexure R-4 ). The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has offered product with the trade name as "sportilux SL 31/6" while the trade name of product as mentioned in FIH certificate of approval as well as in its test report is "dd Sportilux SL 31/6". Only on the omission of the words "dd" in the product name, technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. The Committee while considering the technical bid of the petitioner alongwith that of the intervenor, found that the intervenor offered product "astroturf System-5". The intervenor attached one test report of FIH accredited laboratory for the product of "astroturf System-5 : SDX545pa". Only on the omission of the words "dd" in the product name, technical bid of the petitioner was rejected. The Committee while considering the technical bid of the petitioner alongwith that of the intervenor, found that the intervenor offered product "astroturf System-5". The intervenor attached one test report of FIH accredited laboratory for the product of "astroturf System-5 : SDX545pa". They have also attached a letter of FIH dated 16-9-2003 enclosed with the technical bid which clarifies that astroturf product SDX 545pa has been reclassified as Astroturf System-5 in the list of FIH approved products. Considering aforesaid letters the product was recommended for qualifying the technical bid, as the same was approved by FIH for Global Category. The aforesaid report shows that when the technical bid of the intervenor was considered the Committee has gone through all the documents filed alongwith the bid. If similarly all the papers of petitioners technical bid are considered at par, then it is apparent from the perusal of Annexure R-6 that the technical bid was offered on the letter head of M/s Desso DLW Sports System with product "sportilux SL 31/6". The other necessary information regarding name of product has been given as "dd Sportilux SL 31/6" with clarification that the product offered is of Global Category FIH standard and has been confirmed as FIH approved product. The test report of FIH is enclosed alongwith the bid and the product is awarded ISO 9001 Certificate. Another letter on page 48 of the bid shows that the product offered is in conformity with ISO 9001. Apart from this, the product offered was also installed in some international stadium. The important document alongwith technical bid is on page 57 of the application, which is dated 30-10-2003, describes characteristics of DD Sportilux SL 31/6. The specification of the product is on page 59 which also reads dd Sportilux SL 31/6. Thereafter, approval by FIH is on page 61 which certifies that the Synthetic Hockey Surface described as dd Sportilux SL 31/6 submitted by desso DLW Sports Systems has been tested and found to comply with all the performance requirements established by the Federation for all International Hockey Competitions. Thereafter, approval by FIH is on page 61 which certifies that the Synthetic Hockey Surface described as dd Sportilux SL 31/6 submitted by desso DLW Sports Systems has been tested and found to comply with all the performance requirements established by the Federation for all International Hockey Competitions. The Laboratory Test Report by FIH is on page 62 and on second page of this test report, the product name has been show as dd Sportilux SL 31/6 though in Appendix I on page 69 the product name is not given but all the datas relate to the same product. The Product Guarantee Scheme enclosed to the technical bid is also in respect of dd Sportilux SL 31/6. The entire installation and maintenance documents enclosed to the technical bid also show that these relate to dd Sportilux SL 31/6. From the perusal of the aforesaid documents, there can be no conclusion except that the product offered by the petitioner was "dd Sportilux SL 31/6. Merely, in the first letter and in Appendix I, there is omission of the words dd and in Appendix I complete name of the product, while in the letter sportilux SL 31/6 is mentioned, in these circumstances, the conclusion can very well be recorded that the produced offered by the petitioner was dd Sportilux SL 31/6. It is not a case of any party that sportilux SL 31/6 is a different product in the approved list of FIH in a comparison to dd Sportilux SL 31/6 because it is mandatory requirement that the product offered must contain in the approved list of fih. ( 9. ) IF document Annexure R-4 Report of Technical Bid Evaluation Committee be perused then the Committee while considering the technical bid of the intervenor M/s. SRI Sports International considered entire technical bid. The product which was offered by the intervenor is "astroturf System-5" and alongwith the technical bid the intervenor attached test report of FIH for the product astroturf System-5 : SDX 545pa. The aforesaid is again fortified by letter of FIH dated 16-9-2003 which clarifies that Astroturf Product SDX 545pa has been reclassified as Astroturf System-5 in the list of FIH approved products. Considering the aforesaid, the Committee recorded a finding that "in the light of above the product is recommended for qualifying the technical bid, as the same is approved by FIH for Global Category". Considering the aforesaid, the Committee recorded a finding that "in the light of above the product is recommended for qualifying the technical bid, as the same is approved by FIH for Global Category". When the Committee after considering the technical bid documents of intervenor - recorded the aforesaid finding that the product offered by intervenor is the same product which is in the list of FIH approved products, then, the Committee ought to have considered the entire technical bid papers of petitioner also, which if taken into consideration, then, the same conclusion could have been recorded by the Committee. The Apex Court in G. J. Fernandez (supra) considering the similar circumstances held thus:- "15. Thirdly, the conditions and stipulations in a tender notice like this have two types of consequences. The first is that the party issuing the tender has the right to punctiliously and rigidly enforce them. Thus, if a party does not strictly comply with the requirements of Paras III, V or VI of the NIT, it is open to the KPC to decline to consider the party for the contract and if a party comes to the Court saying that the KPC should be stopped from doing so, the Court will decline relief. The second consequence, indicated by this Court in earlier decisions, is not that the KPC can not deviate from these guidelines at all in any situation but that any deviation, if made, should not result in arbitrariness or discrimination. It comes in for application where the non-conformity with, or relaxation from, the prescribed standards results in some substantial prejudice or injustice to any of the parties involved or to public interest in general. For example, in this very case, the KPC made some changes in the time frame originally prescribed. These changes affected all intending applicants alike and were not objectionable. In the same way, changes or relaxations in other directions would be unobjectionable unless the benefit of those changes or relaxations were extended to some but denied to others. The fact that a document was belatedly entertained from one of the applicants will cause substantial prejudice to another party, who wanted, likewise, an extension of time for filing a similar certificate or document but was declined the benefit. The fact that a document was belatedly entertained from one of the applicants will cause substantial prejudice to another party, who wanted, likewise, an extension of time for filing a similar certificate or document but was declined the benefit. It may perhaps be saved to cause prejudice to a party which can shows that it had refrained from applying for the tender documents only because it thought it would not be able to produce the document by the time stipulated but would have applied had it known that the rule was likely to be relaxed. But neither of these situations is present here. Shri Vaidyanathan says that in this case one of the applicants was excluded at the preliminary stage. But it is not known on what grounds that application was rejected nor has that party come to Court with any such grievance. The question, then, is whether the course adopted by the KPC has caused any real prejudice to the appellant and other parties who had already supplied all the documents in time and sought no extension at all ? It is true that the relaxation of the time schedule in the case of one party does affect even such a person in the sense that he would otherwise have had one competitor less. But, we are inclined to agree with the respondents contention that while the rule in Ramana case will be readily applied by Courts to a case where a person complains that a departure from the qualifications has kept him out of the race, injustice is less apparent where the attempt of the applicant before Court is only to gain immunity from Competition. Assuming for purposes of argument that there has been a slight deviation from the terms of the NIT, it has not deprived the appellant of its right to be considered for the contract; on the other hand, its tender has received due and full consideration. If, save for the delay in filing one of the relevant documents, MCC is also found to be qualified to tender for the contract, no injustice can be said to have been done to the appellant by the consideration of its tender side by side with that of the MCC and in the KPC going in for a choice of the better on the merits. " ( 10. " ( 10. ) THE judgments relied on by learned Counsel for intervenor relate to terms and conditions of tender notice and their interpretation and scope of judicial review in such matter. But in the present case, the facts are peculiar and the aforesaid judgments relied upon by intervenor have no application in the present case. So far as the decision in Sterling Computers Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court, considering the scope of judicial review in contract matter, held if there is infirmity in the decision making process, the Court can not take such action. ( 11. ) IN the present case, when the Committee considered the entire technical bid of intervenor, then, it ought to have considered the entire technical bid of the petitioner also. If this would have been done by the Committee, naturally the petitioners bid could not have been cancelled merely on omission of non-mentioning the words "dd" of offered product though all the documents annexed to the technical bid are disclosing that the product offered by the petitioner is "dd Sportilux SL 31/6". In the circumstances, the Committee erred in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner for the aforesaid omission. If Committee was of the opinion that strictly the offered product must be the same as in the FIH approved list then the similar treatment ought to have been given to the intervenor and on the same finding the technical bid of the intervenor, which has been accepted on the basis of clarification, ought not to have been accepted. In the circumstances, the respondents have committed error in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner on adopting different yardsticks while dealing one matter. ( 12. ) NOW the question arises what direction may be issued in this case. As the respondent has returned the financial bid of the petitioner and retained the financial bid of the intervenor, in the circumstances, it will not be appropriate to petitioner to submit his financial bid at this stage. The petitioner, who was afforded an opportunity for a pre-bid conference, should not have committed this technical error in not describing the name fully in the first page of the technical bid. In the circumstances, it will not be appropriate at this stage to direct respondent to consider the financial bid of the petitioner alongwith the intervenor. The petitioner, who was afforded an opportunity for a pre-bid conference, should not have committed this technical error in not describing the name fully in the first page of the technical bid. In the circumstances, it will not be appropriate at this stage to direct respondent to consider the financial bid of the petitioner alongwith the intervenor. It is also stated before me during the course of hearing that the financial bid of the intervenor was opened by the respondent and it is now open secret to all the concern. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate to direct the respondent to call a fresh financial bid from the parties whose technical bid was accepted including the petitioner. As the petitioner is also at some fault to the extent which has been indicated hereinabove, in the circumstances, while directing the respondent to call fresh financial bid from the parties, it is necessary to take care of the interest of the respondent in this regard, as the petitioner has also been found of some fault, who has not written the words "dd" on the product and because of this his technical bid was rejected. But looking to the importance and value of the work it is found appropriate to provide one opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the bid. The intervenor was not at fault in the process but has suffered because of the aforesaid circumstances. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 would also require to process the matter afresh. In the circumstances, heavy cost deserves to be imposed on the petitioner because of whose error respondents are directed to call fresh financial bid. ( 13. ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is allowed with the following directions:- (a) Petitioner shall deposit Rs. 2 (two) lacs within a period of one week with respondent No. 3 by Demand Draft. Out of this amount, one lac shall be paid to the intervenor M/s. SRI Sports International by way of compensation. Remaining one lac shall be paid to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 because now they have to re-process the entire matter and this shall be cost of the aforesaid process . Out of this amount, one lac shall be paid to the intervenor M/s. SRI Sports International by way of compensation. Remaining one lac shall be paid to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 because now they have to re-process the entire matter and this shall be cost of the aforesaid process . (b) If the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount within the aforesaid period of one week with respondent No. 3, respondent No. 3 shall call fresh financial bid from the petitioner, the intervenor and also from M/s. Polytan Sportstattenbau whose technical bid was approved vide Annexure R-4. Respondent No. 3 shall allow a reasonable time for furnishing financial bid to all the concerned. (c) After receiving financial bid, respondent No. 3, shall process the matter as per tender notice. (d) In case the petitioner does not deposit the aforesaid amount with respondent No. 3 within the aforesaid period, respondents shall be free to process the matter on the basis of previous financial bid which has also been opened by them and to take decision on the aforesaid financial bid. In these circumstances, petitioner shall be liable to pay Rs. 2 lacs by way of compensation to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and intervenor in equal share, for the delay caused in the matter. The aforesaid cost shall be recoverable by the respondents in accordance with law.