ORDER 1. L.P.A. No. 41/2004 is filed by respondent No. 6 in W.P. (C) No. 3405/03, L.P.A. No. 129/2004 is filed by respondents 1 and 2 in that writ petition, the State and its officials. Both these appeals challenge the decision of the learned single Judge quashing the award of a contract to respondent No. 6 based on a Notice Inviting Tender, N.I.T. No. 1/2003-04. We are concerned with Package 3 of the said tender. There were four bidders for Package 3 out of whom two were the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41 of 2004 and respondent No. 1, the writ petitioner. On 31.5.2003, the technical bids were opened and all the four tenderers were found eligible. Thereafter, on 18.6.2003, the Engineer-in-Chief took a decision to open the financial bids, the next day. He thereupon allegedly informed the four bidders over the telephone after 3 p.m. on 18.6.2003 about the proposal to open the financial bids, the next day. It is stated that pursuant -to that telephonic call, the representatives of respondent No. 6 and one S.P. Singla, one other bidder appeared. The writ petitioner or the other bidder, namely, Kamla Construction were not represented. It appears that the Engineer- in-Chief took a decision to award the contract to respondent No. 6 in the writ petition on the basis that respondent No. 6 was the lowest bidder. The writ petitioner claiming that it came to know of this decision only from other sources, made a representation (Annexure-3) on 28.6.2003 complaining that a information was given to it about the opening of the financial bids and that the procedure adopted was irregular, if not illegal. It also charged the Engineer- in-Chief with manipulating things so as to favour one of the bidders. Receiving no response to its complaint, the writ petitioner approached this Court with the writ petition seeking the quashing of the award of the contract or the finalization of the tender and claiming other consequential reliefs. 2. The writ petitioner reiterated its contention that the procedure was irregular, that no notice was given to it as contemplated in Clause 28.2 of Notice Inviting Tender and that the opening of the financial bid and the award of the contract was illegal, for non-compliance with the procedure contemplated in Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender. 2. The writ petitioner reiterated its contention that the procedure was irregular, that no notice was given to it as contemplated in Clause 28.2 of Notice Inviting Tender and that the opening of the financial bid and the award of the contract was illegal, for non-compliance with the procedure contemplated in Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender. He also contended that apparently the authorities have attempted to help respondent No. 6 in the writ petition, to give it the contract though, we may note that the allegation cannot be said to specific or pointed. On behalf of the State, it was contended that telephonic information was given to all the four bidders and a receipt, purported to be issued by a Public Call Office indicating the making of telephonic calls, was produced. It was asserted that respondent No. 6 was the lowest bidder and the writ petitioner not being the lowest bidder, even if there was any irregularity, that should not result in the Court interfering with the award of the contract at his instance. It was submitted that in the absence of any attempt to establish any mala fides, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed, especially since the writ petitioner has no right to claim the award. of the contract. On behalf of respondent No. 6 it was contended that it was the lowest bidder and its bid has been duly accepted and there was no reason for interference by this Court. It was also pleaded that telephonic information about the opening of the financial bid was given by the office of the Engineer- in-Chief and in response to that, its representative was present at the opening of the financial bid. The petitioner in its reply affidavit attempted to question the alleged telephonic information given and reiterated its contention that the award of the contract was illegal and was not in consonance with the Notice Inviting Tender. The learned single Judge found that the decision making process was vitiated in this case and there was no explanation for not giving proper notices to the parties, as contemplated in Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender regarding opening of the financial bid and hence, this was a fit case for interference. The learned single Judge, therefore, quashed the award and allowed the writ petition. This is what is being challenged. 3. The learned single Judge, therefore, quashed the award and allowed the writ petition. This is what is being challenged. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004 and the learned Advocate General appearing in support of the appeal L.P.A. No. 129/04, reiterated that the writ petitioner not being the lowest bidder, there was no occasion for this Court to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the work had been awarded to the lowest tenderer and the requirement of Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender had been complied with by telephonic information being given and the writ petitioner did not even have a specific case that he had not been informed over the telephone about the opening of the financial bid. It was reiterated that in matters of contract, the Court will interfere only when public interest would be subserved by the intervention of the Court since intervention would delay the completion of the project envisaged. It was also contended that the learned single Judge has not entered any definite on the basis of which his interference with the award of the contract could be said to be justified. The learned Advocate General also submitted that in the absence of any plea of actual malice and in absence of any legal malice, since the writ petitioner was not the lowest tenderer and the contract was awarded to the lowest tender, there was not occasion for interference by the Court. 4. Learned counsel for the first respondent the writ petitioner reiterated the contentions raised before the learned single Judge and submitted that no interference is called for with the judgment of the learned single Judge since, the process of awarding the contract was vitiated by non-compliance with the requirement of Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender. 5. Before us, the relevant documents were produced. On a scrutiny of the financial bid made by the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41 of 2004 and the writ petitioner, the first respondent in these appeals, we find that going by those financial bids the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004 was not the lowest tenderer. The appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004 had quoted Rs. 5,10,00,000/-, whereas the writ petitioner had quoted Rs. 4,82,49,584/-. The appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004 had quoted Rs. 5,10,00,000/-, whereas the writ petitioner had quoted Rs. 4,82,49,584/-. It is seen that in the minutes recorded on 19.6.2003, it is not stated that there was any error in the bid offered by the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004. We may also incidentally notice that in the financial bid made by the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004, the amount of the bid is not written in words as insisted on the Clause 14.1 of the Notice Inviting Tender. Any way, it is clear that as on 19.6.2003, the Engineer- in-Chief or the Assessing Committee, had not recorded that there was any mistake in the figure or calculation made by the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004 while submitting its tender. What we are trying to emphasise is that in the concerned document, it is not noted or recorded that there was any error in the bid or in the calculation made by the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004 or the recording of the fact that the tender was being knocked down in favour of the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004, even though the figure shown by it was higher than that of the writ petitioner, because of the discovery of an error in calculation. It is seen that on 23.6.2003, the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004, gave a letter to the concerned Engineer- in-Chief, that there was an error in calculation and the correct figure may be taken, as indicated in that letter. This may or may not be true, but the question is whether as on the day the assessment was made, the bid made by the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004 was the lowest bid or not. It is seen that going by the amount written down in the tender submitted, it was not. Therefore, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case where we should interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge interfering with the award of the contract. There is nothing to show that the mistake was regard the final figure and not regarding any of the components that made up the final figure. Obviously, what is relevant is the ultimate figure quoted by the contractor for the entire work as envisaged by the Notice Inviting Tender. 6. We also find that the procedure adopted by the Engineer-in-Chief is a stranger one. Obviously, what is relevant is the ultimate figure quoted by the contractor for the entire work as envisaged by the Notice Inviting Tender. 6. We also find that the procedure adopted by the Engineer-in-Chief is a stranger one. He was conducting a Government business, namely, the awarding of a contract involving crores of rupees. It is expected that an authority acting with a sense of responsibility will ensures that the procedural requirements are strictly met. On 31.5.2003 the technical bids were opened. Thereafter, he waited until 18.6.2003 to make up his mind as to whether he should open the financial bids. Then suddenly, he took a decision to open the financial bids, the next day, inspite of the requirement of notice as per Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender, to issue notices to all the tenderers, whose technical bids had been accepted, for being present while opening the financial bid. He has taken a strange plea that he informed them over the telephone and in support of this, he has produced the records to show that telephone calls were made from an outside pay booth. But, he has not explained why he resorted to such a method and what would have been the consequences if financial bids were opened after service of notice by normal means. Normally, while conducting a Government business, it is expected that the authority will issue notices in writing and ensure the obtaining of due acknowledgements from the concerned parties. No doubt, Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender does not specify the mode of communication of notice. But normally, when the issue of a notice is required, especially in matters of this nature when Government business is involved, it is the duty of the authority to send them by the appropriate method so that an acknowledgement from the concerned person is also obtained evidencing the service of that notice. This situation obtaining, also justifies the finding by the learned single Judge that Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender has been violated in this case. It is also seen that hardly any time was given to the tenderers to appear before him when the financial bids were opened, the next day. 7. This situation obtaining, also justifies the finding by the learned single Judge that Clause 28.2 of the Notice Inviting Tender has been violated in this case. It is also seen that hardly any time was given to the tenderers to appear before him when the financial bids were opened, the next day. 7. Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the intervention by the learned single Judge in the manner in which he did it, we find, on a scrutiny of the original documents made available to us, that there is considerable doubt, in any event, whether the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/ 2004 was the lowest bidder at all. Going by the ultimate figure originally quoted by it in its financial bid and as available to the authorities on 19.6.2003 when they evaluated the financial bid it was not the lowest bidder. No error was noticed in the proceedings recorded on 19.6.2003. In the original record we also do not find any specific paper or entry on any specify date, indicating that regarding this contract, any fresh evaluation was made on an error being discovered. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004 submitted that a letter was given on 23.6.2003 submitting that there was an error in calculation in the tender submitted by the appellant. But that again is a different question and there was no information before the authorities on the day they opened the financial bids about any mistake. There is no further entry about the transaction relating to this particular Notice Inviting Tender in the Register. A minutes said to be of the Tender Committee dated 27.6.2003 has been produced as Annexure-7 along with L.P.A. No. 129/2004, But the Register made available to us does not indicate the acceptance of any such assessment. Apart from that, even the copy of the minutes dated 27.6.2003 produced, does not indicate that there was a mistake in the bid made by the appellant in L.P.A. No. 41/2004. Not only that, Annexure-7 speaks of opening of three bids whereas it is the admitted case on all hands, that there were four qualified bids when the financial bids were opened, though, of course, in the table containing details, details regarding four bids are mentioned. We do not think that much credence can be given to Annexure-7, the copy produced. Not only that, Annexure-7 speaks of opening of three bids whereas it is the admitted case on all hands, that there were four qualified bids when the financial bids were opened, though, of course, in the table containing details, details regarding four bids are mentioned. We do not think that much credence can be given to Annexure-7, the copy produced. Moreover, we are of the view that what was the governing factor was what was the final amount offered by the tenderer in the financial bid it had submitted and any later correction therein, whatever be the basis for such correction, at the instance of the tender, would be unjustified. 8. In this State of the record, we are satisfied that it would not be appropriate to interfere with the decision of the learned single Judge. In that view, we confirm the decision of the learned single Judge and dismiss these appeals.