Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 378 (GAU)

Muzzamel Haque v. State of Assam

2004-06-02

AMITAVA ROY

body2004
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. Both the petitions witness a challenge to the order dated 10.10.03 passed by the Nagaon Zilla Parishad (hereinafter referred to Zilla Parishad) settling the Juria Bi weekly market (hereinafter referred to as the market) with the Respondent No. 4, Md Abu Bakkar Siddique. Though initially by an interim order passed in W.P.(C) No. 9027/03 the impugned settlement was stayed an appeal being W.A. No. 504/03 having been preferred in terms of the order passed therein, the private Respondent is presently operating the market. 2. I have heard Mr N. Dutta, Senior Advocate and Mr. A.K. Goswami, Advocate for the writ Petitioners in W.P.(C) 9027/03 and W.P.(C) No. 9573/03 respectively Mr. A. Goni, learned State Counsel for the official Respondents and Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, Senior Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. 3. The relevant facts necessary for comprehending the issues are that a tender notice was floated on 10.4.03 by the Zilla Parishad inviting tenders inter alia for settlement of the market for the term 1.7.2003 to 30.6.04. The Petitioners, the Respondent No. 4 and others responded to the notice and submitted their tenders. The highest bid was of Rs. 9,15,517/- offered by one Sri Dulu Bora followed by one Md Khairul Islam, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9573/03 at Rs. 7,93,548/-. Md. Muzzamel Haque, Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9027/03 was 3rd in the row offering Rs. 6,11,211/-. The Respondent No. 4 quoted Rs. 3,99,853/-. The market by the order dated 25.6.03 was however settled with the Respondent No. 4 at his bid. Incidentally the highest bidder had withdrawn his offer. The settlement was assailed by Md. Muzzamel Haque the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9027/03. His Petitioner (W.P.(C) No. 5353/03) along with other writ petitions were eventually disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order dated 1.10.03 passed in W.A. No. 325/03 and others. The settlement was set aside primarily on the ground that it had been awarded in favour of the private Respondent at a bid lower than that of Shri Dulu Bora without the prior approval of the State Government as required under Rule 47(10) of the Assam Panchayat (Financial) Rules 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The matter was remanded to the Zilla Parishad for fresh orders on a consideration of the bids already received. The matter was remanded to the Zilla Parishad for fresh orders on a consideration of the bids already received. On remand, the Zilla Parishad by the impugned order dated 10.10.03 settled the market again with the Respondent No. 4 at his offer The settlement has been questioned inter alia on the ground that the same had been made in violation of the order of this Court as above and on extraneous considerations beyond the NIT. 4. In the same setting of facts, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9573/03 has questioned the settlement on the ground that the same is vitiated by irrelevant considerations only to sub serve the interest of Respondent No. 4 in the face of a much higher bid offered by him. Omission to obtain formal approval of the Government as required under Rule 47(10) has also been put forward as a ground of attack. 5. No affidavit in opposition has been filed by the official Respondents. The learned State Counsel has produced the records pertaining to the impugned settlement. 6. Resisting the above contentions the Respondent No. 4 in his counter filed in W.P.(C) No. 9027/03 has pleaded that the tender of the writ Petitioner therein was rejected as he had not submitted the necessary clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad as prescribed by the NIT. Further the value of the land offered as security was less than his bid value as his Zamindar (surety) had stood guarantor for five tenderers at a time. He also contended that the total area of the land of the said guarantor was much less than what was represented in the tender papers. According to him, out of the 13 tenderers, 7 were disqualified as their tenders were found to be irregular and the highest tenderer having withdrawn out of the valid tenders remaining in the fray, his offer being the highest, the Zilla Parishad rightly settled the market with him (Respondent No. 4). 7. Mr. Dutta in the above background has argued that on a reading of the various clauses of the NIT it is abundantly clear that there was no requirement of submission of any clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad confirming that the tenderer was not in default of any amount payable to it by way of tax, revenue or otherwise. 7. Mr. Dutta in the above background has argued that on a reading of the various clauses of the NIT it is abundantly clear that there was no requirement of submission of any clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad confirming that the tenderer was not in default of any amount payable to it by way of tax, revenue or otherwise. According to him, the expressions Zilla Parishad and Mahkuma Parishad appearing in the NIT, having regard to the scheme thereof, are not inter changeable and therefore non furnishing of any such clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad in absence of the Mahkuma Parishad (as it no longer exists) could not have rendered the tender macceptable. According to the learned senior Counsel, the relevant clause in the NIT i.e. Clause 1 (kha) does not mandate submission of any such certificate by the Zilla Parishad. Referring to various other clauses of NIT he sought to contend that had it been the intention of the authority concerned to prescribe such a requirement, the expression Zilla Parishad would have been used in the said clause of the NIT. 8. He next contended that there being no bar in the NIT for more than one tenderer to offer the same guarantor/surety with his land or property as the security of their bids, rejection of the Petitioner's tender on the ground that the value of the land of the guarantor had fallen below the amount of his offer is wholly untenable. He asserted that assuming that the guarantor in the instant case had stood surety for five tenderers and that 1/5 value of the land offered, was insufficient to cover the Petitioner's bid, it was not at all relevant to reject his offer on that ground, in as much as, at the time of settlement of the market the entire land would have been available as a security for the successful tenderer. The learned senior Counsel urged that the Petitioner's bid being higher than that of Respondent No. 4 he could not have been overlooked on the specious ground that the share of the value of the land offered by the guarantor had fallen short of his offer. The learned senior Counsel urged that the Petitioner's bid being higher than that of Respondent No. 4 he could not have been overlooked on the specious ground that the share of the value of the land offered by the guarantor had fallen short of his offer. The purpose of offering a guarantor being to secure the amount quoted by a tenderer and the settlement being awardable to only one successful bidder, the Petitioner's tender ought not to have been rejected on the ground that the guarantor furnished by him was common with the other tenderers. In this connection Mr. Dutta, invited the attention of this Court to Clause 8 of the NIT permitting deposit of the bid money in cash in the event of any tender deciding not to furnish a guarantor. According to the learned senior Counsel insistence for the certificate by the Zilla Parishad and one guarantor for one bidder were post tender requirements and being beyond the purview of NIT were ex facie, unsustainable rendering the process unreasonable, unfair and unjust. Mr Dutta maintained that the Zilla Parishad being a Panchayat institution under Part IX of the constitution of India, it is a public authority, action whereof in the field of its activities must essentially be fair, non arbitrary and transparent. He contended that as admittedly offers made by the Petitioners were much higher than that of Respondent No. 4 the Zilla Parishad ought to have borne in mind the aspect of public revenue before lightly rejecting the Petitioner's tender while accepting a much lower bid of the Respondent No. 4. 9. Mr. Goswami, while supporting the arguments of Mr. Dutta has additionally contended that having regard to the Clause 2, 6 and 18 of the NIT, rejection of a tender for omission on the part of a tenderer to annex a document prescribed thereby was not the inevitable consequence as under the said clauses the authorities reserved to them a right to reject or accept any tender as they deemed fit and proper. According to the learned Counsel it was therefore within the discretion of the authorities of the Zilla Parishad, even if a tender was defective for not being accompanied by a document mandated by the NIT, to afford an opportunity to concerned tenderer to cure the defect. According to the learned Counsel it was therefore within the discretion of the authorities of the Zilla Parishad, even if a tender was defective for not being accompanied by a document mandated by the NIT, to afford an opportunity to concerned tenderer to cure the defect. This, having regard to the aspect of revenue vis a vis the offer made by the Petitioner was a relevant factor in the instant case which the Zilla Parishad having totally overlooked, the process is vitiated by a gross disregard to the public interest and is thus liable of be interfered with. He submitted that having regard to the aforementioned clauses of the NIT, non submission of any document thereunder cannot decisively disqualify a tenderer inasmuch as the authorities had arrogated to themselves the right to reject even the successful bidder in case his tender or a document submitted therewith disclosed false or incorrect statements. 10. Mr. Mazumdar in reply has urged that all the tenderers except two had submitted the clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad signifying that the said requirement was clearly understood by them and therefore the defence as put forward by the Petitioners is wholly untenable. According to him while interpreting the various clauses of the NIT a practical and realistic approach has to be adopted. Assuming that there was a scope for some confusion with regard to the submission of the clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad in absence of the Mahkuma Parishad it was expected of the Petitioners to make enquires whether a certificate from the Zilla Parishad was necessary in the circumstances. No attempt having been made to ascertain the same, it does not lie in the mouth of the Petitioners to contend that no certificate from the Zilla Parishad was necessary. As admittedly, the Zilla Parishad have, substituted, Mahkuma Parishads in the present scheme of Panchayat institutions, he contended that the omission on the part of the Petitioners depict a callous discharged to the NIT conditions resulting in the rejection of their tenders rightly. According to Mr Mazumdar, therefore, this plea was not only untenable in law but also lacked bonafide. Referring to Clause 6 and 7 of the NIT, the learned senior Counsel contended that on a reasonable construction thereof it was imperissible to furnish one guarantor by more than one tenderer. According to Mr Mazumdar, therefore, this plea was not only untenable in law but also lacked bonafide. Referring to Clause 6 and 7 of the NIT, the learned senior Counsel contended that on a reasonable construction thereof it was imperissible to furnish one guarantor by more than one tenderer. According to him the Petitioners having taken a calculated risk in omitting to furnish the clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad/Samabay and offer a common guarantor in breach of the NIT conditions they cannot turn round and complain against the rejection of their tenders. The learned senior Counsel apprised this Court that the term of settlement would be over on 30.6.04 and the Respondent No. 4 having in the meantime paid all the installments, his settlement ought not to be interfered with by this Court. 11. In support of his submissions. Mr. Mazumdar relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Appellant v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar, Municipal Corporation and Ors. Respondents (2000) 5 SCC 287 and that of this Court in Bikash Bora Appellant v. State of Assam and Ors. Respondents 2003 (2) GLT 485. 12. The records pertaining to the impugned settlement furnished by the Zilla Parishad reveal that after the remand by this Court, the issue was reconsidered in its meeting held on 10.10.03 wherein it was decided to award the settlement in favour of the Respondent No. 4 at his bid of Rs. 3,99,853/- being the highest valid offer. In the resolution of the same date the Zilla Parishad took notice of the directions issued by this Court and recorded that out of the thirteen tenders seven were rejected not being in conformity with the terms and conditions of the NIT, as a result whereof tenders carrying higher bids could not be considered. The comparative statements reflecting the particulars of the tenders and the conclusions recorded after the evaluation thereof indicate that the tender of the highest bidder Sri Dulu Bora was not only defective but also was subsequently withdrawn. The tender of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9573/03 was defective for not having submitted the certificate of Samabay and as the value of the land of the guarantor was inadequate. The tender of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9573/03 was defective for not having submitted the certificate of Samabay and as the value of the land of the guarantor was inadequate. The tender of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9027/03 was rejected as irregular as the clearance certificate of the Zilla Parishad was not submitted and the proportionate value of the land of the guarantor had become insufficient as he had stood surety for five tenderers. The tenders of the bidders at Sl. No. 4, 5, 6, 7 above the Respondent No. 4 (at Sl. No. 8) were also found to be irregular for not having submitted certificates in terms of the NIT and value of guarantors land being insufficient. Incidentally the tender of Md Ali Sabad who had offered Rs. 4,45,571/- and placed at Sl. No. 6 in the comparative statement was rejected on the ground of non submission of clearance certificate from Zilla Parishad. The tender of the Respondent No. 4 was found to be valid and considering his offer, was construed to be the valid highest tender. The settlement was therefore recommended in his favour at his offer of Rs. 3,99,853/-. 13. It is therefore apparent from the records that if the ground(s) of rejection are tenable the settlement of the market with the Respondent No. 4 cannot be faulted with, his tender being the valid highest tender. The minutes of the meeting dated 10.10.03 indicate the awareness of the Zilla Parishad about higher bids available which however could not be accepted as the related tenders failed to comply with the requirements prescribed by the NIT. It is noticeable that the amount at which the market was settled for the previous term i.e. 2002-2003 is Rs. 3,11,988/-. The accepted bid of the current term is therefore substantially higher than that of the previous year. There is nothing on record to suggest that the amount at which the market had been settled was grossly inadequate so much so to adversely affect the interest of the Zilla Parishad or that a fresh process for obtaining better offers was wan anted. The preference to be given to the higher bidder as contemplated under the NIT pre-supposes that the bid is valid. The preference to be given to the higher bidder as contemplated under the NIT pre-supposes that the bid is valid. If a tender carrying a higher bid is found defective and thus not acceptable, it cannot only be a ground to question the settlement in favour of a lower valid bid. 14. The rival contentions of the parties with regard to the requirement of submission of a clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad need now be examined. Clause 1 (kha) requires that a tenderer should submit a certificate from the Anchalik Panchayat or the Mahkuma Parishad, to the effect that he is not m default m respect of any loan, tax, or revenue. There is no reference of Zilla Parishad in the said clause. The expression Zilla Parishad, however, finds place in several other clauses of the NIT, namely, Clause 2, 12, 21, and 22. Under Clause 12, the Zilla Parishad has reserved to itself right to reject or accept any tender. Under Clause 2, the successful tenderer would be permitted to collect the tolls as per the rates fixed by the Anchalik Panchayat/Mahkuma Parishad/Zilla Parishad for the market settled by it. Under Clause 21, a tenderer would be required to extend all co-operation to the officers of the Government or Zilla Parishad or Anchalik Panchayat or a Gaon Panchayat at the time of inspection of the hat/bazar etc in question. Clause 22 prohibits collection of any toll without the written permission from the Zilla Parishad. The NIT itself had been issued under the signature of the President of the Zilla Parishad. 15. Though the expression Mahkuma Parshad has appeared more than once in the NIT as a, matter of fact at the time of issuance of the NIT, Mahkuma Parishad was not in existence, the pattern of Panchayat Institutions having in the meantime undergone a change. The authorities of the Zilla Parishad logically must have been aware of this at the time of issuance of the NIT. In spite thereof not only the expression Mahkuma Parishad has appeared in the NIT, under Clause 1 (kha) with which we are concerned, a tenderer was required to submit a clearance certificate from the Anchalik Panchayat or the Mahkuma Parishad along with the tender. In spite thereof not only the expression Mahkuma Parishad has appeared in the NIT, under Clause 1 (kha) with which we are concerned, a tenderer was required to submit a clearance certificate from the Anchalik Panchayat or the Mahkuma Parishad along with the tender. The said clause does not provide any indication that the clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad or any other authority in the alternative could be submitted, Reading the NIT as a whole, therefore, it is not unlikely that a tenderer might not submit a clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad. Noticeably the Petitioners tenders had not been rejected on the ground that a clearance certificate from the Anchalik Panchayat or the Mahkuma Parishad was not submitted. 16. A notice inviting tender is the first step to initiate a process for settlement of a public contract or for distributing any form of state largess by tender system. It is an offer to the public soliciting participation of eligible and willing members thereof in the process. Essentially, therefore, the terms and conditions of such a notice have to be clear and intelligible to be easily understood and not ambiguous, contingent and misleading lest the very purpose of the process is lost. A notice inviting tenders is to ensure competitive bids so as to enable the authorities concerned to select the best available tender suiting the requirements on a consideration of all the relevant factors. The exercise would be reduced to a futility if the NIT conditions are indeterminate and obscure. The NIT conditions, to ensure that the process is fair and transparent are required to be strictly adhered to by the authorities as well as the tenderers. In this scenario, if a tenderer is misled while submitting his tender by any omission, inconsistency or in coherence in the NIT conditions, it would be distractive of the concept of fairness and reasonableness to reject his tender on account of any defect therein because of the above reasons. Reading the NIT with all its clauses, I am of the view that it cannot be decisively held that it was reasonably ascertainable that a clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad was a document to be mandatorily submitted with the tender This ground of rejection of the tender of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9027/03, therefore, cannot be sustained. 17. Reading the NIT with all its clauses, I am of the view that it cannot be decisively held that it was reasonably ascertainable that a clearance certificate from the Zilla Parishad was a document to be mandatorily submitted with the tender This ground of rejection of the tender of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9027/03, therefore, cannot be sustained. 17. Under Clause 6 and 7 of the NIT, a tenderer was required, if not inclined to deposit the entire bid money in cash, to furnish a guarantor and to offer a security to cover the amount of the bid. In the instant case, admittedly the guarantor of the Petitioner had also offered himself as the surety for four other tenderers. The land offered as a security in the comparative statement discloses, that it was of an area measuring 24B-1K-2 1/2Ls. It is not disputed that the value of 1/5 share of the land would be less than the Petitioner's offer. 18. There cannot be two opinions that the adequacy of the security offered has to be adjudged at the time of the scrutiny of the tenders and the evaluation cannot be postponed till the stage of final settlement of the contract. The selection for settlement has to be confined to the valid tenders alone at the later stages. The tenders are required to be scrutinized at the outset to ascertain whether the same are in conformity with the stipulations contained in the NIT. It is only those tenders which stand the initial probe are taken up for comparative assessment for final settlement. In other words, a tender to reach the ultimate stage of settlement has to be first found valid in the touch stone of the tender conditions. If it fails at the initial stage, it cannot be considered at the culminating phases because then it cannot be construed to be in the fray at all. A tender has to qualify as per tender conditions for being considered for comparative evaluation for final selection. 19. If it fails at the initial stage, it cannot be considered at the culminating phases because then it cannot be construed to be in the fray at all. A tender has to qualify as per tender conditions for being considered for comparative evaluation for final selection. 19. In terms of the NIT, the requirement of furnishing a guarantor with his property is for the purpose of securing the realization of the amount of the offer in case of default by a tenderer Whether the tender complies with the said requirement has to be tested at the initial stage of scrutiny and cannot be deferred till the stage of final selection of the successful tenderer. It is at this stage that the tender has to be scrutinized whether it complies with the prescribed requirements. In view of the admitted fact that the value of the land offered as security was insufficient to cover their bid, it has to be concluded that the Petitioners, tenders were not in consonance with the edict of clauses 6 and 7 of the NIT. As no exception had been taken by the Zilla Parishad about the alleged discrepancies regarding the area and other particulars of the land offered as security at the stage of preparing the comparative statement, I am not inclined too entertain the arguments to that effect as sought to be advanced now on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. 20. The fact remains that the Petitioners' tenders were not in conformity with the requirement in Clause 6 and 7 of the NIT and therefore, the above ground taken for disqualifying their tenders as irregular, in my considered view cannot be said to be erroneous or arbitrary. This ground being independent of the first ground, namely,. non submission of the certificate of Zilla Parishad/Samabay is sufficient to reject the Petitioners' tenders. The impugned decision vis a vis the Petitioners on this count is beyond reproach. The action of the Zilla Parishad in rejecting the tenders of the Petitioners on this ground cannot be dismissed as illegal, unfair, unreasonable or lacking in transparency. 21. The additional contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9573/03 also do not appeal to this Court. The process being one for settlement of a public contract, the NIT with its covenants is in the form of an offer to the public. 21. The additional contentions raised on behalf of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 9573/03 also do not appeal to this Court. The process being one for settlement of a public contract, the NIT with its covenants is in the form of an offer to the public. Having published the NIT, the authorities concerned are mandatorily required to adhere to the same. Any flexibility in the matter of interpretation of any of the stipulations in view of any residuary power reserved would impair the acceptability and sanctity of the process. Any supple approach as suggested qua the conditions would then have the potential of inducing favoritism rendering the process unfair, partisan and discriminatory which is an anathema to a public process of the present type. It is in this back ground that the clauses referred to by Mr. Goswami have to be viewed. 22. Clause 2 of the NIT confers powers to the Zilla Parishad to reject or accept any tender as it may deem fit and proper. Power has also been reserved to it in Clause 18 to reject a tender even after its acceptance in case any falsity of any statement or misrepresentation is detected. The Zilla Parishad in such circumstances has also the power to make alterative arrangements. Under Clause 6 the Zilla Parishad may prescribe additional requirements to those contained therein. 23. In my view, the above stipulations in the NIT only underline the fact that in the matter of prescription of the terms and conditions relating to the settlement, the Zilla Parishad is the ultimate authority. This however, cannot be construed to make it incumbent on the Zilla Parishad that even if a tender fails the test of the NIT conditions it would be bound under all circumstances to either accept the same or to offer an opportunity to the concerned tenderer to rectify the defect(s). Such a requirement if insisted upon would render the exercise undesirably tractable-a concept abhorrent to a tender process. If a tender is not in accordance with the NIT conditions, it would be wholly within the jurisdiction of the authority concerned to reject the same. Interference by the court would be justified if the rejection is either on non existent grounds or one irrelevant/extraneous considerations. 24. If a tender is not in accordance with the NIT conditions, it would be wholly within the jurisdiction of the authority concerned to reject the same. Interference by the court would be justified if the rejection is either on non existent grounds or one irrelevant/extraneous considerations. 24. It has earlier been noticed that the bid offered by the Respondent No. 4 and accepted by the authorities is higher than the last years bid. No opinion whatsoever has been expressed by the settlement authority that the offer of the Respondent No. 4 was insufficient acceptance of which would lead to loss of revenue for the Zilla Parishad. Preference to a higher bid, where, one of the main purposes of settlement of the present type is to augment the revenue of the concerned Panchayat institution, same has to be necessarily confined to valid tenders. An invalid tender carrying a higher bid has to be left out of consideration. The materials on record do not justify that the Zilla Parishad, m face of higher bid of the Petitioners was required to afford an opportunity to them to rectify their bid or to initiate a fresh process for better offers. In absence of any evidence to the effect that acceptance of the bid of the Respondent No. 4 had led to the loss of revenue of the Zilla Parishad, I am unable to accept the contention that the Petitioners' tenders though irregular ought to have been acted upon only because the offers made therein were higher than that of Respondent No. 4. Loss of revenue cannot be readily presumed as she accepted bid in the instant case is higher than that of last term. 25. Mr. Goswami, has fairly submitted that in his case no certificate of the samabay had been submitted and that the valuation of the land offered as security was less than the bid offered. It has been conceded that submission of the certificate from the Samabay was required under the Nit. I am therefore, of the view that the grounds on which the tender of Md. Khairul Islam had been rejected cannot be said to be unsustainable. 26. It has been conceded that submission of the certificate from the Samabay was required under the Nit. I am therefore, of the view that the grounds on which the tender of Md. Khairul Islam had been rejected cannot be said to be unsustainable. 26. The Apex Court in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra) had approved the decision of the High Court setting aside the settlement in favour of the Appellant though it did not satisfy a clause in the NIT which was later on deleted after submission of the tenders. The Apex Court held that if a term of the tender is deleted after the players have entered into the arena, it is like changing the rules of the game after it had begun and therefore, if the Government or the Municipal Corporation was willing to alter the conditions, a fresh process of tender was the only alternative permissible. 27. A Division Bench of this Court inter alia taking note of the above decision upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge in Bikash Bora (supra) cancelling the settlement of Kampur Weekly Market in favour of the Appellants though he had failed to submitted the loan clearance as well as tax clearance certificate essentially required to be furnished under the NIT. Referring to the ratio of the judgment in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. (supra) this Court held as follows. The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court clearly lays down that the authority is justified in rejecting the tenders if they did not fulfil the conditions required for submission of the valid tender. It is not for the Court to consider the rejection of tender if the conditions have not been fulfilled but it is the primary duty of the Court to see that the Government or any other instrumentality of the state does not act arbitrarily in choosing any person it likes for entering into a relationship or to discriminate between the person similarly situated. Fulfillment of the tender conditions by all the tenderers would ensure equality between the tenders and deletion of any of the conditions in favour of any of the tenderers would result in discriminatory treatment amongst the tenderers, in fact, not only amongst the tenderers but to all other persons who would have also applied if they had known that such a relaxation would be permissible in consideration of the tender. The terms on which the tender has to be submitted has to be followed unless there are compelling reasons in which case the court may take a different view of the matter, but that depends on the factual scenario of each case. 28. The above judicial pronouncements wholly reinforce the view taken on the issues involved in the present proceedings. In the present setting of the facts, the Zilla Parishad has acted on a proper interpretation of the NIT conditions. The rejection of the Petitioners tenders have been on grounds which are relevant and germane. No illegality, perversity, unfairness or lack of transparency in action is discernible. Public interest has not been undermined. The Zilla Parishad in matters of settlement has to be conceded some elbow room while exercising its discretion. The materials on record do not disclose that in taking the impugned decision the Zilla Parishad has transgressed the permissible limits of such exercise of discretion. The plea that the impugned settlement is opposed to the letter and spirit of the order of the Division Bench of this Court remanding the matter is also not tenable. The decision making process does not suffer from any vitiating malady warranting interference of this Court in the exercise of power of judicial review. The petitions are therefore without any merit and are dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed