Judgment 1. This Special Appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2005 dismissing the writ petition. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant Special Appeal are that the appellant, a transporter, submitted his tender for transporting L.P.G. Cylinders in response to the advertisement issued by the first respondent-Indian Oil Corporation Limited. In the said tender, he quoted the rates as follows : Schedule of Rates for 14.2 Kg. Cylinders ( Enclosure of Price Bid) S. No. Category Type of routes and rates Plain RoutesHill Routes with Restriction Hill Routes without Load Restriction 1. Within State (Paisa/Cyl/RTKM) 3.85 P. 2. Adjoining State (Paisa/Cyl/RTKM) 4.15 P. 3. Another State (Paisa/Cyl/RTKM) 4.25 P. 4. Minimum Charges (Paisa/Cyl) 5.00 P. 3. The appellants tender was rejected for the reason that he quoted the minimum charges in “Paisa” instead of “rupees” per Cylinder. The appellant made a representation stating inter alia that he had referred “P”as “Per Cylinder” and this could be explained, if he would have been given an opportunity to explain. The respondents ignoring the appellants representation accepted the bids of other persons. The appellant approached to this Court by way of filing the writ petition. According to the respondents, the tender was scrutinized as per the procedure of two bids, namely, credential bid (technical bid) and the price bid for the transportation of the L.P.G. Cylinders. The appellants price bid was not accepted by the Committee for the reason that it was in violation of the specific instructions issued for giving price. It was submitted that the rate was offered in violation of the Condition No. 2 of the instruction by giving the rates in “paisa” instead of “rupees” As the appellants tender itself was rejected by the Committee, he was not entitled for calling for negotiation for the purpose of lowering down the rates. Learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition holding the appellant himself responsible for creating the confusion. 4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that there was a bona fide error in quoting the price, which could have been corrected if the appellant would have been given an opportunity. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that as the tender was not in the form of instructions issued, the Committee rightly rejected the tender. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that as the tender was not in the form of instructions issued, the Committee rightly rejected the tender. It is further submitted that this Court would not be interfering in a contractual matter unless the substantial public interest is involved or the tender has been granted mala fidely. Reliance is placed on Raunaq International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. reported in AIR 1999 SC 393 . 5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the instant Special Appeal deserve to be allowed. The price quoted by the appellant in response to the tender notice has been extracted in the earlier para of the Judgment . It has to be read in the context of the tender notice. The appellant submitted a tender quoting the price for transporting L.P.G. Cylinders. If the document Annex.1 is read keeping this in mind, then there can be no other rational conclusion than that the appellant had quoted the price in “rupees” as no other view is possible. It appears that appellants tender was rejected mechanically without application of mind, which has caused serious miscarriage of justice. The minimum expectation in such cases is the consideration of tender in right perspective and in rational way. It appears from the order of the learned Single Judge that the offer was sent to 26 successful bidders and out of 26, 23 persons accepted to work at the lowest approved rates and three persons refused to work on the lowest rates. Thus, still there is scope to accept the appellants tender at the lowest rate as in being done in the case of other 23 persons. 6. Consequently the Special Appeal is allowed. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.04.2005 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to award the contract to the appellant on the lowest rate for transporting L.P.G. Cylinders as is being done in the case of other 23 persons. The directions are to be carried out within a period of fifteen days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.