Judgment Markandeya Katju, C.J. (Oral) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 5.10.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge. We have perused the impugned judgment and record and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner had prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to issue RFP (Request For Proposal) to the petitioners in respect of Submarine Batteries Type 1, Type II & Type III which has been developed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner is a company incorporated in India. All its shareholders and Directors are citizens of India. The petitioner company was established in 1977 and is engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing and supplying advanced technology batteries used in military applications. The current turnover of the company is around Rs. 350 crores. In para I of the writ petition the writ petitioner has referred to various technologies developed by it for the Indian Armed Forces. In recognition of the petitioner's Infrastructure facilities and technological capabilities for manufacturing advanced batteries for military application, the Directorate General of Quality Assurance, Controllerate of Quality Assurance (Electronics), Ministry of Defence registered the petitioner as an approved/capable manufacturer and supplier. A copy of the registration certificate is annexed as Annexure P-I. A non-exhaustive customer list of petitioner is annexed as Annexure-2 which refers to the world wide acceptance of the petitioner's products and technologies. The petitioner has employed about 400 Engineers, besides other skilled and semi-skilled technicians and staff. It has set up overseas offices in Hong Kong, Malaysia and UK and for its overseas operations it has agents in USA, Canada, Brazil, Austria, Bangladesh, Egypt, Greece, Korea, Kuwait, Mexico, Netherlands, Nepal, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arbia, Spain, Sri Lanka, South Mrica, Italy, Taiwan, UAE etc. 4. It is alleged in para 3 of the writ petition that encouraged by successful indigenisation of most stratetic and critical batteries for the Ministry of Defence, i.e. for Army, Navy and Air Force, the Ministry of Defence encouraged and. requested the petitioner to develop submarine batteries as the MOD was dependent on only one source which was charging exorbitantly high prices without any quality check or competition. The petitioner has vast experience in manufacturing and supplying Silver Zinc Batteries for torpedoes, etc. The petitioner took up the design and development of Submarine storage batteries in a comprehensive manner. requested the petitioner to develop submarine batteries as the MOD was dependent on only one source which was charging exorbitantly high prices without any quality check or competition. The petitioner has vast experience in manufacturing and supplying Silver Zinc Batteries for torpedoes, etc. The petitioner took up the design and development of Submarine storage batteries in a comprehensive manner. The petitioner made heavy investments in this connection and successfully developed the critical cells for submarine batteries. 5. The petitioner has alleged in para 4 of the petition that it has developed cells for the system and is capable to manufacture and supply complete Submarine Battery Type I, Type II and Type III. The petitioner is already registered with DGQA organisation for manufacture and supply of various items including silver zinc batteries, but sensing opposition from the only source supplier (Exide Batteries) the petitioner has applied for additional registration in respect of submarine batteries specifically, which ,is merely a formality, particularly when the petitioner was already supplying advanced batteries and cells for submarine batteries having been successfully developed as per the specifications of the user Directorate. After successfully designing, developing and manufacturing sample cells of Submarine Batteries which are required by the Indian Navy, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the Respondents vide letter dated 6.6.2004 about its built up facilities and capability for manufacture of Submarine Batteries and requested the Ministry of Defence to evaluate the sample cells manufactured as per specifications of the user Directorate. However, the samples were not tested and evaluated by the respondents and it is alleged that this was apparently done under pressure from the lobby which wanted to maintain the single vendor situation/monopoly of M/s Exide Batteries. 6. In para 6 of the petition, it is alleged that the petitioner had submitted a detailed proposal for alternative indigenous source for submarine batteries to the Principal Director-Submarine Operations, Principal Director-Submarine Acquisition and the Principal Director-Electrical Engineering. Based on the petitioner's proposal, a high-powered team was deputed to the petitioner's works and a detailed presentation was given at the petitioner's works on 19th and 20th February, 2004. It is alleged that the team was highly impressed and satisfied with the presentation and assured to issue Request For Proposal CRFP) to the petitioner for the requirement of submarine batteries so as to break the monopoly and get a quality product at a competitive price. 7. It is alleged that the team was highly impressed and satisfied with the presentation and assured to issue Request For Proposal CRFP) to the petitioner for the requirement of submarine batteries so as to break the monopoly and get a quality product at a competitive price. 7. It is alleged in para 7 of the petition that the Department of Defence Production and Supply, Ministry of Defence recommended to the Joint Secretary (Ordnance/JNavy), Ministry of Defence, vide letter No. MOD ID No. 1302/Director CS-II)/2004 DCS-III) dated 7.1.2005 stating as follows: "The representation of M/s HBL NIFE Power Systems Ltd. has been examined in this Department and it has been observed that presently these batteries are procured on PAC basis by Indian Navy from M/s Exide Industries Ltd. This Department recommend that no avoid monopolistic situation a 2nd source may also be developed to ensure healthy competition and timely supplies. M/s HBL NIFE Power Systems Ltd. is already manufacturing various type of batteries required for the Indian Navy. They have informed that Submarine batteries and extension of its large Lead -Acid battery manufactured by them and they have already developed prototype cells for the battery, which have been evaluated and meets the required specification. This issues with the approval of Joint Secretary (Supplies)." 8. A copy of the said letter dated 7.1.2005 is annexed as Ann.P/3. After considering the representation made by the petitioner and receiving the recommendations from the Division of Joint Secretary, the Dy. Secretary (N-IV), Ministry of Defence addressed a communication to various officials of Naval Head quarters, directing that to avoid monopolistic situation a 2nd source may be developed to ensure healthy competition and timely supplies. A copy of the said communication bearing No. 3536/04/D(N -I) dated 8.2.2005 is annnexed and marked as Annexure P-4. 9. It is alleged in para 9 that each submarine battery currently supplied by the single source supplier is at the price of approx. Rs. 11 crores and by virtue of being the only source they also enrich themselves by 10% price escalation per annum, though competition drives the prices in international market downward year after year. It is alleged that the petitioner is technically sound, has built up the necessary infrastructure and has developed and manufactured the critical cells (which constitute the Submarine Battery) as per the specifications of the user directorate. It is alleged that the petitioner is technically sound, has built up the necessary infrastructure and has developed and manufactured the critical cells (which constitute the Submarine Battery) as per the specifications of the user directorate. The petitioner is being prevented by the said monopoly player (M/s Exide Batteries) who is in collusion with some officials in the Ministry of Defence and wielding political influence, from being considered by the Ministry of Defence for issuance of RFP (Request For Proposal) for supply of Submarine Battery. 10. The petitioner again highlighted the relevant facts to various officials of the MOD for breaking the monopoly, but to no avail. The details have been given in para 10 of the writ petition. 11. It is alleged that the denial of RFP to the petitioner leads to single vendor situation and would block the petitioner for five years. The proposal by the respondents for procuring its recurring requirement of Submarine Batteries for the period up to 2009/2010 from a single vendor, thereby shutting out the petitioner and continuing with the monopolistic play of the said single vendor is actuated by mala fides and is opposed to public policy. 12. The learned Single Judge in para 3 of the impugned judgment has accepted that for almost two years a final decision on the quality of the petitioner's product has not been taken despite the petitioner's making a detailed presentation on 19th and 20th February, 2004, and despite the letter dated 18.3.2005 and representation made to the Ministry of Defence on its behalf by Members of Parliament. 13. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and we have perused the same. In para 12 of the same the steps as envisaged under the DGQA Standing Orders through which an alternate source is proposed to be developed qua the submarine batteries has been mentioned. Till the successful development of the second source it is provided by MOD Office Memorandum No, 7(76)/73/D(S-III) dated 11.10.1999 that: "pending successful development of a new source, the order should be placed on the developed source(s) for the required quantity as indented by the Services by following the usual procedure laid down in this regard in order to ensure that the requirement of services and of production are met fully and without delay." 14. A copy of the said Ministry of Defence Office Memorandum No. 7.(76)/73/D(S-III) dated 11.10.1999 is annexed as Annexure R-3. 15. In paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the total process for developing an alternative source is approximately 34 months. Hence the petitioner could be registered and RFP -could be issued only in 2008. In para 35, it is stated that the present demand does not justify the existence of multiple vendors. 16. It may be mentioned that the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production and Supply issued Office Memorandum on development of second indigenous sources - on 11th October, 1999 which is as follows: "No.7.(76)/73/D(S-III), Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production and Supply New Delhi, the 11th October, 1999 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject: Development of second indigenous sources. In terms of the instructions contained in the Office Memorandum No. 7(67)/73/D(S-III) dated the 13th March, 1990 issued by the Department of Defence Production and Supplies, procurement of items which are of a developmental nature is to be handled by the Technical Committees/Supplies Wing of the Department of Defence Production and Supplies. One of the mandates given to the Department of Defence Production and Supplies is to locate and develop indigenous supply sources, both in the public and private sector for procurement of defence equipments and stores. Indigenisation of a defence store is not complete until atleast two sources are fully developed which would ensure not only price competition hut also avert Government's dependence on any single source." 17. By letter dated 6.1.2004 the petitioner pointed out that at present there is only one indigenous manufacturer for the strategically important submarine batteries. Petitioner as the second source would not only ensure continued supply to the Navy but also promote competitively driven improvement of performance and reliability. In the said letter which is at page 198 of the petition details have been given of the petitioner's experience and capabilities. In that letter it has been mentioned that to fill in the void of a second source of this strategic military equipment, petitioner has invested in the development of batteries for submarines, as this is a logical extension of their design and manufacturing capability. 18. In that letter it has been mentioned that to fill in the void of a second source of this strategic military equipment, petitioner has invested in the development of batteries for submarines, as this is a logical extension of their design and manufacturing capability. 18. In the letter of Director (S-II), Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production dated 7.1.2005 it is stated: "Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence Production) Subject: Development of alternate indigenous source for submarine batteries. Please find enclosed herewith a copy of representation of M/s HBL NIF'E Power System Ltd., Hyderabad on the above subject. The representation of M/s HBL NIFE Power Systems Ltd. has been examined in this Department and it has been observed that presently these batteries are procured on PAC basis by Indian Navy from M/s Exide Industries Ltd. This Department recommend that to avoid monopolistic situation a 2nd source may also be developed to ensure healthy competition and timely supplies. M/s HBL NIFE Power Systems Ltd is already manufacturing various type of batteries required for the Indian Navy. They have informed that Sub-marine batteries and extension of its large Lead - Acid battery manufactured by them and they have already developed prototype cells for the battery, which have been evaluated and meets the required specification. This issues with the approval of Joint Secretary (Supplies) Sd/ (R.K.Jain ) Director (S- II) Shri Gauram Chatterjee, JS (O/Navy), Ministry of Defence, South Block MoDID No.1302/DirectorCS- II)/2004/D (S- III) dated 07.1.2005. 19. The letter of Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Defence dated 8.2.2005 reads as under: "Ministry of Defence Subject: Alternate indigenous source for submarine batteries. NHQ/DQAN may please refer to their Note No. 610420/DQAN/L Dated 19th November, 2004 and 5th January, 2005 on the above mentioned subject. In this connection copies of the representations received from M/s HBL NIFE Power System Ltd. dated 12.11.2004 and 27th January, 2005 addressed to this Ministry are enclosed. The representation dated 12th October, 2004 has been examined in the Division of JS(S) wherein they have recommended that to avoid monopolistic situation a 2nd source may be developed to ensure healthy competition and timely supplies. In this connection, a copy of MoD/ID No. 1302/Dir9S.II/2004/D(S.III) dated 7.1.2005 is enclosed. In view of the representation submitted by M/s HBL NIFE and recommendations of Dir.(S.II) NAQ/DQAN etc. are requested to furnish their revised comments in this matter to this Ministry urgently. Sd/- (A.K.Ailawadi) Dy. In this connection, a copy of MoD/ID No. 1302/Dir9S.II/2004/D(S.III) dated 7.1.2005 is enclosed. In view of the representation submitted by M/s HBL NIFE and recommendations of Dir.(S.II) NAQ/DQAN etc. are requested to furnish their revised comments in this matter to this Ministry urgently. Sd/- (A.K.Ailawadi) Dy. Secretary (N-IV) Tele No. 23016099 NHQ/DQAN MoD of DiD No. 3536/04D(N-I) dated 8.2.2005" 20. In our opinion, while we cannot direct the respondents to issue RFP to the petitioner in respect of the submarine batteries in question, the petitioner is certainly entitled to have its product considered by the respondents. Competition is healthy, as it compels businessmen to improve quality and reduce prices. (see Adam Smith's 'The Wealth of Nations). 21. In State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal Vyas, AIR 1971 SC 2068 (vide para 6) the Supreme Court observed: "Article 19(6) of the Constitution provides a reasonable restriction on the fundamental rights of citizens as contained in Article 19(1)(g). If the State obtained a monopoly it would be defensible as a reasonable restriction on the rights of citizens to carryon any business or trade and to ply buses. On the other hand, if the State conferred any monopoly right on a citizen it would be indefensible and impermissible and would be an infraction of the inviolable provision of the Constitution." 22. We may mention that if the Government wants to produce some defence products by itself it can certainly shut out private parties. However when it decides to give such contracts to private parties for defence related equipments, then Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution will apply. It is well settled that public contracts are not largesse and must be ordinarily given by open public auction/public tender after an advertisement in well known newspapers having wide circulation. 23. The law is well-settled that contracts by the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies must be normally granted through public auction/public tender by inviting tenders from eligible persons and the notification of the public-auction or inviting tenders should be advertised in well known dailies having wide circulation in the locality, with all relevant details such as date, time and place of auction, subject-matter of auction, technical specifications, estimated cost, earnest money Deposit, etc. The award of Government contracts through public-auction/public tender is to ensure transparency in the public procurement, to maximise economy arid efficiency in Government procurement, to promote healthy competition among the tenderers, to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all tenderers, and to eliminate irregularities, interference and corrupt practices by-the authorities concerned. This is required by Article 14 of the Constitution. However, in rare and exceptional cases, for instance during natural calamities and emergencies declared by the Government; where the procurement is possible from a single source only; where the supplier or. contractor has exclusive rights in respect of the goods or services and no reasonable alternative or substitute exists; where the auction was held on several dates but there were no bidders or the bids offered were too low, etc., this normal rule may be departed and such contracts may be awarded through 'private negotiations'. (See Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1985 SC 1147 ). In Haji T.M. Hasan v. Kerala Financial Corpn. AIR 1988 SC 157 , the Supreme Court observed: "It is needless to state that the Government or public authorities should make all attempts to obtain the best available price while disposing of public properties. They should not generally enter into private arrangements for the purpose. These principles may be taken as well established by the following decisions of this Court: (i) K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore 1955(1) SCR 205 at p.312 AIR 1954 SC 592 at p.595 (ii) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. New Delhi, 1978(2) SCR 272 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ; (iii) R.D.Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 (3) SCR 1014 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 ; (iv) Kasturi Lallakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1980 (3) SCR 1338 : AIR 1980 SC 1992 ; (v) Fertilizer Crpn. New Delhi, 1978(2) SCR 272 : AIR 1978 SC 851 ; (iii) R.D.Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 1979 (3) SCR 1014 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 ; (iv) Kasturi Lallakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1980 (3) SCR 1338 : AIR 1980 SC 1992 ; (v) Fertilizer Crpn. Kamgar Union v. Union ofIndia, AIR 198] SC 344; (vi) Ram and Shy am Company v. State of Haryana, 1985 Supp SCR 541 : AIR 1985 SC 1147 ; and (vii) Sachidanand Pandey v. State of W.B., AIR 1987 SC 1109 In R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, 1979(3) Scr 1014 at p.1041 : AIR 1979 SC 1628 at p.1642, Bhagwati, J. speaking for the court observed: "Now, obviously where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same constitutional or public law limitations as Government. The rule inhibiting arbitrary action by Government which we have discussed above must apply equally where such corporation is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or otherwise, and it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will, but its action must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. This rule also flows directly from the doctrine of equality embodied in Art.14. It is now well settled as a result of decisions of this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 555 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It requires that State action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some rational and relevant principle, which is non-discriminatory; it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrlevant considerations, because that would be denial of equality. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Art.14 and it must "characterize every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The principle of reasonableness and rationality which is legally as well as philosophically an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness is protected by Art.14 and it must "characterize every State action, whether it be under authority of law or in exercise of executive power without making of law. The State cannot, therefore, act arbitrarily in entering into relationship, contractual or otherwise with a third party, but its action must conform to some standard or norm which is rational and non-discriminatory". In Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J. & K, 1980(3) SCR 1338 1355: AIR 1980 SC 1992 at p.1999, Bhagwati, J, again speaking for the Court reiterated what he said earlier in R.D. Shetty's case. The learned Judge went on to state: "Every action taken by the Government must be in public interest. The Government cannot act arbitrarily and without reason and if it does, its action would be liable to be invalidated. If the Government awards a contract or leases out or otherwise deals with its property or grants any other largess, it would be liable to be tested for its validity on the touchstone of reasonableness and public interest and if fails to satisfy either test, it would be unconstitutional and inalid." In Fertilizer Corporation case, AIR 1981 SC 344 (vide p.350) the Supreme: Court observed: "We want to make it clear that we do not doubt the bona fides of the authorities, but as far as possible, sales of public property, when the intention is to get the best price, ought to take place publicly. The vendors are not necessarily bound to accept the highest or any other offer, but the public at least gets the satisfaction that the Government has at all its cards on the table. In the instant case, the officers who were concerned with the sale have inevitably, though unjustifiably attracted the criticism that during the course of negotiations the original bid was reduced without a justifying cause. We had willy-nilly to spend quite some valuable time in satisfying ourselves that the reduction in the rice was a necessary and fair consequence of the reduction in the quantity of the goods later offered for sale on March, 31,1980. We had willy-nilly to spend quite some valuable time in satisfying ourselves that the reduction in the rice was a necessary and fair consequence of the reduction in the quantity of the goods later offered for sale on March, 31,1980. One cannot exclude the possibility that a better price might have been realized in a fresh public auction but such possibilities cannot vitiate the sale or justify the allegations of mala fides." In Sachidanand Pandey v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1987 SC 1109 at p.1133, O. Chinnappa Reddy, J; after considering almost all the decisions of the Court on the subject summarized the legal propositions in the following terms: "On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following propositions may be taken as well established: State owned or public owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is there ordinary rule, it is not a invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but their the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism". "The public property owned by the State or by an instrumentality of the State should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders. This Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which gives an impression of bias, favoritism or nepotism. Ordinarily, these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders. Their actions should be legitimate. Their dealings should be above board. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which gives an impression of bias, favoritism or nepotism. Ordinarily, these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to public auction or sale by tenders. That is why the Court repeatedly stated and reiterated that the State owned properties are required to be disposed of publicly. But that is not the only rule. As O.Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed, "that though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule." There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but then such instances must be justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It must be justified by compelling reasons and not by jut convenience." In Committee of Management of Panchaiyappa's Trust v. Official Trustee of Madras, 1994 (1) SCC 475 , the Supreme Court observed: "In K.N. Guruswamy v. State of Mysore, AIR 1954 SC 592 , the Court was dealing with the sale of a liquor contract. It was observed that matters of "consequence to the State revenue cannot be dealt with arbitrarily and in the secrecy of an office". The Court has emphasized the need for publicity so that people at large have notice. It was held that the furtive method adopted of settling a matter of this moment behind the backs of those interested and anxious to compete is unjustified" In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd) v. Union of India, 1981 (1) SCC 568 , it has been observed (per Chandrachud, C.J.): vide p.579, para 21) "We want to make it clear that we do not doubt the bona fides of the authorities, but as far as possible, sales of public property, when the intention is to get the best price, ought to take place publicly. The vendors are not necessarily bound to accept the highest or any other offer, but the public at least gets the satisfaction that the Government has put all the cards on the table." Relying on the said observations the Court in State of UP v. Shiv Charan Sharma, 1981 Supp SCC 85, has held that, "public auction with open participation and a reserved price guarantees public interest being fully subserved." In Ram & Shyam v. State of Haryana, 1985 (3) SCC 267 , it has been laid down (vide p.277, para 12) "On the other hand, disposal of public property partakes the character of a trust in that in its disposal there should be nothing hanky panky and that it must be done at the best price so that larger revenue coming into the coffers of the State administration would serve public purpose viz. The welfare State may be able to expand its beneficent activities by the availability of larger funds. But where disposal is for augmentation of revenue and nothing else, the State is under an obligation to secure the best market price available in a market economy. An owner of private property need not auction it nor is he bound to dispose it of at a current market price. Factors such as personal attachment, or affinity, kinship, empathy religious sentiment or limiting the choice to whom he may be willing to sell, may permit him to sell the property at a song and without demur. A welfare State as the owner of the public property has no such freedom while disposing of the public property." 24. Thus, the law is very clear that ordinarily all contracts by the Government or by an instrumentality of the State should be granted only by public auction or by inviting tenders, after advertising the same in well known newspapers having wide circulation, so that all eligible persons will have opportunity to bid in the bid, and there is total transparency. In our opinion this is an essential requirement in a democracy, where the people are supreme, and all official acts must be actuated by the public interest. 25. In the present case the petitioner claims that it has already produced a developed product and it' wants this product to be considered by the respondents. In our opinion this is an essential requirement in a democracy, where the people are supreme, and all official acts must be actuated by the public interest. 25. In the present case the petitioner claims that it has already produced a developed product and it' wants this product to be considered by the respondents. In our opinion in this situation the respondents should have issued a public advertisement in well known newspapers having wide circulation inviting tenders from all parties having the required product with the technical specifications mentioned in the said advertisement, and thereafter the respondent could have proceeded to select the best offer from the point of view of price, quality etc. In the said advertisement the respondent could have mentioned the detailed technical specifications required by it and could have rejected the' bid of the petitioner or other parties who did not meet these technical specifications. Even if the petitioner's product did meet the specifications mentioned in the advertisement, the respondents were still free to reject the same if it was not the best offer from the point of view of price, quality etc. However, what the respondents have actually done is to shut out the petitioner altogether and they have refused even to consider his offer. 26. In our opinion, this is a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. It appears that the reason given by respondents for not even considering the petitioner's offer is that according to the respondents the process for developing the alternate source would take about 34 months. In our opinion the stand of the respondents is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Firstly, as stated by the learned Single Judge in para 3 of the impugned judgment, the respondents have in fact taken more than two years and have not considered the petitioner's presentation of 19th and 20th February, 2004. Thus, it is the respondents who are responsible for the delay. 27. Moreover, we think it necessary to mention that if a party can develop a product in say six months, how can that party be shut out from having its product being considered merely because it has not taken 34 months to develop that product? With progress of Science and technology more advanced products can be developed in a shorter period. Moreover, we think it necessary to mention that if a party can develop a product in say six months, how can that party be shut out from having its product being considered merely because it has not taken 34 months to develop that product? With progress of Science and technology more advanced products can be developed in a shorter period. Someone may develop the product in 34 months while an other party may develop the same high quality product with a better scientific technique in six months. Hence, the party who has developed that product in six months cannot be ignored merely because it has not taken 34 months to develop that product. 28. In our opinion, the respondents have acted clearly arbitrarily and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner claims that he has already developed the product required by the respondent, and hence it should be considered. 29. No doubt, the respondents could refuse to consider an undeveloped product as it may have urgent requirement for the developed product, but if there is a developed product that must be considered (amongst other offers) when a bid is offered for the same. As to what is the meaning of a developed product that is of course for the respondent to decide, and they could specify the detailed technical requirements of the developed product as required by them in the advertisement which they issue in well known newspapers having wide circulation, and if the petitioner does not meet those technical specifications, its bid can be straightaway rejected. But in the present case, the respondents have not bothered to see whether petitioner meets those technical specifications or not, and they have simply rejected his offer on the ground that he did not take 34 months to develop the product. This is a strange kind of logic which the respondents have adopted, which cannot be countenanced in any way. 30. For the reasons give above, the appeal is allowed and impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. The respondents are directed to issue an advertisement in well known newspapers having wide circulation giving details about their requirements for the submarine batteries in question mentioning he detailed technical specifications and they should consider all the products which meet the technical specifications and thereafter proceed to select the best product in accordance with law. 31. The respondents are directed to issue an advertisement in well known newspapers having wide circulation giving details about their requirements for the submarine batteries in question mentioning he detailed technical specifications and they should consider all the products which meet the technical specifications and thereafter proceed to select the best product in accordance with law. 31. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is an urgent need of the submarine batteries in question. In our opinion, even and urgent need cannot justify violation of a constitutional or staturory provision. Hence we cannot accept this submission at all. It is well known that in defence contracts there are a lot of complaints that there are under hand deals, and the best way to remove those apprehensions is to have transparency and open public tenders so that all who are eligible can bid, and there may not be any misgivings in the public. 32. Appeal is allowed.