Judgment 1. This writ application has been filed by NUT Limited, a public Ltd. company registered under Indian Companies Act, 1956, for quashing the decision contained in the Minutes of Meeting dated 1.3.2007 of the evaluation committee of Bihar State Electronic Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the B.S.E.D.C.) declaring the respondent no. 5 Teledata Informatics Limited to be the lowest bidder for award of contract, as also the consequential letter of intent bearing No. BSEDC/2007 dated 6.3.2007 signed and issued by Managing Director, Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd.. alleging the same being arbitrary, biased, non-transparent and unreasonable in view of the events which took place during the evaluation process. 2. The Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation (respondent no.1 hereinafter referred as B.S.E.D.C.) is the undertaking of the State Government. The B.S.E.D.C. on being assigned by the State Government, its function to implement the computer education programme in the government schools/government aided schools decided to carry out the ICT school project in 1000 of such schools in first phase. The entire financial requirements, as per the scheme has to be met under the joint collaboration of Central Government and State Government in the ratio of 3:1 i.e. 75% cost to be incurred by Central Government and 25% by State Government. 3. B.S.E.D.C. being the implementing agency came out with a tender notice on 1.2.2007 which was published in different local daily Newspapers including "Hindustan" Hindi and "Hindustan Times". Tender notice was published for appointment of a bidder for supply, installation and maintenance of IT infrastructure of I.C.T. education project (I.C.T @ school project) in 1000 schools across rural and urban areas of the State in efficient effective manner on Lease, Maintenance and Transfer basis (L.M.T.) for a duration of three years in accordance with various provisions of Request for Proposal document. 4. Request for proposal document (hereinafter referred to as the R.F.R) is a huge compilation wherein detailed procedure for selecting the successful bidder, scope of work etc. have been compiled. R.RR is divided into six sections. Sec.1 is letter of invitation of Managing Director, B.S.E.D.C. Sec.2 deals with salient feature of I.C.T. at school schemes. Sec.3 is the most detailed and important section, wherein definition of the terms mentioned in R.F.P as well as all detail relating to different stages of the bid eligibility criteria opening of proposals, evaluation etc. are mentioned in its 26 clauses. Sec.1 is letter of invitation of Managing Director, B.S.E.D.C. Sec.2 deals with salient feature of I.C.T. at school schemes. Sec.3 is the most detailed and important section, wherein definition of the terms mentioned in R.F.P as well as all detail relating to different stages of the bid eligibility criteria opening of proposals, evaluation etc. are mentioned in its 26 clauses. Most relevant clauses giving reference of which petitioner has challenged the procedure adopted by the B.S.E.D.C. in selecting respondent no. 5 as lowest bidder, are Clauses 11,18 and 21. Clause 2 Sec. 4 of the R.RR refers the appointment of Bihar e-governance service and Technology Ltd. B eST as 3rd party agency (nodal agency) for monitoring the I.C.T. @ school project during implementation, commissioning and operation as well as for conducting final acceptance test as per the technical requirement and for issuance of certificate of completion of school sites. 5. In terms of Sec.3 Clause 2 of the R.F.R the bidders are expected to examine all instructions and furnishing all informations required by the bid document. Bid not substantially Responsive in all respect may face rejection of the bid. Bids were to be submitted in three parts. Initially the date for submitting bid was 1.2.2007 but it was modified and extended to 21.2.2007 upto 3 P.M. These three bids are (1) pre-qualification bid (2) technical bid (3) commercial bid. After the sale of R.F.P and before submission of bid there is provision for pre-bid conference in which bidders were required to submit their query with regard to R.F.P document and the project. Tender as per R.F.P is to entertain queries of those bidders who have purchased R.F.P document and to make clarification of that. On the basis of querries and clarifications terms and conditions of R.F.P was amended through corrigendum in order to bring amendment in some of the clauses of R.F.P 6. As per clause 11 pre-qualification bid was to be submitted in the hard bound form, with all pages numbered with index giving page-wise information of the documents. All pages of bid documents were to be duly signed by the authorised signatories of the bidder. Commercial and technical bids were to be submitted in soft bindings. As per clause 11 pre-qualification bid was to be submitted in the hard bound form, with all pages numbered with index giving page-wise information of the documents. All pages of bid documents were to be duly signed by the authorised signatories of the bidder. Commercial and technical bids were to be submitted in soft bindings. All proposals were to be submitted in spiral binding form pages duly numbered and submitted by 21.2.2007 upto 3 P.M. Complete sealed tender documents were to be submitted at B eST office i.e. the nodal agency and as per schedule of events mentioned under Clause 19. The pre-qualification bid was to be opened at B.S.E.D.C. premises at 3 P.M. on 22.2.2007. Clause 18 of the R.F.R deals with the eligibility criteria which the bidder has to meet. The bidder can be only an individual organization. As mentioned in original R.F.P document, the bidder shall be an information technology and communication company specializing in IT. learning service. This criteria was amended and as per amended criteria the bidder should be a computer education training company with adequate experience of having "executed" similar project of at least 200 schools with a single State Government project. Another criteria as mentioned under Clause 18(b) is that the bidder company must have annual turnover of I.N.R. three hundred crores and above in last three financial years. The bidder as mentioned under Clause 18(e) must have successfully completed at least either"-(1) one project comprising of hardware, system software, trainer and learning services of Rs. ten crores in India; or (2) two projects comprising of hardware, system software, trainer and learning services of Rs. ten crores in India; or (3) three projects comprising of hardware, system software, trainer and learning services of Rs. three crores in India. 7. Clause 19 of the R.F.R deals with schedule of event according to which last date for submission of queries by the bidders was 9.2.2007. Pre-bid conference was to be held at B.S.E.D.C. premises on 2.2.2007 at 5.30 P.M. Last date and time for submission of proposals was 21.2.2007 upto 3 P.M. The date and time for opening of pre-qualification bid was 22.2.2007 at 3 P.M. at B.S.E.D.C. premises. The date, time and place for opening technical proposal was 28.2.2007 at 3 P.M. at B.S.E.D.C. premises. The date, time and place for opening technical proposal was 28.2.2007 at 3 P.M. at B.S.E.D.C. premises. The date and time for opening of technical proposal was 28.2.2007 at 3 P.M. at B.S.E.D.C. premises and 5.3.2007 at 3 P.M. was the date and time of opening commercial bid at B.S.E.D.C. premises. Finally 12.3.2007 was the date for signing the contract. 8. Clause 21 of the R.F.R provided procedure for evaluation of bids. Evaluation Committee constituted by B.S.E.D.C. was authorised to evaluate all three bids i.e. pre-qualification, technical and commercial. The evaluation committee under Clause 21(e) was authorised to rectify Arithmatical errors. If there is discrepancies between the unit price and tender price i.e. obtained by multiplying the unit price and quantity, unit price shall prevail and total price shall be corrected. In case the bidder does not accept the correction of the errors, his bid will be rejected. In case of discrepancies between the words and figures amount in words was to prevail. Under clause 21(g)(b) or detail evaluation of documents scores were to be assigned on the basis of parametres defined in the mentioned table. Any proposal achieving less than 70 technical score was to be treated as not substantially Responsive and not eligible for further consideration. Only technically qualified bidder were to be informed for opening of price bid. The bidder with the lowest commercial was to be considered as successful bidder. 9. In the light of the R.F.R documents and the corrigendum dated 14.2.2007 the NUT (petitioner), Teledata respondent no. 5 and IIM Ltd. submitted their offers. The pre-qualification bid was opened on 22.2.2007. The petitioner and respondent no. 5 were allowed to participate in the opening of technical bid and the 3rd bidder IIM Ltd. was eliminated at the pre-qualification stage evaluation. The date fixed for opening of technical bid was 28.2.2007, at 3 P.M. but one Mr. Saurabh a member of the evaluation committee telephonically informed the representative of the petitioner and respondent no. 5 that meeting of opening of technical bid has been preponed to 1 P.M. on 28.2.2007. The technical bids of the bidders were opened tor evaluation according to Sec.3 Clause 21(b) of the R.F.P. Both petitioner and respondent no. 5 were found to have scored minimum qualifying points and noticed for opening of their financial bid. 5 that meeting of opening of technical bid has been preponed to 1 P.M. on 28.2.2007. The technical bids of the bidders were opened tor evaluation according to Sec.3 Clause 21(b) of the R.F.P. Both petitioner and respondent no. 5 were found to have scored minimum qualifying points and noticed for opening of their financial bid. The commercial bid meeting which was fixed for 5.3.2007 was preponed for 28.2.2007 at 6 P.M. and ultimately postponed for 1.3.2007. The petitioner received the minutes of the meeting held on 1.3.2007 in the evening of 5.3.2007 whereby the respondent no. 5 was declared the lowest bidder. The petitioner made representations and finally on 3.3.2007 requested the Chief Secretary in writing to undo the injustice meted out to the petitioner, which was not responded. Finally the petitioner came to know that after collecting some needed clarifications from respondent no. 5 on 1.3.2007 and 6.3.2007 the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have issued letter of intent in favour of respondent no. 5 vide letter dated 6.3.2007. Left with no remedy, petitioner has filed present writ application. 10. Petitioner has challenged the contract awarded to the respondent no. 5 by the impugned letter of intent on the following grounds:- (i) Pre-qualification bid of respondent no. 5 should have been rejected for not fulfilling the requirement as per Clause 11 of R.F.P. or pages were not signed, paginated and submitted in spiral bound form. Due to these deficiencies, the offer of respondent no. 5 should have been rejected at pre-qualification bid stage itself by taking penal action as provided under Clause 11(a) and (b) of R.F.P. (ii) Respondent No. 5 has been awarded contract by the impugned letter of intent even when it miserably failed to fulfill the required eligibility criteria as laid down under Clause 18 of the R.F.P (a) Respondent No. 5 failed to meet the eligibility criteria as per Clause 18(b) of the amended R.F.P. which required that the bidder should be a computer education training company with adequate experience of having executed similar projects of at least 200 schools with a single State Government. (b) Respondent No. 5 also failed to meet the eligibility criteria as Clause 18(e) of the R.F.P. which required that the bidder must have successfully completed at least a project of 10 crores or two projects of five crores or 3 projects of 3 crores in India. (b) Respondent No. 5 also failed to meet the eligibility criteria as Clause 18(e) of the R.F.P. which required that the bidder must have successfully completed at least a project of 10 crores or two projects of five crores or 3 projects of 3 crores in India. (c) The commercial bid of respondent no. 5 was non-responsive to the scope of work defined in the R.F.P. inasmuch as its rate of Rs. 73 crores odd was confined only for supply of hardware and setting up of the computer labs leaving no amount for the other two services i.e. maintenance and computer education services. (ii) The technical scores allegedly awarded to respondent no. 5 was in contravention of the parameters laid down in Clause 21 of the RFP and in fact by awarding 74 scores to respondent no. 5 the very basis of such technical scores become meaningless. (iii) The commercial bid of respondent no. 5 on the face of record of quoting Rs.73 crores odd was higher than that of the petitioner quoting Rs. 8 crores odd and as such the decision declaring respondent no. 5 as the lowest bidder was based on extraneous materials. (iv) The decision to award contract to respondent no. 5 in fact on the face of record is arbitrary, biased and motivated by mala fide in fact and in law, on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 3. (v) The plea of awarding contract on the ground that respondent no.1 has saved the public money to the tune of Rs. 26 crores is both legally as well as factually unsustainable. 11. First contention of petitioner is that there were fatal deficiencies in the offer of the respondent no. 5. As per clause 11 of the R.F.R the offer of Respondent no. 5 was not signed on each page by the authorised representative, it was not duly paginated, pre-qualification bid was not in hard form with spiral binding. These deficiencies were pointed out to the members of the evaluation committee but instead of taking penal action by rejecting offer of respondent no. 5 as provided under Clause 11(a) and 11(b) authorities of corporation allowed the representative of respondent no. 5 to remove the defects. This was done in order to favour the respondent no. 5 in total disregard of R.F.P The respondent no. 5 as provided under Clause 11(a) and 11(b) authorities of corporation allowed the representative of respondent no. 5 to remove the defects. This was done in order to favour the respondent no. 5 in total disregard of R.F.P The respondent no. 5 has controverted this by stating that no objection in writing was made by petitioner at pre-qualification bid held on 22.2.2007. There was no such deficiency like non-furnishing of index and the representative of the respondent no. 5 was not allowed to cure any deficiency by the authorities of corporation. The allegations are wild and manufactured. What I find that these are disputed question of fact. In case there would have been any such deficiency, the petitioner, and the third bidder IIM Ltd. definitely would have registered their protest in writing on that very date. No such protest was made. Now at this belated stage, petitioner cannot allege that proceedings were not conducted as per R.F.R by the corporation at pre-qualification stage. 12. Second ground which has been taken by the petitioner for quashing the impugned letter of intent is that the respondent no. 5 has failed to meet the eligibility criteria as per Sec.3 Clause 18(b) of the R.F.R which provide that "the bidder should be a computer education training company with adequate experience of having executed similar projects of at least 200 schools with a single State Government. 13. It is also the case of the petitioner that had the evaluation of bid documents as per Clause 21(g)(a) and (b) been made with the point-wise allocation, the respondent no. 5 could have been easily eliminated and could not have secured more than 41 technical scores. In order to favour respondent no. 5 the prescribed procedure of evaluation of document was not followed nor the elimination of the bidder securing less than technical score was made. 14. Controverting the statement it has been submitted by the respondent no. 5 that the petitioner has tried to mislead, on the basis of their own assessment of different parameters, when evaluation committee of corporation under different parameters as prescribed in Clause 21(g)(a) awarded total 74 scores to respondent no. 5 and 84 score to petitioner. 15. Respondent No. 5 has submitted that the score was announced on the date of opening of the technical bids in presence of the representative of the two bidders. 5 and 84 score to petitioner. 15. Respondent No. 5 has submitted that the score was announced on the date of opening of the technical bids in presence of the representative of the two bidders. It was very much known to the petitioner on 28.2.2007 itself but as per own showing of the petitioner objection was raised by him on 1.3.2007, i.e. the date rescheduled for the opening of the commercial bid. This is also one of the reason for not entertaining petitioners objection. 16. Placing reliance on a newspaper advertisement dated 14.3.2007 it has been contended by the petitioner that respondent no. 5 has no experience of having executed the similar project of 200 schools with single State Government. The evaluation committee had no material before it to hold that respondent no. 5 met the criteria as per Clause 18(b) of amended R.F.R The term executed would mean that the work has been completed and not that it is in process of being completed. Reliance has been placed on "Advanced law Lexicon" which refers to the meaning of the phrase "execution of work" as "from commencement till the completion". Further the word having executed is the "perfect participle" representing an action, which is completed at some past time. 17. Counsel for the petitioner has also streanously tried to emphasis that "similar" project at 200 schools has not been done by the respondent no. 5. It has also been submitted that word "Similar" though does not mean "Same" connotes something which is substantially the same. Reliance has been placed on (1988) S.C.C. 605 NAT STEEL Equipment Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Collector of Central Excise. This matter related to supply of some equipments used in Industrial centres hospitals, hotels and the question for consideration was whether appliances used in household are similar appliances which are used in hotels, hospitals or industrial centres, and the expression "Similar" was discussed and held that similar does not mean identical but it means corresponding to or resembling in many respects, some what like; or having general likeness. This decision in fact supports the claim of respondent no. 5 which claims to have executed similar projects in 200 schools with single State. 18. This decision in fact supports the claim of respondent no. 5 which claims to have executed similar projects in 200 schools with single State. 18. Petitioners case is that the eligibility criteria finds mentioned in Clause 18(b) of the R.F.P. according to which the bidder should be a computer education training company with adequate experience of having executed similar project of 200 schools with single State Govt. The respondent no. 5 has no experience of executing similar project of 200 schools with a single State Government as provided in amended Clause 18(b) of the R.F.P. The respondent no. 5 is basically a shipping company and has not been associated with such major and similar education project anywhere else in the country. The respondent no. 5 was incorporated on 10.4.1990 by a group of Marine Professionals to develop Software solution for ship management. On 6.2.1995 it was incorporated as a public limited company and none of its Government orders under ICT added schools programmes have been completed. The respondent no. 5 has not completed projects under ICT school programme for 200 schools as such lacked the eligibility criteria of being a computer education training company with adequate experience of having executed similar project in 200 schools with single State Government project. It has further been submitted that the claim of respondent no. 5 that it has completed project of 80 schools under the head of IT. schools project and similar project under IT. schools in Arunachal Pradesh is palpably wrong. Such project had been launched in September, 2005 for a period of five years and it will be completed after September, 2010. Thus in any views the respondent no. 5 lacs experience in terms of R.F.P. documents. In spite of that respondent rios.1 and 2 by circumventing the mandatory provisions in Clause 18 allowed respondent no. 5 to participate in technical and commercial bid which indicates procedural illegality. 19. On the other hand respondent no. 5 has submitted that it has executed similar project i.e. computer education training project of at least 200 schools with a single State Government in the State of Arunachal Pradesh alone. Giving details of such projects it has been submitted that 105 schools under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan project has been completed which is evident from the work completion certificate granted by the State Project Director, SSA, Rajya Mission, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh and another certificate dated 5.3.2007. Giving details of such projects it has been submitted that 105 schools under Sarva Siksha Abhiyan project has been completed which is evident from the work completion certificate granted by the State Project Director, SSA, Rajya Mission, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh and another certificate dated 5.3.2007. Similarly 154 schools under ICT project has been completed which is evident from the work completion certificate dated 16.2.2007 of the Director of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 20. The petitioner has given much stress on two words "executed" and "similar". Reliance has been placed on Law Lexicon. As regards the above interpretation of the word "executed", according to the most acceptable rule of construction/ interpretation of the statutes and legal/ technical words, a literal construction having due regard to the context and the background in which the word is used, has to be given. In technical matters while making interpretation of technical words like the word "executed" as used under Clause 18(b) of the amended R.F.P the construction of the word has to be made taking into consideration the context in which the said work and project/work in question is used. The Advanced Law Lexicon explains that the word "execute", "executed and "execution" when used in proper sense convey the meaning of "carrying" out some act or course of conduct to its completion. It further says that according to this definition the import of the term as mentioned earlier should generally be determined by the context. All three words convey the meaning of carrying out some act or course of conduct to its completion. The word execute means that some act or acts has been taken place towards its natural course of execution. According to interpretation of the terms. Execution, Executing and Executed it can be safely said the said terms have so may connotations to it depending upon the context in which the term/word has to be used. In this background if the computer education training and learning services project is to be considered it usually comprises of three phases namely:- (1) Procurement supply and installation of computer hardware and software. (2) Training of teachers and students. (3) Maintenance of the project and support systems. 21. In this background if the computer education training and learning services project is to be considered it usually comprises of three phases namely:- (1) Procurement supply and installation of computer hardware and software. (2) Training of teachers and students. (3) Maintenance of the project and support systems. 21. Completion of any of the above three stages of the computer education training and learning project would be an act of execution to the course of ultimate execution of the project and as such any party claiming to have executed even the first stage of the said project would be looked upon to have executed the work. 22. While applying the test whether or not a participating bidder has fulfilled the requirement laid down under Clause 18(b) of amended R.F.P. it is relevant whether any of the three stages have been executed/completed if it is so, in that case the bidder can claim that it has fulfilled the requirement under Clause 18(b) of the amended R.F.P 23. In order to test whether or not a participant bidder has fulfilled the requirement laid down under Clause 18(b) of the amended R.F.R the language of the original Clause 18(b) as stood prior to amendment must also be considered. According to original language of Clause 18(b) the requirements was that the participant bidder had to be an I.T. communication company specializing in I.T learning services. The requirement was that the bidder had to be a specialized company in I.T learning services. This clause was amended through corrigendum of R.F.R Under amended clause a bidder should be a computer education and training company having adequate experience of having executed similar project of at least 200 schools with a single State Government. The amended clause if read with original clause it transpires that it was nothing but to ensure that the bidder company was/is a company specializing in I.T. education with adequate experience of execution of similar project of at least 200 schools. This eligibility criteria clause was for ascertaining that the bidder company should have experience of execution of similar project of at least 200 schools with a single State Government. Liberal construction has to be made while interpreting the word "executed" in the sense that even the completion of one stage of a computer education training project comprising of three stages would be construed as an act of execution of similar projects of 200 schools. Liberal construction has to be made while interpreting the word "executed" in the sense that even the completion of one stage of a computer education training project comprising of three stages would be construed as an act of execution of similar projects of 200 schools. The claim of respondent no. 5 is that it has duly executed similar project in 154 schools in Arunachal Pradesh as well as 105 schools under S.S.A. projects in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is sufficient to show that the respondent has completed at least one stage of such project in more than 200 schools with single State. The petitioner has not challenged the veracity of work completion certificate granted for 105 schools under S.S.A. project but has impeached the correctness of the work completion certificate in respect of 154 schools under the ICT project. The objection raised by the petitioner has been replied by respondent no. 5 stating that the status report was issued by the authorised and competent person i.e. by the State Project Director, Arunachal Pradesh and the documents which has been produced by the petitioner as Annexure-25 series has been issued by the Deputy Director of Schools Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, on a plain sheet of paper which is not a genuine document, and the person is not authorised and competent to issue such certificate. 24. On consideration of the submission and counter submission of the parties what I find that Clause 18(b) of R.F.P. which deals with the eligibility criteria in strict sense wanted to ascertain the experience of the bidder company for doing such work. Execution of similar work in 200 numbers of schools with one single State is the requisite criteria. The project which were undertaken by respondent no. 5 in single State of Arunachal Pradesh is more than 200. The completion certificate as well as the agreement deeds for doing such project have been annexed. Some of the work has been started in the year 2004-05. Rightly it has been stated by the counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 that the computer education and training programme can be divided basically in three stages basis. In case the work under the project has been executed and completed even for first stage, it cannot be held that the bidder company has not fulfilled the requisite criteria simply because all three stages have not been completed. 5 that the computer education and training programme can be divided basically in three stages basis. In case the work under the project has been executed and completed even for first stage, it cannot be held that the bidder company has not fulfilled the requisite criteria simply because all three stages have not been completed. First stage in such project have been completed and other stages it is being executed. In my opinion Clause 18(b) which deals with the eligibility criteria has duly been fulfilled by respondent no. 5 and the objection of the petitioner in this regard is not sustainable. 25. Another ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondent no. 5 has failed to meet the criterion under Clause 18(e) of the R.F.P. according to which the bidder company must have successfully completed either one project of rupees ten crores or two projects of rupees five crores or three projects of rupees three crores each in India. It has been submitted by the petitioners counsel that the respondent no. 5 claims to have successfully completed two projects of rupees five crores each in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Placing reliance on S.S.A. project of work value of Rs. 7.49 crores and ICT project of work value of Rs. 5.15 crores. This new stand of the respondent no. 5 deserves outright rejection, as respondent no. 1 and 2 for selecting respondent no. 5 as lowest bidder, had considered claim of respondent no. 5 for completing project with West Bengal. The respondent no. 5 did not make any such claim in his bid document filed on 21.2.2007 regarding completion of work in Arunachal Pradesh. There was no material before the evaluation committee for holding that respondent no. 5 fulfilled the criteria, in spite of that it was held that respondent no. 5 scored minimum qualifying marks of 70 and finally selected as lowest bidder. This is arbitrary, illegal and mala fide. The petitioner has raised this objection on this presumption that the document relating to execution/completion of project with the State of Arunachal Pradesh has not been referred in the technical bid of respondent no. 5. Interlocutory application was also filed by the petitioner with a prayer to call for bid documents of the parties in order to verify this claim of respondent no. 5. All bid documents of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5. Interlocutory application was also filed by the petitioner with a prayer to call for bid documents of the parties in order to verify this claim of respondent no. 5. All bid documents of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 was called and produced by respondent nos.1 and 2 in the sealed cover. On perusal of the bid documents of petitioner and respondent no. 5 I find that the respondent no. 5 has annexed documents of completion of such projects in Arunachal Pradesh with his pre-qualification. The respondent no. 5 alongwith his pre-qualification bid has claimed execution of similar work in the State of Arunachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa and Nagaland. 26. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 in paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit have mentioned about the execution of similar project by respondent no. 5 in West Bengal, Nagaland as well as in Arunachal Pradesh. Although total number of such work done with West Bengal Government has been mentioned but number of such projects with Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland has not been specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit. The averments of the petitioners counsel that respondent no. 5 has not fulfilled the criteria mentioned in Clause 18(e) of the R.F.P has no substance and rejected. The petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in A.I.R. 1988 SC 2181 (Bharat Singh & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana and Ors.). This decision has no application in the present case as it specifically refers to the writ petitioner and not to the respondents even otherwise the claim of respondent is duly supported by the documents as such the stand taken by the petitioner that respondent no. 5 has not been able to fulfill the criteria mentioned under Clause 18(e) of the R.F.P has no substance and it is rejected. 27. Another contention of the petitioner is that the commercial bid of respondent no. 5 was non-responsive. The rate quoted by the respondent no. 5 of Rs. 73 crores and odd was only for supply of hardware and software leaving no amount for other piece of service i.e. maintenance and computer education service. On perusal of the scope of R.F.R I find that the work under the R.F.R included supply, installation, maintenance of IT infrastructure on one hand and computer education service on the other hand. 73 crores and odd was only for supply of hardware and software leaving no amount for other piece of service i.e. maintenance and computer education service. On perusal of the scope of R.F.R I find that the work under the R.F.R included supply, installation, maintenance of IT infrastructure on one hand and computer education service on the other hand. The petitioners objection is that participating bidder was required to disclose the rates/ price of all 25 components in its commercial bid. Total of amount quoted in financial bid of petitioner being Rs. 99 crores four lacs 31 thousand 712 disclosed price for all 25 components, the respondent no. 5 in its commercial bid disclosed price of only 14 components which amounted to Rs. 73 crores and odd but did not disclose the cost for items at SI. Nos. 15 to 25. The commercial bid of respondent no. 5 should have been rejected as non-responsive. The petitioner has also claimed that its commercial bid is lower than that of respondent no. 5, if the respective totals 14 components wise price of the petitioner and respondent no. 5 are compared. The respondent no. 5 while answering this submission stated that the original commercial bid/finance bid of respondent no. 5 is sufficient to reject the objection of the petitioner. The commercial bid of respondent no. 5 contains price of 14 items and in the note column it is mentioned that the above price includes all taxes transport, insurance, installation etc. as applicable at school sites in each of the 1000 schools. The one and only meaning and import of which is that the componentwise prices quoted by respondent no. 5 is worth Rs. 73,65,29,630.00 comprising of all taxes, transport, insurance etc. Moreover, the total of the component-wise pricing of the petitioner comes to Rs. 66,55,51,545/-for three years project is not in consonance with the ultimate price bid or summary quoted in Appendix 12 wherein the fourth column of total "QGR IN RS" the petitioner has quoted an amount of Rs. 8,24,70,000.00 as the QGR for 1000 schools for one quarter. The total amount comes to Rs. 8,25,35,976/- i.e. the total QGR of 1000 schools and one directorate for one quarter. 8,24,70,000.00 as the QGR for 1000 schools for one quarter. The total amount comes to Rs. 8,25,35,976/- i.e. the total QGR of 1000 schools and one directorate for one quarter. The component-wise prices as quoted by the petitioner if taken on its face value as QGR of the entire three years of the project, then in order to get the QGR for one quarter of 1000 schools and one directorate for one quarter. i.e. grand total of the component-wise pricing would have to be divided by 12 that is the 12 quarters of the three year project and on such division one woutd arrive at a figure of Rs. 5,54,62,628.75/- But strangely enough the total QGR as quoted by the petitioner for 1000 schools and one directorate for one quarter is Rs. 8,25,35,976/-. Obviously the component-wise pricing and the QGR of petitioners is not in harmony with each other. The petitioner has not explained this discrepancy in the commercial bid papers, The component-wise price quoted by the respondent no. 5 is quite in consonance with the QGR. The respondent no. 5 in the fourth column has quoted amount of Rs. 73,65,29,630.00 as the total QGR for 1000 schools and one directorate for the three years project. If the total component-wise price is divided by 12 that is the 12 quarter of the three years project to get the QGR price of one quarter for 1000 schools and one directorate the figure is exactly the figure that has been quoted by respondent no. 5 in column no. 4 of the QGR. It has further been submitted that only mistake which has been done by respondent no. 5 in the column of QGR per school per quarter is that the QGR for 1000 school per quarter is that the QGR for 1000 schools for one quarter has not been mentioned for all these quarters but the total QGR has rightly been mentioned as Rs. 73,66,94,000/-. This position was explained by respondent no. 5 before the evaluation committee at the time of the opening of the commercial bid and it was so accepted by the evaluation committee on comparison of the figures given by respondent no. 5. 73,66,94,000/-. This position was explained by respondent no. 5 before the evaluation committee at the time of the opening of the commercial bid and it was so accepted by the evaluation committee on comparison of the figures given by respondent no. 5. Since the petitioner quoted only price for one quarter for 1000 schools and one directorate this was also explained by the representative of the petitioners company and the same was multiplied by 12 quarters to get the price of 3 years project and on such multiplication the figure of Rs. 99,04,31,712/-was arrived at by the evaluation committee which was duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the evaluation committee. 28. What I find from the counter affidavit of respondent nos.1 and 2 that both the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 have misunderstood the component-wise price format of the price bid which is Appendix-12. The respondent no. 5 instead of quoting QGR per school per quarter quoted QGR 1000 schools for one quarter whereas the petitioner quoted the total QGR of 1000 schools and one directorate for one quarter only. The evaluation committee rationalized the mistake committed by both the petitioner and respondent no. 5 and worked out exercising the power vested in it under Clause 21(c) of the R.F.R The quotation of respondent no. 5 as well as the petitioner was accepted by all the members of the evaluation committee. In this view I find that the allegations made by the petitioner that the commercial bid of respondent no.5 was not responsive is not correct. The respondent no. 5 gave component price of 14 items and for the rest the note was given at the bottom of the format of the price bid mentioning that the maintenance, insurance and services charges are included in the price. I also find that Clause 21(c) of the R.F.R has authorised the evaluation committee for correcting arithmetical errors if there is discrepancy between the unit price and the total price. In this view the allegations made by the petitioner is not sustainable. 29. The petitioner has alleged that as provided under Clause 21(g)(b) of the R.F.P the respondent no. 5 was not entitled to score for more than 41 marks. The evaluation committee arbitrarily allowed the respondent no. 5 to score 74 marks and allotted 89 technical scores to the petitioner. 30. 29. The petitioner has alleged that as provided under Clause 21(g)(b) of the R.F.P the respondent no. 5 was not entitled to score for more than 41 marks. The evaluation committee arbitrarily allowed the respondent no. 5 to score 74 marks and allotted 89 technical scores to the petitioner. 30. Considering the fact that documents supplied by the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 were evaluated, and only thereafter marks were allotted. Marks were allotted by Evaluation Committee consisting of 11 members who are specialist in their field in such matter, which is quite technical. Their evaluation and wisdom can not be reviewed, under writ jurisdiction, specially when there is no apparent reason for it. 31. The petitioner has also alleged that the evaluation committee with a motive preponed the commercial bid meeting scheduled to be held on 5.3.2007 for 28.2.2007 merely by a telephonic call by one Mr. Saurabh Prasad, an employee of B eST the nodel agency. This act has been alleged to show favour to respondent no. 5. This allegation has totally been demolished by statement made in the counter affidavit of respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the notice issued by the Director B.S.E.D.C. assigning reason for preponing of-technical bid meeting from 5.3.2007 to 28.2.2007. The meeting was preponed at the request of the representative of the petitioners company as he wanted that the meeting should be preponed to enable him to see his ailing mother who was in the last stage of her life. It has also been alleged that the Bhaskar Prasad had no business to issue such notice suing the employee of Noda agency. The role of nodal agency as defined under Sec. 4 Clause 2 of the R.F.P is only to monitor the execution of project. 32. What I find that the role of nodel agency is not confined to the monitoring of the project alone rather its role is also during implementation commissioning and operation process. As evident from Clause 11(g) of the R.F.R the bidders are supposed to submit their bid at the office of Be ST. Moreover Mr. Saurabh and Bhaskar Prasad being the members of the evaluation committee were well within their rights to issue notice of preponing of the commercial bid meeting to the bidders. 33. As evident from Clause 11(g) of the R.F.R the bidders are supposed to submit their bid at the office of Be ST. Moreover Mr. Saurabh and Bhaskar Prasad being the members of the evaluation committee were well within their rights to issue notice of preponing of the commercial bid meeting to the bidders. 33. The petitioner has also alleged mala fide against the members of the evaluation committee but they have not been made party. It has been submitted by the petitioner that it is not at all necessary to implead all members of the evaluation committee as party in view of Clause 21 of R.F.P which clarifies that the evaluation committee is constituted by the B.S.E.D.C, Since B.S.E.D.C. is party it represents the evaluation committee and its member. I do not find much force in this submission specially when mala fide has been alleged against the evaluation committee. It was essential that all members of the evaluation committee should have been impleaded to answer, mala fide alleged against them. In their absence, the allegation of mala fide, cannot be considered. 34. In sum and substance the petitioner has tried to make out a case that there has been procedural lapses in selection of lowest bidder by the respondent B.S.E.D.C. and in issuance of letter of intent in favour of respondent no. 5. It has also been alleged that procedure as mentioned in R.F.R for selecting the lowest bidder fore appointment of a bidder has not been followed and in violation of the terms and conditions mentioned in R.F.R the respondent no. 5 has arbitrarily been selected as lowest bidder which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has alleged that the evaluation committee of B.S.E.D.C. were guided by malafide motive to give preference to respondent no. 5 and for this reason the court must interfere with the final decision as well as the decision making process of respondent corporation. 35. In the contractual matters once the decision has been taken by the competent committee in exercise of the authority provided under tender notice, the duty of the court is confined to the question of illegality only. 5 and for this reason the court must interfere with the final decision as well as the decision making process of respondent corporation. 35. In the contractual matters once the decision has been taken by the competent committee in exercise of the authority provided under tender notice, the duty of the court is confined to the question of illegality only. The court can interfere with the decision only when in making such decision authorities have exceeded the power and committed any error of law, or breach of rule or taken decision in violation of rule of natural justice or reached a decision which no reasonable and non-prejudicial committee would have reached, or have abused its power. These are the guidelines referred in (1994)VI SCC 651 Tata Cellular V/s. UOI to the courts for interfering or considering whether a particular decision taken by the concerned committee is fair, If the decision has been taken in the manner as provided in the tender notice a decision of a public authority cannot be held liable to be quashed. In cases where authorities under the given guideline and relevant rules have acted reasonably. The courts under writ jurisdiction must refrain from interfering with the decision. 36. I find that statement of respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their counter affidavit is complete answer to the decision taken by the evaluation committee of respondent B.S.E.D.C. Respondent No. 5 made an offer of 73 crores and petitioner made an offer of 99 crores which is 26 crores more than the offer of respondent no. 5. In this situation the allegation of the petitioner that decision is actuated out of malice on the part of the authority cannot and should not be entertained. There has not been any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as the petitioner has not been either discriminated or denied opportunity. Equal opportunity was given to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5. Petitioner participated in the selection process at all stages of the contractual evaluation. In the given circumstances this Court cannot sit as appellate court and review the decision taken by respondent corporation. I also find that the petitioner has misinterpreted eligibility criteria as well as the authority of the evaluation committee in the matters of examining and evaluating the bid documents. In the given circumstances this Court cannot sit as appellate court and review the decision taken by respondent corporation. I also find that the petitioner has misinterpreted eligibility criteria as well as the authority of the evaluation committee in the matters of examining and evaluating the bid documents. The evaluation committee under Clause 21(c) of the R.F.P was duly authorised to correct Airthmetical error and that rectification as per R.F.P was mandatory to be accepted by the bidders. In case of bidder not accepting the correction of error made by evaluation committee its offer as per R.F.P was to be rejected. Due to the threat of rejection of its offer petitioner did not raise any objection at that stage and now when all process are complete the petitioner is raising all these objections which cannot be entertained. 37. In Tata Cellular V/s. Union of India it has been held "Judicial Review" is concerned not with the decision, but decision making process. Unless that restriction on the power of the court is observed, the court will in my view, under the guise preventing the abuse of power be itself guilty of usurping power. 38. So far the judicial review is concerned that do not concern the decision but the decision making process which is different from appeal. When hearing an appeal the court is concerned with the merit of the decision but in judicial review the court is basically concerned with the decision making process because even otherwise the court is hardly equipped to review the merit of the decision. It is not the function of the court to act as super committee in contractual matters. 39. Further I find that the petitioner did not challenge the opening of pre-qualification and commercial bid though he has stated in the writ petition that he raised objection on that point at that very time. What I find that the petitioner remained silent till the date letter of intent was issued in favour of respondent no. 5. He participated at every stages. Now when as a bidder of contract he lost his business for commercial reason he cannot turn around and seek indulgence of this Court for securing the contract. The claim of the petitioner that respondent no. 5. He participated at every stages. Now when as a bidder of contract he lost his business for commercial reason he cannot turn around and seek indulgence of this Court for securing the contract. The claim of the petitioner that respondent no. 5 did not comply with the provision of the tender documents and ought to have been disqualified from consideration under 11(a) and (b) could have been raised at that very stage and not at this belated stage. 40. On consideration of entire material, I do not find any reason for interference. The evaluation committee has strictly gone by parameters of R.F.R In fact the evaluation committee while awarding the project in favour of respondent no. 5 has considered administrative, technical as well as financial factors. 41. Another reason for not interfering with the decision of the evaluation committee is that it is a decision of persons having specialised knowledge. The members of the evaluation committee having specialised knowledge in their field and expected to take a reasonable decision. Their decision cannot be substituted by this Court when the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the illegality, arbitrariness and mala fide has not been found to be correct. 42. In Sterling Computers Limited V/s. M & N Publications Ltd. the Apex Court has held that"- "In contracts having commercial element, some more discretion has to be conceded to the authorities so that they may enter into contracts with persons, keeping an eye on the augmentation of the revenue. But even in such matters they have to follow the norms recognised by courts while dealing with public property. It is not possible for courts to question and adjudicate every decision taken by an authority, because many of the Government Undertakings which in due course have acquired the monopolist position in matters of sale and purchase of products and with so many ventures in hand, they can come out with a plea that it is not always possible to act like a guas/-judicial authority while awarding contracts. Under some special circumstances a discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess the overall situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. Under some special circumstances a discretion has to be conceded to the authorities who have to enter into contract giving them liberty to assess the overall situation for purpose of taking a decision as to whom the contract be awarded and at what terms. If the decisions have been taken in bona fide manner although not strictly following the norms laid down by the courts, such decisions are upheld on the principle laid down by Justice Holmes, that courts while judging the constitutional validity of executive decisions must grant certain measure of freedom of play in the joints to the executive." 43. In view of the discussions made above this application is dismissed. 44. The letter of intent has already been issued by respondent nos. 1 and 2 in favour of respondent no. 5, the project which has been adopted for the benefit of students in rural as well as urban areas is being delayed on account of litigation. This project is highly ambitious project to enable the rural students to have expert understanding and systematic knowledge in the filing of components progress of such noble project should not be delayed as the objected intention behind this project is to educate the students in the field of information technology which is the requirement of todays world. 45. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 will make some modification in the letter of intent so far the time schedule is concerned. This is required as in spite of issuance of letter of intent the project did not start on account of pendency of the matter before this Court. The respondent no. 5 may proceed for implementation for project.