ORDER Dipak Misra, J. In this intra-Court appeal preferred u/s 2 of the M.P. Uccha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for brevity, 'the Act'), the defensibility and legal tenability of the order dated 9-2-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. No. 741 of 2007 is called in question. The facts which are imperative to be exposited are that the respondent No. 4 instituted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending, inter alia, that though he satisfies the conditions enumerated in the Notice Inviting Tender (in short, 'the NIT') dated 30-11-2006 and the directions contained in W. P. No. 18991 of 2006 which stood disposed of on 2-1-2007, yet the respondent No. 2, M.P. Power Generating Company Ltd., vide Annexure A-15 dated 8-1-2007 has declined to extend the benefit of issue of tender documents to the said respondent which is totally illegal. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the respondent No. 4 preferred the writ petition. The learned single Judge after referring to the earlier order and the conditions incorporated in the NIT and after scanning the same within the parameter of law expressed the opinion that the reasons ascribed by the respondent No. 2 treating the respondent No. 4 as a defaulter and thereby holding it as disentitled to the tender documents was unacceptable. Further the learned Single Judge expressed the view that in the earlier writ petition a categorical direction was issued as a consequence of which it was not open to the respondent No. 2 not to issue the tender document to the respondent No. 4 and such an action did tantamount to Contempt of Court. Apart from stating so, the learned Single Judge in paragraph 18 of order observed that the tender documents shall be issued to the writ petitioner by the respondent No. 1 to 3 and he shall be permitted to participate in the tender process and acceptance or rejection of the tender as has been engrafted in the NIT shall have its own weightage and the submission of tender by the respondent No. 4 shall be dealt with in accordance with the law. Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. Vivek Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following submissions: (A) The learned Single Judge has fallen into grave error in holding that the respondent No. 4 does meet the eligibility criteria to be issued tender document and thereby to participate in the tender at the subsequent stages. (B) Though there is no mention of the default part yet when there is a categorical conclusion by the respondent No. 2 that the respondent No. 4 had committed a default in respect of a sum of Rs. 1,62,01,202.28 and Rs. 80,87,347.00 for the previous years, the impact and effect of the same cannot be marginalized, for the conditions incorporated in the NIT are in affirmative and positive terms and the omission cannot take the driver's seat in a case of this nature. (C) The appreciation by the learned Single Judge of the previous order passed in W. P. No. 18991 of 2006 which was disposed of on 2-1-2007 is not correct and that entailed in erroneous conclusion that the matter had been concluded qua eligibility of the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, proceeding for contempt should be initiated against the respondent No. 2. (D) If the direction to initiate a proceeding for a contempt is allowed to stand the respondent No. 2 despite being prima facie exhibiting a proclivity of impartiality will remain in a state of legal terrorism and will award the contract in favour of the respondent No. 4 which is not a normative conception in the field of grant of largess in a democratic body polity where rule of law prevails and any decision that comes in the realm of administrative law has to be guided by reason and not by fear psychosis. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondent No. 2 and 3 per contra has raised the following submissions: I. The order passed by the learned Single Judge though has not been assailed by the respondent No. 2, yet the issue of notice of contempt was unwarranted inasmuch as there was no unequivocal direction in the earlier writ petition. II. The interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge with regard to disqualification having no nexus with the default clause cannot be found fault with inasmuch as that was not provided in the NIT but the same cannot travel beyond that stage. II. The interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge with regard to disqualification having no nexus with the default clause cannot be found fault with inasmuch as that was not provided in the NIT but the same cannot travel beyond that stage. Pyramiding the aforesaid stand contended Mr. Singh that what is correct and sound in respect of phase one or first phase cannot be right in the subsequent stages because that corrodes the rights of the owner which is not permissible inasmuch as the owner has a right to choose the best in a commercial transaction. Mr. Satish Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge submitted as under: (a) The NIT has to be read in a purposive manner and what have not been provided therein should not be incorporated by any kind of inference. The fundamental facet of NTT cannot be changed though there can be some kind of play in the joints and relaxation in respect of certain non fundamental conditions. (b) The omission of non default clause is not an omission per chance but a deliberate omission so that there can be a healthy competition between the parties. (c) Such omission cannot be regarded to be in the sphere of periphery as it does enter into the marrows of the NIT as far as the eligibility criteria are concerned. To bolster the said stand, he has commended us to the decision rendered in B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Others, . To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the bar, it is necessitous to refer to the order passed in W. P. No. 18991 of 2006. In the said order, the learned Single Judge after referring to the NTT had held as under: It is contended by Shri S.C. Sharma, Sr. Counsel that the necessary experience certificates were submitted with the application contained in Annexure P-2 meant for purchase of tender. Obviously, declination is not on the ground that the petitioner has not proved to have executed the similar work during last three years as required by condition No. IV. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be debarred from participating in the tender process. Obviously, declination is not on the ground that the petitioner has not proved to have executed the similar work during last three years as required by condition No. IV. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be debarred from participating in the tender process. Considering the same, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the tender documents may be supplied to the petitioner in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in NIT and the same be not denied on the ground contained in condition No. (iv) of Annexure P-3 if has successfully executed the requisite work. However, it is made clear that the rights of the petitioner will not be enlarged on the basis of this order and respondent No. 3 shall be free to take decision in the matter of acceptance of tender in accordance with law. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent No. 2 has really not appreciated the same in proper perspective and has passed the order on 8-1-2007. We think it appropriate to reproduce the same: In this context, it is to mention that the issue of tender document to M/s B.S.N. Joshi and Sons. Ltd. was considered in view of the directions given by Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 2-1-2007 in W. P. No. 18991 of 2006. The Hon'ble High Court has directed that the petitioner M/s B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. may be supplied the tender documents if it has successfully executed the requisite work qua clause IV of the NIT. It is a fact that M/s B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. has not completed the earlier Liaisoning contracts successfully. It may also be recalled that non grant of contract to M/s B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. had not successfully completed the earlier contracts. It is also a fact that due to the failure of M/s B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. to successfully execute the earlier Liaisoning contracts an amount of Rs. 1,62,01,202.28 and Rs. 80,67,347.00 is outstanding towards the firm for which Recovery Suits No. 35 of 2005 and 36 of 2005 respectively are pending in the Court of Distt. Judge, Jabalpur. It is therefore clear that M/s B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. is a defaulter and not qualified as per qualifying condition No. (iv) of subject NIT to receive the tender document. 80,67,347.00 is outstanding towards the firm for which Recovery Suits No. 35 of 2005 and 36 of 2005 respectively are pending in the Court of Distt. Judge, Jabalpur. It is therefore clear that M/s B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. is a defaulter and not qualified as per qualifying condition No. (iv) of subject NIT to receive the tender document. The Banker's cheque No. 532545 dated 2-1-2007 amounting to Rs. 1,000/- payable at Jabalpur is therefore returned herewith in original. True it is, the learned Single Judge interpreted his own earlier order and directed issue of notice of contempt. On a perusal of the aforesaid order in entirety we are disposed to think that the order passed by the Executive Director is an order in grave anxiety and the Writ Court should not have taken such exception to it. We would like to give him the benefit of doubt. Hence, direction for issue of contempt by the learned Single Judge is set aside. We so direct as that would have a different kind of impact on the transaction to take place at the subsequent stages. The next issue that arises for consideration is whether on the ground of default, the case of the respondent No. 4 could be ignored. We are conscious that an earlier occasion, learned single Judge has dealt with it and there had been no challenge, yet immense emphasis has been laid by Mr. Tankha that such an omission is not a deliberate one and it has to be understood in the backdrop of the language in which clauses III and IV of the NIT has been couched. Per contra, Mr. Sharma would submit that the case of respondent No. 4 is covered by the decision rendered in B.S.N. Joshi (supra). In paragraph 40 of the said decision, the two Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with the meaning of the 'declared defaulter'. After referring to the decision rendered in the cases of Prativa Pal alias Sm. Prativa Rani Pal Vs. Janhabi Charan Chatterjee alias J.C. Chatterjee, , Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another, , Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , their Lordships in paragraph 40, 41, 48, 49 and 50 have expressed the view as under: 40. This brings us to the question as to what would be the meaning of a 'declared defaulter'. State of West Bengal and Another, , Raghunath Thakur Vs. State of Bihar and Others, , their Lordships in paragraph 40, 41, 48, 49 and 50 have expressed the view as under: 40. This brings us to the question as to what would be the meaning of a 'declared defaulter'. The expression 'declaration' has a definite connotation. It is a statement of material facts. It may constitute a formal announcement or a deliberate statement. A declaration must be announced solemnly or officially. It must be made with a view 'to make known' or 'to announce'. [See Prativa Pal alias Sm. Prativa Rani Pal Vs. Janhabi Charan Chatterjee alias J.C. Chatterjee, at 472]. When a person is placed in the category of a declared defaulter, it must precede a decision. The expression 'declared' is wider than the words 'found' or 'made'. Declared defaulter should be an actual defaulter and not an alleged defaulter. xxxxxxxxxxxxx It is, however, not in dispute that a Misc. Application was filed and the Division Bench by an order dated 3-5-2005 deleted the word 'admitted' and substituted the same by the term 'apparently'. It was clearly observed : in view of such observation, there can be no basis for apprehension that the said order will come in the way of any other litigation. Mr. Tankha was, therefore, not correct in submitting that the High Court declared appellant to be a defaulter, nor could it do so. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court while noticing that the term 'defaulter' would mean a formal statement, proclamation or announcement, wrongly opined: ........we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the bidder, who is a defaulter, merely because the State Electricity Board for some reasons, fails to declare such bidder a defaulter, however, in absence of such declaration, the bidder, in our view does not cease to be a defaulter...... The observations were made out of context. The Madhya Pradesh High Court did not declare Appellant to be a defaulter. So was the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. They could not have declared Appellant to be a defaulter. It had no jurisdiction to do so. The observations were made out of context. The Madhya Pradesh High Court did not declare Appellant to be a defaulter. So was the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board. They could not have declared Appellant to be a defaulter. It had no jurisdiction to do so. In the said writ petition filed by appellant before the Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board took a categorical stand in its counter affidavit that it had not declared appellant to be a defaulter, stating: ...........So far as the performance of the petitioner is concerned, it was found satisfactory he has supplied the coal to the destination and there was no default on his part. On he has delayed in making payment to the Railway authorities on which 15% surcharge was imposed and virtually recovered from the Board but now the respondent No. 3 has undertaken to pay said amount, So far as the award of Labour Court is concerned the Board has no knowledge about it because Board was not party in the Labour Court. It was further stated : That till today the respondent No. 3 has not been blacklisted by the Board. There are various decisions of this Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court that unless a contractor is declared black-listed, the tender document cannot be refused to him. Though there is Rs. 97 lacs recoverable from respondent No. 3 but he has given undertaking that he will pay the amount to the Board. We have referred to the aforesaid paragraphs only to highlight what in law means a 'declared defaulter'. In the case at hand, the same does not arise. We say so as the stipulation in the NIT read as under: The prospective tenderer should fulfil all the following qualifying conditions to become eligible for obtaining tender documents: (i) Certified copy of latest Income Tax Return filed by the firm. (ii) Solvency/Bankers Certificate, in original, from nationalized bank and details of turnover for preceding 3 years showing that tenderer is solvent up to at least Rs. 25 lakhs (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs), (iii) Experience details, copies of work order and performance certificate indicating that the party successfully executed similar work for 1 (one) million tonne or more per annum in any of the preceding 3 years with any of the Electricity Board or Power Utility only as a single order. 25 lakhs (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs), (iii) Experience details, copies of work order and performance certificate indicating that the party successfully executed similar work for 1 (one) million tonne or more per annum in any of the preceding 3 years with any of the Electricity Board or Power Utility only as a single order. (iv) Firm which has successfully executed the work contract of similar type awarded to it during last three years. Documentary evidence/certificate issued by the concerned power utility to this effect shall be submitted by the tenderer. As far as first two conditions are concerned, as admitted at the bar, there is no cavil in that regard. As far as conditions No. (iii) and (iv) are concerned, the same do not relate to any kind of declared defaulter or defaulter. In the order dated 8-1-2007, the Executive Director has been guided by the default part. He has established a nexus between the default part and the earlier performance. When the clauses are absolutely clear, categorical and unambiguous, we are afraid, nothing can be read into the same. Hence, we only hold that if the respondent No. 4 meets the requisite criteria as contained in clauses (iii) and (iv) of the NIT, his case shall be considered as per law. At this juncture, it was submitted by Mr. R.N. Singh that the respondent No. 4 has been given the tender documents and he has submitted his tender. In view of the aforesaid, we only hold that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall proceed as per law with utmost objectivity. In the result, the appeal stands disposed of with the modification to the extent indicated above. There shall no order as to costs.