I. A. Ansari, J. ­We have heard Mr. T. Michi, learned counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel, for the appellant, and Ms. G. Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 2. The material facts leading to this appeal are as under:' (i) The Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Department of Power, issued Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), dated 15.02.2007, for domestic bidding of Turnkey tenders (Supply and Erection) from all eligible contractors/companies/consortiums or joint venture companies for execution of the five key packages of Rural Household Electrification if work under (RGGVY). The NIT covered two packages forNaharlagun Electrical Division, Nirjuli, and three packages for Capital Electrical Division, Itanagar. The tenders were to be submitted to the concerned Electrical Division. The petitioner firm submitted its bid against package No. 1 and 2, under Naharlagun Electrical Division, Nirjuli, as per the NIT, dated 15.02.2007, and for package Nos. 3, 4 and 5, under Capital Electrical Division, Itanagar, as per the subsequent NIT, dated 16.03.2007. The Bid documents had three parts, namely, Part-I (Bank guarantee and Bid Proposal Letter), Part-II (Bid Qualification date of deviation statements) and Part-III (Condition of the contract and technical specification). Under Clause 22 of the terms and conditions of the bid documents, the bidder was required to furnish, as part of its bid, a bank guarantee for sum of Rs. 15,83,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakh Eighty Three Thousand) only and Rs. 10,77,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Seventy Seven Thousand) only in respect of Package Nos. 1 and 2 respectively and bank guarantee for sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifteen Thousand) only, Rs. 4,44,135/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Four Thousand One Hundred Thirty Five) only and Rs. 2,54,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Four Thousand) only in respect of package Nos. 3,4 and 5 respectively. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the bidding documents, the petitioner firm submitted its bid guarantees, in the form of bank guarantees of diverse sums of money, issued by United Bank of India, Itanagar Branch, for package Nos. 1 and 2, to Naharlagun Electrical Division, Nirjuli, and, for Package Nos. 3,4 and 5, to Capital Electrical Division, Itanagar, respectively. (ii) The petitioner firm's Bank guarantees and bid proposal letters Part-I (Bid Guarantee) for Package Nos. 1 and 2, under Naharlagun Electrical Division, Nirjuli, were opened on 29.03.2007. 1 and 2, to Naharlagun Electrical Division, Nirjuli, and, for Package Nos. 3,4 and 5, to Capital Electrical Division, Itanagar, respectively. (ii) The petitioner firm's Bank guarantees and bid proposal letters Part-I (Bid Guarantee) for Package Nos. 1 and 2, under Naharlagun Electrical Division, Nirjuli, were opened on 29.03.2007. The petitioner firm was declared eligible/qualified for Part-II of the Bid (pre-qualification Bid date and Deviation Statement) by the Scrutiny Committee for Naharlagun Electrical Division, Nirjuli. Similarly, the petitioner firm's bank guarantees and bid proposal letters Part-I (Bid Guarantee) for Package Nos. 3,4 and 5, under Capital Electrical Division, Itanagar, were opened, on 27.04.2007, as per the subsequent NIT, dated 16.03.2007. The petitioner firm was, however, according to the Scrutiny Committee, found ineligible. The petitioner firm was, therefore, held not qualified to participate in the further bidding process in respect of Package Nos. 3,4 and 5. 3. As the petitioner firm's bid proposals, in respect of Package Nos. 2,3 and 5, stood rejected by the State respondents, the petitioner firm put to challenge the same by way of a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to W. P (C) No. 177 (AP)/2007, the grievances of the petitioner firm being, in brief, thus: The petitioner firm was not informed of the ground of rejection of its bid proposals and that it was from a letter issued by the respondent Department to the petitioner firm that the petitioner firm came to know that the bank guarantees, submitted by the petitioner firm, were found to be not acceptable. The defects, if any, in the bank guarantees, were formal in nature and the same did not form part of the essential conditions of tender process. In such circumstances, the bank guarantees ought not to have been rejected. The petitioner firm has been discriminated against other tenderers inasmuch as the other tenerers, whose bank guarantees have been accepted, suffer from more serious defects. Thus, the rejection of the bid proposals of the petitioner firm, in respect of the Package Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which fell under Capital Electrical Division, Itanagar, was arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, capricious and suffered from non-application of mind. 4. Thus, the rejection of the bid proposals of the petitioner firm, in respect of the Package Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which fell under Capital Electrical Division, Itanagar, was arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, capricious and suffered from non-application of mind. 4. The State respondents resisted the writ petition by filing an affidavit, wherein they contended, inter alia, that on 27.04.2007, when the tenders were opened, representatives of all the tenderers were present and since none of the bank guarantees in respect of the three packages, which the petitioner firm had submitted, satisfied the requirements of the conditions of bidding, the tenders of the petitioner firm were rejected and a check list, which was prepared, in this regard, was duly signed by the representative of the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm cannot, therefore, according to the respondents, complain that they were not informed as to why their bank guarantees had not been accepted and why they were disqualified to participate in the second stage of the bidding process. 5. Having found that the State respondents had rejected the petitioner firm's bank guarantees in accordance with law and for good reasons, a learned Single Judge of this Court has upheld the petitioner firm's rejection of bank guarantees. Consequently, by the judgment and order, dated 11.04.2008, the writ petition stands dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of its writ petition, the petitioner fimi has preferred this appeal. Having admitted the appeal, a Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order, on 05.05.2008, in Misc. Case No. 1316(AP)/2008, staying further process of the tender pending disposal of the writ appeal. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, the State respondents have filed a miscellaneous application, which has given rise to Misc. Case No. 09(AP)/2009, whereby the State respondents, as applicants, have sought for vacating the said interim directions, passed in the appeal, on the ground, inter alia, that the tender process is covered by a scheme, which is meant to develop rural infrastructure, the appellant's bank guarantees were rightly rejected and any further delay, in completing the process of bidding, would defeat public interest and also the object with which the project was undertaken by the State Government on the basis of a scheme floated by the Central Government. 7. In the background of the above facts, the present appeal has been taken up for hearing. 8. 7. In the background of the above facts, the present appeal has been taken up for hearing. 8. It has been submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that though the appellant firm's bank guarantees did not exactly tally with the proforma in which the bank guarantee had been sought for under the bidding documents, the fact remains that the defects, if any, were formal in nature and that such defect did not form part of the essential conditions of the tender process. In such circumstances, the rejection of the bank guarantees was, it is contended, wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is further contended that the appellant has been discriminated against the other bidders inasmuch as the bank guarantees and bid proposals of the other competitive bidders suffered from more serious defects, but the same were ignored; hence, the rejection of the bank guarantees, submitted by the appellant, was mala fide and may, therefore, be interfered with. 9. Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the appellant, Ms. G Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, has submitted that the defects, in the bank guarantees, in the present case, were not formal in nature; rather, the same were so substantive that it did not meet the requirements set forth in the bidding documents. In such circumstances, according to Ms. Deka, the bank guarantees had to be rejected. It is further contended, on behalf of the State respondents, that though the appellant has raised the question of discrimination, the fact remains that at the end of the tender process, which had been initiated, none of the bidders was found qualified and, hence, their bids too have been rejected. In such circumstances, points out the learned Government Advocate, the State Government needs to be allowed to start a new tender process so that the work can be allotted to eligible bidder at the earliest and the public interest is not made to suffer. 10. From what have been noted above, it becomes clear that the chief controversy, raised in the appeal, centers around the questions as to whether the bank guarantees, submitted by the appellant firm, were defective and whether the defects, if any, were formal or substantive in nature? 10. From what have been noted above, it becomes clear that the chief controversy, raised in the appeal, centers around the questions as to whether the bank guarantees, submitted by the appellant firm, were defective and whether the defects, if any, were formal or substantive in nature? This apart, what is also required to be determined is whether the failure to give a bank guarantee, as envisaged in the conditions of bidding, formed an integral part of the essential conditions Of bidding process? With this end formed an integral part of the essential conditions of bidding process? With this end in view, pro forma of the bank guarantee, as had been given in the NIT, is reproduced hereinbelow: BID GUARANTEE "Dear Sirs, In accordance with invitation to Bid under your Specification No. PP/BAL/CED/Package- A/01, M/S................................................having its Registered/Head Office at..........................(hereinafter called the'Bidder') wish to participate in the said Bid or ...............................and you, as a special favour have agreed to accept an irrevocable and unconditional Bank guarantee for an amount of Rs..........................Valid up to........................on behalf of Bidder in lieu of the Bid deposit required to be made by the Bidder, as a condition precedent for participation in the said Bid We, the.......................Bank at...................... (local address) having our Head Office at ............................Guarantee and undertake to pay immediately on demand by Department of Power, Arunachal Pradesh the amount of ............................(in words & figures) without any reservation, protest, demur and recourse. Any such demand made by said "Owner" shall be conclusive and binding on us irrespective of any dispute or difference raised by the Bidder. This Guarantee shall be irrevocable and shall remain valid up to and including .............@........If any further extension of this guarantee is required, the same shall be extended to such required period (not exceeding one year) on receiving instructions from M/S............................on whose behalf this guarantee is issued." (Emphasis is supplied by us) 11. This Guarantee shall be irrevocable and shall remain valid up to and including .............@........If any further extension of this guarantee is required, the same shall be extended to such required period (not exceeding one year) on receiving instructions from M/S............................on whose behalf this guarantee is issued." (Emphasis is supplied by us) 11. In the backdrop of the pro forma of the bank guarantee, which the authority inviting tender had given, the bank guarantee, which the appellant firm had submitted, read as under: BANK GUARANTEE "Dear Sirs, In accordance with Invitation to Bid under your Specification No. PP/B AL/CED/Package-C/01, M/S Tama Fabrication Works having its Registered/Head Office at 'A' Sector Naharlagun (A.P) (hereinafter called the 'Bidder') wish to participate in the said Bid and you, as a special favour have agreed to accept an irrevocable and unconditional Bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 3,47,503/-(Rupees Three Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Three) only valid upto 25.4.2008. We, the United Bank of India. Itanagar Branch, having our bead office at Kolkata guarantee and undertake to pay immediately on demand by Department of Power, Arunachal Pradesh the amount of Rs. 3,47,503/- (Rupees Three Lacs Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Three) only without any reservation, protest, demur and recourse. Any such demand made by said 'Owner' shall be conclusive and binding on prespective of any dispute or difference raised by the Bidder. The Guarantee shall irrevocable and shall remain valid up to and including thirty days after the last date for which the bid is valid if/any further extension of this guarantee is required, the same shall be extended to such required period (not exceeding one year) on\ receiving instructions from M/s Tama Fabrication Works 'A' Sector, Naharlagun (A.P) on whose behalf this guarantee is issued. In witness whereof the Bank through its authorized officer, has set its hand and stamp on this 25th day of April 2007." 12. From a careful reading of the minutes of the opening process of the tenders, what transpires is that the bank guarantees, which the appellant firm had submitted, did not mention the fact that the bank guarantees were being given by the bank concerned "on behalf of Bidder in lieu of the Bid deposit required to be made by the Bidder, as a condition precedent for participation in the said bid." This made, according to the Scrutiny Committee, the bank guarantees defective and unacceptable. The appellant firm was accordingly declared disqualified. The relevant portion of the minutes of the proceedings of tender opening is quoted hereinbelow: PROCEEDINGS OF THE TENDER OPENING "A. In respect of M/s Tama Fabrication Works, the Bank guarantee has been submitted in the form of Bank guarantee No. Ita/BG/10/07, Dtd. 25.4.2007, from the United Bank of India, Itanagar Branch, Naharlagun. It has been found that the following vital sentence in the first para as required in the specimen Bank guarantee provided in the bid document had been omitted. "....on behalf of Bidder in lieu of the Bid deposit required to be made by the Bidder, as a condition precedent for participation in the said bjd," Further, following gross deficiencies were detected in the above Bank Guarantee : i. No mailing address of the Bank's Head Office indicated, ii. No name, designation, and address of the witness provided; and iii. No any indication found as to whose name the Non Judicial Stamp Paper was purchased. In view of above this bid stands Rejected at stage-I and Disqualified from opening subsequent Parts, of the Bid.'' 13. It needs to be pointed out that a Bank guarantee is not merely a guarantee for payment, which the banker undertakes to pay. A bank guarantee must also, as an essential condition, include as to why the bank guarantee is being given and under what circumstances, the bank guarantee would become encashable. The proforma of the bank guarantee, as given under the NIT, shows that the bank guarantee was to be submitted in lieu of money deposit, which was required to be made by the bidder as a condition precedent for participating in the bidding process. 14. In the present case, the bank guarantees, which the appellant firm submitted, did not give any indication that the bank guarantees had been given against the deposits, which were required to be made by the appellant firm, as condition precedent for participating in the said bidding process. It is worth pointing out that a bank guarantee may be given for variety of reasons by a bank. Even in one tender process, a bank guarantee may be given for different purposes and at different stages of the tender process. For instance, a bank guarantee may be given in lieu of earnest money so as to enable the bidder participate in the tender process. Even in one tender process, a bank guarantee may be given for different purposes and at different stages of the tender process. For instance, a bank guarantee may be given in lieu of earnest money so as to enable the bidder participate in the tender process. If the bidder becomes eligible and gets, eventually, selected for allotment of contract subject to performance guarantee, such performa­nce guarantee may be secured by a bank guarantee. While the former bank guarantee, in a case, as cited, would make the banker bound to pay if the earnest money is required to be forfeited by the authority inviting tenders, the latter bank guarantee would become encashable only when the bidder, as allottee of contract, would fail to perform the allotted work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract agreement. It cannot, therefore, be said that a bank guarantee is a mere formality. A bank guarantee must indicate as to why the bank guarantee is being given so that it becomes explicit as to when the bank guarantee would become encashable. In the present case, the appellant firm's banker gave the bank guarantees without specifying as to why the bank guarantees were being given. In consequence thereof, there was nothing in the bank guarantees to show as to when the bank guarantees would be used and when can the bank guarantees be encashed. In other words, in the circumstances as discussed above, the defects, which have been noticed by the authority concerned in the appellant firm's bank guarantees, cannot be said to be a mere formal defect. The bank guarantees, in question, did not, thus, satisfy the essential conditions of a bank guarantee. 15. Though it is true that in a tender process, there are some conditions of bidding, which are essential and some are formal in nature and non-compliance of, and/or defective compliance of, the formal condition of bidding may not be treated as fatal, the fact remains that the bank guarantees were to be given, in the present case, in lieu of the bid deposits, which were required to be made by the bidder as condition precedent for participating in the bidding process. In such circumstances, the submission of the bank guarantees could not have been treated as mere formality. In such circumstances, the submission of the bank guarantees could not have been treated as mere formality. The conclusion, therefore, has to be that submission of a bank guarantee, in the present case, was essential and the appellant firm's bank guarantees suffered from such fatal defects that it could not have been treated as a bank guarantee inasmuch as the bank guarantees did not indicate at all that the bank guarantees had been given in lieu of the bid deposits, which were required to be given by the appellant firm for the purpose of enabling the appellant firm to participate in the bidding process. At any rate, when two views are possible, the Court will not interfere if the Scrutiny Committee has adopted one of the reasonably possible views. In short, thus, the rejection of the appellant firm's bank guarantees cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal and/or capricious. 16. Though it has also been contended, as already indicated above, on behalf of the appellant firm, that the bid documents and/or bank guarantees of other bidders, suffered from major defects, but their bank guarantees were not rejected, suffice it to point out that a tenderer must prove that he was eligible for consideration before he challenges the acceptance of bidding documents of another bidder by the authority inviting tender. 17. In the present case, when the appellant firm has been found to be disqualified to participate in the bidding process, it cannot invite the Court to look into the question as to whether the other bidders' bidding documents suffered from similar or more serious defects. This apart, what cannot be ignored is that the remaining bidders, in the instant bidding process, were, eventually, found disqualified and their bids have accordingly been rejected and the Government has decided to initiate a fresh tender process. In such circumstances, no purpose would be served in looking into the correctness of the bank guarantees and other related documents, submitted by the other bidders, which had been considered, at the initial stage of the bidding process, by the Scrutiny Committee. 18. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the appellant firm's rejection of the bids, at the first stage itself, was not illegal. Hence, this dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge cannot but be sustained. 19. 18. What crystallizes from the above discussion is that the appellant firm's rejection of the bids, at the first stage itself, was not illegal. Hence, this dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge cannot but be sustained. 19. In the result and for the foregoing reasons this appeal fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 20. No order as to costs.