JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents may be directed to grant contract for setting up a computerized weighing balance of 40 tonnes in the Gaun Mandi Area and not to consider ineligible bidders for the said contract. Further, it is submitted that respondents be directed to execute contract for setting up 40 tonnes' weighing balance in Gaun Mandi area. 2. According to facts of the case, respondent No.3 Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti invited applications for grant of contract for setting up a computerized weighing balance of 40 tonnes in the Gaun Mandi area. Said NIT was issued under Rule 91 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Rules, 1963 (in short, hereinafter called the Rules'). The petitioner being eligible for the said NIT purchased the bid documents and filed his bid before the respondents. 3. After considering the rates quoted by all the bidders. it is found that there were deficiencies in some tenders filled in by various applicants. More specifically, as per terms and conditions of the eligibility for contract, every bidder was required to submit project report alongwith bid documents; but, surprisingly instead of rejecting the bids, respondents opened the same and proceeded to grant contract to ineligible candidates. As per the petitioner, he has tried to enquiry about the name of said person but respondent No.3 refused to give particulars of the said person, therefore, in the writ petition, he was not impleaded as party. 4. Before this Court, when notices were issued and stay was granted by this Court on 21.10.2009, an application was filed by one M/s Shri Computerised Dharamkanta, Road No.14, Chandvaji Road, Harmada Sikar Road, Jaipur, through its partner Satyaveer Singh, in which, it is pointed out that contract has been granted in his favour, therefore, application was allowed vide order dated 25.11.2009. Thereafter, an application was filed for vacation of stay by the newly added respondent. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at admission stage. 6. Thereafter, an application was filed for vacation of stay by the newly added respondent. 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at admission stage. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per reply itself, required project report as per terms and conditions of the contract bid was not filed by respondent No.4 which is evident from Annex.-R/-3/1, filed alongwith reply; therefore, the grant of contract in favour of respondent No.4 is totally illegal as there is no provision in the terms and conditions of the contract bid to relax any of the terms and conditions. Further, it is argued that admittedly there was deficiency in the tender form submitted by respondent No.4 that he has not furnished the project report and this fact is not in dispute, therefore, the grant of contract in favour of respondent No.4 is totally illegal because as per terms and conditions no relaxation can be granted to waive a condition of the contract bid; and, admittedly, respondent No.4, in whose favour, the tender was accepted has failed to produce the project report alongwith the tender form, therefore, the contract issued in favour of respondent No.4 may be set aside and the same may be allowed to the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, reported in 2000 WLC (SC) Civil 545 : (2000) 5 SCC 287 . 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 vehemently argued that in the interest of Mandi Samiti the bid of respondent No.4 was highest, therefore, condition of filing the project report was waived and, subsequently, project report was obtained and matter was decided in favour of respondent No.4, in which, there is no illegality; more so, it is in the interest of the Krishi Upaj Mandi for getting the revenue. 9. 9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 vehemently argued that any decision taken by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti cannot be questioned because the condition of filing project report is ancillary and not mandatory, therefore, in the event of accepting highest bid the respondent No.3 was well within his jurisdiction to waive the condition for filing project report alongwith the tender form and, further, respondent authorities have rightly exercised power to accept the project report after preparing comparative assessment and, now, the weighing machine has been installed. As such, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition. 10. It is also argued by learned counsel for respondent No.4 that even if the petitioner's prayer is accepted for quashing the contract which is passed in favour of respondent No.4, the petitioner will not be getting this contract because two more persons have furnished higher bids than the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this petition. In support of his submission, learned counsel for respondent No.4 placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2007(1) WLC (SC) Civil 216 : (2006) 11 SCC 548 , B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. & Others . 11. I have considered rival submissions made by both the parties and carefully scanned the material on record.First of all, it is not disputed before the Court that required project report was not submitted by respondent No.4 alongwith the tender form which was condition precedent as per the terms and conditions of the contract bid. Condition 10 thereof is as follows : " 10- eaMh lfefr }kjk miyC/k djkbZ xbZ Hkwfe ij /keZdkaVs dh LFkkiuk ,oa fuekZ.k dk;Z miyC/k djk;s x;s uD'ks ds vuqlkj yht/kkjh dks Lo;a vius O;; ij djuk gksxkA fufonknkrk QeZ dks fufonk nsrs le; izkstsDV fjiksVZ layXu djuh vko';d gksxhA " (Emphasis supplied) 12. Upon perusal of Annex.-2, terms and conditions of the contract bid, issued at the time of inviting tenders, it is revealed that there is no such provision to relax any term and condition which is provided in the tender form for the purpose of granting the contract. If there is no provision for relaxing any condition, then, in my opinion, every bidder was under obligation to comply with the terms and conditions which was required for participating in the bid. If there is no provision for relaxing any condition, then, in my opinion, every bidder was under obligation to comply with the terms and conditions which was required for participating in the bid. Here, in this case. after perusing Annex.-R-3/1 it is true that respondent No.4, in whose favour the contract was granted, has not produced project report alongwith the tender form but this condition was waived without any provision of law. Every action of the statutory body established by law must be fair and in consonance with provisions of law. Upon perusal of the whole of the reply filed by respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi, it is revealed that while accepting the fact that M/s Shri Computerised Dharamkanta, though it gave the highest bid of Rs. 45,950/-, but, it did not submit the project report as required under the terms and conditions of the contract bid; but, a resolution was passed for allotment of space for establishing the computerized weighing machine in favour of respondent No.4. Strangely enough, no provision of law is pointed out by the respondents as to how they relaxed the condition of the contract bid mentioned at para 10 of the terms and conditions (Annex.-2). Therefore, in my opinion, the respondent Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has acted contrary to law and without any provision of law waived the condition of filing the project report alongwith the tender form. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondent No.4 is altogether different upon the facts of the present case. In the present case, as per condition No.10 of the tender it was mandatory for the bidder to annex project report alongwith the tender form, therefore, the said cited judgment rendered in B.S.N. Joshi's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreso, judgment of the apex Court, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 287 (supra) is applicable upon the facts of the present case. It has been held by the apex Court in the said judgment as under : "Judicial decisions in the matters of tender process and award of contract show that while public interest is paramount there should be no arbitrariness in the matter of award of contract and all participants in the tender process should be treated alike. It has been held by the apex Court in the said judgment as under : "Judicial decisions in the matters of tender process and award of contract show that while public interest is paramount there should be no arbitrariness in the matter of award of contract and all participants in the tender process should be treated alike. The legal position can be summed up as thus : (i) The Government is free to enter into any contract with citizens but the court may interfere where it acts arbitrarily or contrary to public interest. (ii) The Government cannot arbitrarily choose any person it likes for entering into such a relationship or to discriminate between persons similarly situate. (iii) It is open to the Government to reject even the highest bid at a tender where such rejection is not arbitrary or unreasonable or such rejection is in public interest for valid and good reasons. Broadly stated, the courts would not interfere with the matter of administrative action or changes made therein, unless the Government's action is arbitrary or discriminatory or the policy adopted has no nexus with the object it seeks to achieve or is malafide." 13. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. The contract awarded in favour of respondent No.4 is hereby set aside and respondents herein are directed to proceed in the matter and after considering the comparative assessment allotment may be made to the person who was fully eligible on that date and while doing so, if the petitioner comes in merit and is found to be eligible, then, contract may be awarded to him.No order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******