JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner is aggrieved by order, as contained in Annexure-2, the order of Chief Engineer-1, Rural Works Department, Government of Bihar, Patna dated 16.10.2008, by which petitioners technical bid was rejected on the ground that the papers submitted by petitioner was not certified/attested and it is the correctness of this decision that is in question. 2. Respondent-State through AAG-10 has filed a counter affidavit and reiterated that the papers not being certified/attested by Gazetted Officer, petitioners technical bid could not be considered, notwithstanding, petitioner complying with Clause 32 of the NIT, which provided for self-certification, which was done. 3. With consent of parties the writ petition has been heard for final disposal at this stage itself. 4. Facts are not in dispute. State through the Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Nawada invited a short term tender for several roads. Package-4 with which we are concerned, was Construction of Road from PWD Jamaharia More to Kadsari Road at a cost of about Rs. 5.17 lacs. Tenderer were to file technical bid with various papers and documents which had to be certified (Satyapit)/attested (Abhipramanit) photo copies. Clause 32, inter alia, provided that the tenderer should self-certify all certificates and papers and any paper which is not so self-certified will not be taken into consideration. 5. The petitioner, as required filed his tender in two separate envelopes, first in respect of technical bid and second in respect of financial bid. On opening his technical bid, it was found that even though all copies of certificates and papers, as filed by the petitioner were self-certified, they were allegedly not attested by any Gazetted Officer, as such, his technical bid was found to be invalid and that is the communication, as contained in memo no. 2999 dated 16.10.2008 of the Chief Engineer-1, as aforesaid, which is impugned. 6. At the very outset, I may point out that it is not in dispute that apart from stating that the photocopies of certificates have to be certified/attested, it is not stated as to by whom nor any person or authority has been specified for the said certification or attestation. It is also not in dispute that Clause 32 required all papers to be self-certified, which was duly done by the petitioner. 7. It is also not in dispute that Clause 32 required all papers to be self-certified, which was duly done by the petitioner. 7. The stand of the Respondent-State is clear and categorical that the certificates not being duly attested by Gazetted Officer, petitioner failed to comply with essential condition of the notice inviting tender, that being so his technical bid was rightly rejected. It is submitted that pursuant to interim order of this Court, even though, financial bids were opened excluding the petitioner, no selection has been made as yet. 8. Having heard the parties, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. State in my opinion is relying on a hyper-technicality, which serves no purpose. 9. In common parlance "attest" means to bare witness; to certify; to affirm to be true or genuine; to make a solemn declaration in words or writing to support a fact; to certify to the verity of a copy of a public document (Abbot Law Dictionary). In other words, it is to affirm to be true or genuine copy of a document. 10. Whenever there is requirement of attestation, the law or the parties so requiring, normally specifies the authorities whose attestation they would accept. Copies of documents can be attested depending on the requirement by simply any Gazetted Officer, by Bank or by certain individuals having certain position and others. This has to be specified and there is no presumption that whenever a copy of a document is required to be attested, it must be attested only by a Gazetted Officer. The purpose of attestation, as would be seen, from the general definitions given above, is to go by the authenticity or accept the authenticity of the document. It could be so done in absence of any other stipulations by the person in whose favour the document is issued or who is connected with the document or who is presenting the document, unless, it is otherwise specifically so provided. 11. Here, in the present case, the NIT did not specify any person only whose attestation would be recognized as valid. To the contrary, Clause 32 made it incumbent on the tenderer to self-certify certificates, documents and papers annexed to his tender. This was duly complied with. The documents were thus clearly self-attested/self-certified. In my opinion, this in no way was in conflict with the requirements of the notice inviting tender. 12. To the contrary, Clause 32 made it incumbent on the tenderer to self-certify certificates, documents and papers annexed to his tender. This was duly complied with. The documents were thus clearly self-attested/self-certified. In my opinion, this in no way was in conflict with the requirements of the notice inviting tender. 12. I may note that the recent trend is, as has been noted by the Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes & Ors, since reported in 1992 Supp.(1) Supreme Court Cases 21 that modern Court seek to cut down on technicalities and public authority can be estopped from relying on pure technicalities, as has been noticed in paragraphs 22 and 23 of the said reports. 13. In the case of Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors. since reported in (1991)3 Supreme Court Cases 273, wherein dealing with tenders, the Apex Court said that the requirement in a tender notice can be classified into two categories. First it lays down the essential conditions of eligibility and the other which are ancillary and subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case, the authority issuing the tender may be required to be forced to follow them rigidly. In the other cases, it is open to the authority to deviate and not insist on literal compliance of the condition in appropriate case. In that case, the notice inviting tender required deposit of Rs. 50,000/-, as earnest money, by demand draft drawn on State Bank of India. Petitioner of that case deposited bankers cheque marked and certified by Union Bank of India. His tender was rejected, but, ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition holding that bankers cheque marked and certified by Union Bank of India was as good as cash and the requirement of giving demand draft thus stood satisfied. That was not a term essential to the tender and could be deviated from. This decision has been followed by this Court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2003(4) PLJR 445 . In that case, the permanent address was required to be certified by Collector. That was not a term essential to the tender and could be deviated from. This decision has been followed by this Court in the case of Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors. since reported in 2003(4) PLJR 445 . In that case, the permanent address was required to be certified by Collector. Instead of a separate certificate being filed, the petitioner filed a character certificate issued by the Superintendent of Police and countersigned by the District Magistrate, which gave petitioners permanent address and present address. Even though, it was strictly not a certificate granted in respect of permanent address by the Collector, the same was accepted by this Court to be sufficient compliance of the terms of tender. 14. In the present case, as pointed out above, even though, there is requirement of attestation/certification, it was not at all stated as to who is competent to do that or whose certification or attestation would be acceptable. Thus, State cannot insist, in absence of any thing to be found in notice inviting tender, that certification of a Gazetted Officer was a requirement. Moreover, Clause 32 required as certification of all papers, which was duly done by the petitioner. A certification is akin to attestation, as discussed above. The petitioner was certifying the authenticity of the copy. This, in my view, was sufficient compliance and was wrongly rejected on hyper-technicality, which is not borne out by the records. The purpose having been adequately achieved by self-certification. It was not such an essential condition which could not be relaxed. There was substantial compliance of the mandate of the notice inviting tender. 15. Thus, found the rejection of petitioners technical bid was clearly wrong and cannot be sustained. Petitioners technical bid was, thus, wrongly rejected. Petitioner cannot be treated as ineligible on that ground alone and there being no other ground for rejecting his financial bid, the authorities would do well to open his financial bid and consider the same on its own merits alongwith other financial bids already opened. I direct accordingly. 16. The writ petition is, thus, allowed and the impugned order Annexure-2, to the extent to disqualify the petitioner is set aside.