JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. The Executive Engineer, Seppa Division, PWD, Arunachal Pradesh (Respondent No. 3) issued a Notice Inviting Bid (NIB) on 28.5.2009 for construction of Bailey Bridge between Namra and many other villages under Seijosa Circle, the bid documents of which are to be purchased from his office on payment of fee of Rs. 3,000 from 8.6.2009 to 20.6.2009. The petitioner firm sent one Shri Kuli Tachang as its authorised representative to procure the tender/bid documents from the office of the respondent No. 3 on 26.6.2009 but he was not supplied with the same on the ground that the tender date had already expired. The original date for procuring the tender papers was extended up to 30.6.2009 by issuing a Corrigendum dated 19th June, 2009. Having come to know about the same, the petitioner firm requested one Shri Matung Tachang to purchase the tender documents on its behalf. He purchased the tender documents on payment of requisite fees in cash. The petitioner firm is represented by Shri Kuli Tachang and the said Matung Tachang is his elder brother but unfortunately Shri Matung Tachang, being illiterate, failed to mention the name of the petitioner firm and by mistake obtained the tender papers in the name of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise. Although, the tender papers/bid documents were obtained in the name of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise, the tender papers were submitted in the name of M/s. HES Infra (P.) Ltd. Hyderabad, the present petitioner. The petitioner's tender was rejected on the ground that no tender papers/bid documents were purchased by it. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 14.7.2009 addressed to the respondent-Chief Engineer requesting him to consider the petitioner firm for awarding the contract. The respondent authorities did not consider the petitioner's case and recommended the case of only one tenderer, namely, M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, Naharlagun for acceptance by the Cabinet Sub-Committee. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following relief(s): (a) Issue appropriate writ directing PWD, Seppa to give due consideration to the tender of the petitioner. (b) Direct PWD, Seppa not to throw out the tender of the petitioner on collateral or subsidiary considerations. (c) Direct the authority to stay the process and not open Financial Bid till this case is disposed off. (d) Pass such other order or orders which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. (b) Direct PWD, Seppa not to throw out the tender of the petitioner on collateral or subsidiary considerations. (c) Direct the authority to stay the process and not open Financial Bid till this case is disposed off. (d) Pass such other order or orders which this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. 2. I have heard Mr. A. Kashyap, learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents. 3. Mr. A. Kashyap, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Shri Matung Tachang, who purchased the tender/bid documents on behalf of the petitioner firm was an illiterate person and he depended on available literate help to make an application and get tender/bid documents and he purchased the same by mistake in the name of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise. Such mistake is a result of human oversight and no reasonable man would disqualify the petitioner on this ground alone. The rejection of petitioner's tender/bid without giving him an opportunity of hearing is against the principle of natural justice and an act of arbitrariness inasmuch as the ground of rejection is too hyper technical and patently discriminatory. By referring to present day's E-tender system, Mr. Kashyap submits that tender/biding documents are available through online and can be downloaded by anyone and it is not necessary to buy tender/bidding documents in the name of a particular party. Anyone who obtained tender document online may fill-up and submit the same on payment of requisite fees. At the stage of submission of tender, the relevant consideration is payment of requisite fees and the State is concerned only with revenue realisation from the intending tenderers. In this respect, he further submits that there is no term or condition in the tender documents which requires the petitioner to purchase the tender documents in their own name and in absence of such terms and conditions, the authorities cannot reject the tender on this ground alone. The respondent authorities have read into the tender documents a term that does not exist at all. The respondent authorities have read into the tender documents a term that does not exist at all. He refers to some relevant clauses contained in the CPWD Works Manual 2007 published by the Government of India, CPWD, particularly, para 17.1.17.8(2) and Appendix-21 corresponding to para 17.1 and submits that a tender document must be construed strictly and nothing should be read into it either by the authorities or by the bidders. The authorities concerned have exceeded their authority in reading into the tender documents further terms and conditions, which are not incorporated in the works manual. Even assuming, but not admitting, that such a condition could be read into the terms of the tender documents, even then it would amount to a collateral, ancillary or subsidiary condition, which the authorities cannot insist upon and non-compliance thereof would not entitle the authorities to reject the Lender. it is his further submission that the petitioner having paid the revenue by way of depositing the fees for the tender papers has fulfilled the condition and its tender papers cannot be rejected out right because the same were procured in the name of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise. 4. It has been asserted by Mr. Kashyap that procurement of tender papers in the name of one party and submission of tender papers in the name of other party, as has been done in the present case by mistake, is a peripheral matters and for that the party cannot be punished by throwing out the tender without providing opportunity of being considered by the authorities. In this respect, he refers to Tata Cellular v. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 11 : (1994) 6 SCC 651 and Barun K. Sinha v. District Magistrate, Murshidabad AIR 1982 Cal. 19 . Last of all he submits that the respondent authorities have exercised unfettered discretion by rejecting the petitioner's tender without Considering its case although they are cast with duty to act fairly and the State need not enter into any contract with anyone but if it must do so fairly without discrimination and without unfair procedure as held in Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries AIR 1993 SC 1601 . 5. Mr. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate has produced the relevant records in original at the time of hearing. 5. Mr. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate has produced the relevant records in original at the time of hearing. Based on the aforesaid records, he submits that one Shri Matung Tachang made an application before the, Respondent No. 3 for supply of tender form against the firm M/.s T.K. Engineering Enterprise and the same was issued accordingly to him on payment of Rs. 3,000, being cost of tender papers but the said tender papers were used by the petitioner firm and submitted in the name of the petitioner firm, which is not permissible under the provisions contained in para 19.1 of Section 19 of the CPWD Manual, the abstract of which has been furnished in Annexure C to the counter affidavit of the State respondents. According to him. Section 19 of the old CPWD Manual is same to Section 17 of the CPWD Works Manual 2007. All the tenderers, who participated in the tender process, applied for and obtained the tender papers in the individual name of the parties and utilised/submitted the same in the name of the respective parties/firms, except the present petitioner. The present petitioner firm did not make any application for supply of tender/bid documents by itself by depositing the requisite fees, which is the condition precedent for participation in the bidding. This being the position, according to Mr. Nabam, the petitioner cannot claim for any right to be considered for settlement of the contract works. Referring to decision in Tama Fabrication v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. (2009) 4 GLT 116, it is submitted that the petitioner has no right to participate in the tender process as he could not fullfil the condition precedent for participation in the bid. 6. It is further submitted by Mr. Nabam that respondent No. 3 maintains the record of the applications made by the parties for supply of tender papers, payment of requisite fees for supply of tender papers and submission of tender papers by the respective parties. The purpose of maintaining such record is to avoid/prevent bogus and fake tenders in consonance with para 19.25 of the old CPWD Manual. The respondent authorities have followed the CPWD Manual and no illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair action has been taken in rejecting the petitioner's tender and hence, there is no scope for interference with the action taken by the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities have followed the CPWD Manual and no illegal, unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair action has been taken in rejecting the petitioner's tender and hence, there is no scope for interference with the action taken by the respondent authorities. The petitioner firm has no locus standi to challenge the action of the respondents inasmuch as the bid security/earnest money has been refunded by the Respondent No. 3 through Bank Draft No. 433131 dated 1.7.2009, which Was duly received by Shri Matung Tachang on 1.7.2009 on behalf of Shri Kuli Tachang, as authorised by him and the present writ petition was filed on 3.8.2009. 7. Mr. Nabam also submits that the E-tender in respect of the tender/bid in question has not yet been introduced and as such, the question of downloading the tender documents from online does not arise. Even if the E-system tender is introduced, the contractors could download the tender documents through online only after depositing the tender documents fee/cost with intimation to the respondent No. 3, Executive Engineer revealing the name of the firm/contractor and the same has to be entered in the Sale Register of tender documents. It is not correct to say that any party can procure tender papers through online and utilise it by some other party without disclosing/entering his/its name in the Sale Register of tender documents. The petitioner is trying to divert the whole matter by way of giving wrong example of E-tender for obtaining undue order in his favour from this Court. Moreover, it is submitted that the bidders participating in the tender process have no other right except the right of equality and fair treatment in the matter of evaluation by interested person and the court is merely concerned with the decision making process and not with the decision as has been held in Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies AIR 2009 SC 2895. The court would not interfere unless the matter involves substantial question of public interest for which he refers to Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R Construction Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 393 and Uncle's Shop and Ors. v. Biva Hazarika 2002 (1) GLT 109. 8. The court would not interfere unless the matter involves substantial question of public interest for which he refers to Raunaq International Ltd. v. I.V.R Construction Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 393 and Uncle's Shop and Ors. v. Biva Hazarika 2002 (1) GLT 109. 8. I am conscious about the law settled by the Supreme Court in R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority AIR 1979 SC 1628 and Barun K. Sinha (supra) that the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and deal with any person it pleases or it cannot reject party's tender without due consideration in violation of Article 14 and also the law settled in Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (supra) that the public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. There is no dispute on the aforesaid principle of law. Those decisions are to be applied on the given facts and circumstances. The facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cited cases are not similar to the present case and as such, they are not applicable in the present case. Similarly it is so in respect of the decisions rendered in Tata Cellular (supra), Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) and M/s G.J. Fernandez (supra). Those were the cases where the party/parties submitted tenders and on some grounds they were not awarded with the contract and the court came to certain conclusion after considering the merit of the cases in judicial review. 9. The petitioner had taken a plea that the instructions contained in the CPWD Works Manual are not mandatory inasmuch as they are not backed by any statute and it cannot be demanded that the party concerned must obtain the tender papers/documents in his/its name and such party should submit the tender in his/its name only. The court is not concerned whether the said manual or the executive instructions are mandatory/compulsory or obligatory. It is concerned with whether following the aforesaid manual/executive instructions the authorities concerned have acted bona fide, fairly and without any discrimination to any party. The petitioner has no allegation against the respondent authorities that they have accepted the tender of a party who did not obtain/purchase tender papers in his/its name and yet considered his/its case for settlement of contract and thereby discrimination has been committed against the petitioner. The petitioner has no allegation against the respondent authorities that they have accepted the tender of a party who did not obtain/purchase tender papers in his/its name and yet considered his/its case for settlement of contract and thereby discrimination has been committed against the petitioner. There is also no allegation to the effect that the petitioner's tender has been rejected to accommodate some undeserving party on some extraneous consideration. Even if such allegation is made by the petitioner, it must be substantiated by producing documents that there are some parties who do not fullfil the eligibility criteria or that atleast one of them did not procure the tender papers in individual name or corporate name. For want of such allegation and substantiating materials on record it can not be said or held that the respondents acted arbitrarily, discriminatory, irrationally with mala fide intention. The impugned decision/action in rejecting the petitioner's tender, in my considered view, therefore, cannot be interfered by this Court in judicial review. 10. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that procurement of tender papers by Shri Matung Tachang in the name of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise is a human error requires objective scrutiny. It is to be noted that M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise is an entity separate from the entity of petitioner firm M/s HES Infra (P.) Ltd. The application submitted by Shri Matung Tachang with the respondent-Executive Engineer was addressed and signed by him for supply of tender forms against the firm M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise. The intension was made clear in the said petition that the form was collected for M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise for offering the tender for it. Had Shri Matung Tachang not mentioned the name of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise in the said petition, it could have been understood that he obtained the tender papers on behalf of a party authorised to collect the tender papers on its behalf. The aforesaid application was not accompanied by any authority letter issued by Mr. Kuli Tachang, authorised representative of the petitioner's firm. Without such authority letter, it cannot be accepted that Shri Matung Tachang applied for and obtained the tender form for and on behalf of petitioner firm from the office of the respondent No. 3. The aforesaid application was not accompanied by any authority letter issued by Mr. Kuli Tachang, authorised representative of the petitioner's firm. Without such authority letter, it cannot be accepted that Shri Matung Tachang applied for and obtained the tender form for and on behalf of petitioner firm from the office of the respondent No. 3. The manner in which the application was made and the tender papers were obtained by Shri Matung Tachang with clear intension to participate in the tender on behalf of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise leaves no scope for taking a view that the tender papers in question were obtained for being used by the petitioner firm. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner firm has utilised the tender papers procured in the name of M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise. How a firm like the petitioner with a separate entity could use the tender papers obtained by another firm with its separate entity, is a matter of great question mark. May be they are connected to each other. But this is not the look out of this Court inasmuch as it has already been established that they are separate entities and one entity applied and obtained the tender documents by depositing the requisite fees. The question that has posed for consideration is whether the party is required to apply for and obtain tender documents in its name, individual or corporate and whether it is a precondition to be fulfilled by any intending tenderer. The petitioner relies on para 17.1(1) of Section 17 of the CPWD Works Manual 2007 wilh caption "Sale of Tender Documents" as found in 2007 Edition published by the Director General (Works), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, which reads as under: 17.1(1) The tender documents should be prepared and kept ready for sale to the tenderers before the Notice is actually sent to the press or is pasted on the Notice Board. Every contractor desiring to purchase the tender documents shall be asked to give a written application along with the earnest money deposit in the prescribed manner. It is the responsibility of the Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer to see that tender documents are made available to the contractors as soon as the application is made. The application may be made by the contractors in the prescribed from shown at Appendix 21. 11. It is the responsibility of the Executive Engineer/Assistant Engineer to see that tender documents are made available to the contractors as soon as the application is made. The application may be made by the contractors in the prescribed from shown at Appendix 21. 11. The respondent authorities, on the other hand, relies on para 19.1 of Section 19 of the CPWD Manual (old Edition) with caption Sale of Tender Documents, which reads as follows: 19.1 Tender documents should be prepared and kept ready for sale to the contractors before the NIT is actually sent to the Press or is pasted on the Notice Board and every contractor desiring to tender shall be asked to make a written application. It is the responsibility of the EE to see that tender documents are made available to the contractors as soon as the application is made. The application may be made by the contractors in the prescribed form (Appendix 26). There is no basic difference in the aforesaid provisions in the CPWD Manual cited by the parties. In the new edition as relied upon by The petitioner, there is an addition that earnest money should be deposited in the prescribed manner. In both the provisions aforesaid, the tenderers/contractors are required to make a written application in the prescribed Form, Appendix 21 (in new edition) or 26 (in old edition). In the new edition, appendix 21, the prescribed form, has been provided, which is reproduced below: APPENDIX 21 [Reference para 17.1] APPLICATION FORM To The Executive Engineer,... Division, Subject: Purchase of Tender documents Sir, *I/We am/are registered with the CPWD as Class...contractor/contractors and our Registration No. is ...It is certified that the said registration is valid as on date.... 2. *I/We am/are not registered with CPWD. 3. *I/We am/are registered contractors) with MES/Railways/P&T/State PWD also. Particular of the Authority, class and tender amount/limit up to which I/we am/are eligible to tender are furnished below: It is certified (confirmed) that this registration/these registrations is/are valid as on date and we shall inform the department ourselves as soon as my/our registration expires or is cancelled/revoked. The particulars of work done are furnished/enclosed (for State PWD contractors) *I/We request that permission may be granted to me/us for the purchase of tender document for the work of.... Yours faithfully, (Contractor)* 12. The particulars of work done are furnished/enclosed (for State PWD contractors) *I/We request that permission may be granted to me/us for the purchase of tender document for the work of.... Yours faithfully, (Contractor)* 12. The purpose behind selling of tender documents to parties individually has been incorporated in para 19.25 in Section 19 of the old CPWD Manual and para 17.8(6) of the Section 17 of the new CPWD Manual. For the purpose of comparison, both the old and new provisions are quoted below: Old CPWD Manual 19.25 To avoid the possibility of bogus and fake tenders being submitted, it is necessary that tender documents are sold individually and acknowledgements taken from contractors of their accredited representatives in the sale Register of Tenders, while handing over tender documents to them. In cases, where tender documents are transmitted by post, these should be despatched by Registered AD post. New CPWD Manual 17.8(2) To avoid the possibility of bogus and fake tenders being submitted, it is necessary that tender documents are sold individually and acknowledgements taken from contractors or their accredited representatives in the Register of the sale of Tender Documents while handing over tender documents to them. Where the tender documents are transmitted by post, these should be despatched by Registered AD post/speed post. No basic difference is seen in the aforesaid provisions. What is to be noted is that the tender documents are required to be sold individually with acknowledgements from the parties or authorised representatives who are required to sign in the Sale Register of Tenders. The records show that 6(six) parties/contractors including M/s. T.K. Engineering Enterprise made applications and obtained the tender documents individually and the parties/representatives concerned acknowledged the same by putting signature on the sale Register. As per the counter affidavit of the respondent authorities, 3(three) firms including M/s. HES Infra (P.) Ltd., Hyderabad (present petitioner) submitted their bids. The petitioner's tender was rejected on the ground that it did not purchase tender/bidding documents in its individual name from the office of the respondent No. 3. 13. If the petitioner submission that the parties are not required to apply for and obtain tender/bidding documents in his/its individual firm's name, as the aforesaid provisions in the CPWD Manual are not binding for want of statutory backing, it has to challenge the validity of the aforesaid provisions in the CPWD Manual, but it has not done so. 13. If the petitioner submission that the parties are not required to apply for and obtain tender/bidding documents in his/its individual firm's name, as the aforesaid provisions in the CPWD Manual are not binding for want of statutory backing, it has to challenge the validity of the aforesaid provisions in the CPWD Manual, but it has not done so. Unless the aforesaid provisions in the CPWD Manual is struck down as unconstitutional or invalid by the court of law, the respondent authorities could not be asked not to follow the same or for that matter, the petitioner could not be allowed to interpret the aforesaid provisions in the CPWD Manual to suit its interest in the matter of supply of tender/bidding documents and the submission of tenders as it has done in the present case. 14. This Court happens to decide a case in Jyotish Talukdar v. Union of India and Ors. 1999 (2) GLT 400, in which, the petitioner made an application and despite making an application, he was not issued with tender forms on the ground that it did not fulfil the requisite qualifications but in sharp contrast, tender forms were issued to those who did not apply for or did not have requisite qualifications. In that case, this Court held that the action of the respondent authorities is bias, discriminatory and unfair. In the present case, the petitioner firm could not establish anything to show that the respondent authorities issued tender forms to a party who did not apply for the individual firm and yet accepted it's tender for consideration and that the petitioner alone has been discriminated in a bias and unfair manner. I am afraid that in the present case, the petitioner has been able to make out a case for issuing a direction to the respondent authorities for consideration of his tender along with the valid tenders submitted by the other parties. 15. I have perused from the records the applications submitted by the parties for supply of tender/bidding documents. I found them all in plain papers. They did not use the Appendix 21 or Appendix 26, application form prescribed in either new or old CPWD Works Manual. I have already quoted above the prescribed form for making such application. The applicant has to indicate the class of contractor/contractors with registration number with the CPWD. I found them all in plain papers. They did not use the Appendix 21 or Appendix 26, application form prescribed in either new or old CPWD Works Manual. I have already quoted above the prescribed form for making such application. The applicant has to indicate the class of contractor/contractors with registration number with the CPWD. The applicant has also to certify that the said registration is valid as on the date of application. If he is not a registered contractor(s) under CPWD, he has to disclose it and mention that he is a registered contractor(s) with MES/Railways/P&T/State PWD. The Tender Sale Register maintained by the respondent-Executive Engineer has not incorporated the aforesaid information/particulars of the applicants/tenderers. It must be noted that the approximate value of works is Rs. 7,73,17,000. The Clause 6 of the NIB dated 28th May, 2009 provides that the contractor who fullfills the requirements shall be eligible to (a) he should have satisfactorily completed one similar work during the last five year ending March 2009 costing Rs. 620.00 lakhs and: (b) he should have had an annual financial turn over in any one year during last five year ending March 2009 of value of Rs. 970 lakhs. Although the tender notice does not indicate that the tenderers must be a registered class-1 contractor(s), from the aforesaid requirements, it is easily understandable that tenders have been invited from the class-1 contractor(s) registered either with the CPWD or with MES/Railways/P&T/State PWD. As none of the parties including the present petitioner has applied in the prescribed form aforesaid and the aforesaid particulars are not made available in the records so produced by the learned Senior Government Advocate, it could not be ascertained whether the tenderers, who submitted the tender papers fulfil led the requirements. As per affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, only 2(two) firms, namely, M/s. Tama Fabrication Works., Naharlagun and M/s. L.G. Agarwala, Guwahati were found to have been qualified in the technical bids. As per the statements in the said affidavit, M/s. L.G. Agarwala, Guwahati withdrew its financial bid and there remained only one bidder namely M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, which has been considered for financial evaluation. The court is not apprised as to whether M/s. Tama Fabrication Works is having a valid registration with the CPWD or other Works Department as class-1 contractor. The court is not apprised as to whether M/s. Tama Fabrication Works is having a valid registration with the CPWD or other Works Department as class-1 contractor. Even assuming that M/s. Tama Fabrication Works is a class-1 contractor with valid registration, the amount quoted in the tender by it for the work, in question, is to be looked into. In Paragraph 2(h)(i) of the said counter affidavit of the State respondents, the averments have been made as under: 2(h) That M/s. Tama Fabrication Works, Naharlagun, A.P. has quoted an amount of 8,13,00,395 and 5.15% above amount put to tender of Rs. 7,73,17,000 and below of 0.82% of Rs. 8,19,73,897. As per para 19.4.3.2 of CPWD Works Manual 2007, variation upto 10% over justified amount can be allowed for acceptance and, hence, the amount quoted by M/s. Tama Fabrication is found reasonable and justified. Therefore, the name of M/s. Tama Fabrication is recommended for acceptance by the Cabinet Sub-Committee. However, due to pendency of the instant writ petition work order has not been issued. (i) That in respect of floating tenders, the various department of Government, Arunachal Pradesh follows the CPWD manual. Clause 19.25 of the manual provides that to avoid bogus and fake tenders the tender documents should be sold individually and acknowledgement receipt there of should be kept in record. In the instant case, it is admitted by the petitioner that tender documents was not sold to the petitioner firm and on the other hand claimed that on that grounds his tender documents should be considered. 16. The admitted position so far found is that there were only 2(two) bidders have been found qualified in the technical bids and because of withdrawal of the financial bid by M/s. L.G. Agarwala, Guwahati, the respondents have to recommend for awarding contract in question to M/s Tama Fabrication Works. The decision taken by the respondent authorities in recommending the tender of M/s. Tama Fabrication Works is not amenable to judicial review but the Court can examine the process they have adopted in arriving at the said decision and interfere only when it comes to a conclusion that the matter involves larger public interest. I may appropriately refer to Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 617 . I may appropriately refer to Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 617 . In the present case, M/s. Tama Fabrication Works has quoted the amount above the approximate value of the works and the respondent authorities have tried to justify their decision to recommend the said firm for awarding the contract. Can the work involving value to the tune of about Rs. 8.00 crores be awarded at the higher amount of approximate value as has been sought to be done by the respondents. It can do so only when sufficient qualified bidders offered the tenders. Here in this case, there is no record to show that sufficient number of qualified bidders, as per the norms laid down in the CPWD manual, submitted the tenders. As per record, only 6(six) bidders have come forward without disclosing their status as contractors. It appears that the respondent authorities have not verified the status of the tenderers and their suitability as per CPWD manual. If it is so, it is definitely against the public interest. The public interest demands that the authorities concerned must invite tender for the work in question from the qualified tenderers and offer opportunity of being considered as per their merit and suitability. What is most striking is that M/s. Tama Fabrication Works has been favoured as the lone qualified (?) bidder after M/s. L.G. Agarwala withdrew its financial bid. It means the luck has favoured M/s. Tama Fabrication Works. Such luck cannot be allowed to work in favour of a particular party against the public interest. 17. In view of what has been discussed above, I do not find it fit and proper to allow this petition directing the respondent authorities to give due consideration to the tender of the petitioner as claimed by it. This petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs. At the same time, considering the greater public interest involved, it is considered expedient to direct the respondent authorities to float fresh NIB for the works in question forthwith preferably within a period of 2(two) weeks from today from the eligible parties/contractors specifying all eligibility criteria as per the existing provisions in the CPWD manual and/or existing Government instructions/procedure for settlement of works in the present nature. 18. Registry shall furnish a copy of this judgment and order to Mr. 18. Registry shall furnish a copy of this judgment and order to Mr. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, during the course of the day, for onward transmission to the authorities concerned for compliance. Petition dismissed