Order This writ petition has been filed by a person who had participated in tendering but was unsuccessful as his technical bid was rejected resulting in non-consideration of his financial bid. The tenders of the newly added respondents no. 7 and 8 (hereinafter referred as successful bidders, for short) have been accepted and work orders have accordingly been issued to the said respondents. 2. The National Project Construction Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred as NPCC, for short), being a Govt. of India undertaking, had invited tenders consisting of a technical bid and a financial bid by an advertisement dated 16.9.2009. 3. According to the conditions prescribed, the technical bids were to be opened in the presence of the bidders on 22.10.2009 and the financial bids of the successful technical bids were to be opened on 31.10.2009. 4. Admittedly, on 22.10.2009 the technical bids were opened in the presence of the petitioner. The chart prepared on that day, in respect of the bids received, has been signed by the petitioner which confirms his presence at the opening of the technical bids. 5. It is alleged by the NPCC and the successful. bidders that on the same day the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that its accompanying bank guarantee was defective because in the said bank guarantee the issuing bank branch was different from the branch stated to be responsible for the payment to be made under the bank guarantee, if the guarantee was required to be enforced. In support of this contention, the NPCC have filed the photocopy of the aforesaid chart as Annexure 'B' to their counter affidavit filed on 17.2.2010. In the said chart, in the column meant for bank guarantee, just below the details of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner, there is an endorsement which reads as follows: "but defect found in the name of pledge bank" 6. Upon a bare look, this endorsement seems to have been made in a somewhat different handwriting in much smaller letters than the writing on the rest of that document. 7. The petitioner contends that this is a subsequent interpolation in the chart. 8. However, the circumstances mentioned hereafter do not support the petitioner's contention. The circumstances are that a letter of corrigendum by the bank which, although dated 22.10.2009, was received in the office of the NPCC at 3.25 p.m. on 23.10.2009 by FAX. 7. The petitioner contends that this is a subsequent interpolation in the chart. 8. However, the circumstances mentioned hereafter do not support the petitioner's contention. The circumstances are that a letter of corrigendum by the bank which, although dated 22.10.2009, was received in the office of the NPCC at 3.25 p.m. on 23.10.2009 by FAX. It would, therefore, appear that the petitioner became aware of the defect in the bank guarantee on 22.10.2009, where upon he rushed to his bank and arranged for the rectification which was sent by FAX the next day. Further, a letter was sent by the NPCC to the bank on 23.10.2009 informing the bank that the FAX, having been received after expiry of the bid submission time, could not be accepted. A copy of this letter is at the second page of Annexure 'D' series to the aforementioned counter affidavit filed on 17.2.2010. Neither the bank, nor the petitioner, have ,denied receipt of this letter. 9. The bank, having issued the rectification by FAX, in all likelihood would have done so at the instance of the petitioner, because nationalized banks are not so super efficient as to keep checking up on all their previous records to find out whether any error had been committed and rectifying such errors on their own. 10. Therefore, the letter of the NPCC intimating the bank about the unacceptability of the rectification of the bank guarantee must have been communicated by the Bank to the petitioner because it was the petitioner's banker. Even otherwise the petitioner having caused the rectification to be sent would have in the normal course certainly have attempted to find out about the fate of his technical bid pursuant to the rectification. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, it is difficult to accept the petitioner's contention that he remained blissfully unaware of the rejection of his technical bid and the non-acceptability of the rectification FAX in respect of the bank guarantee for the next more than two months i.e. till 29.12.2009 when the financial bids were opened. 12. Being aware of the rejection of his technical bid the petitioner did not take any further steps to challenge the same till the present writ petition was filed on 6.1.2010 after the financial bids were opened and the bids of the respondents no. 7 and 8 were accepted. 13. 12. Being aware of the rejection of his technical bid the petitioner did not take any further steps to challenge the same till the present writ petition was filed on 6.1.2010 after the financial bids were opened and the bids of the respondents no. 7 and 8 were accepted. 13. In the circumstances, I agree with the NPCC and the successful bidders that this delay on the part of the petitioner in availing of the writ remedy amounts to laches allowing rights of third parties (successful bidders) to intervene and is therefore, fatal to the relief sought by the petitioner. In this sequence, it may be mentioned that even now the petitioner has not prayed for quashing of the decision rejecting his technical bid. 14. Although the petitioner does appear to be correct in saying that when under clause 22.5 of the "Instruction to Bidders" the NPCC had reserved to themselves a five day period after opening of technical bids for preparing a chart of the successful technical bids and therefore, in public interest and being public authorities, the NPCC should have allowed the petitioner a short time of one or two days to furnish a fresh bank guarantee free of the technical defect, which was found in it. 15. While as a general rule after the last date of submission of bids, the bidders cannot be allowed to submit supplementary documents as held in PSEB vs. Bhatia International, (2006)13 SCC 284, but a distinction has to be drawn between the information and supporting documents which form part of the conditions of eligibility of the technical bid and the documents, which do not form part of such essential eligibility conditions, but are otherwise required. 16. The reason for making such distinction is that the paramount consideration before the public authorities inviting tenders should be public interest. While opening and considering technical bids the authorities should not adopt a hyper-technical approach of rejecting bids outright on mere technical grounds in respect of the non-essential parts, when the technical defects do not form an essential and integral part of the conditions of eligibility but are peripheral in nature. In fact for one of the bidders, the defect was allegedly allowed to be cured as his bank guarantee amount was less than the requisite amount. 17. In fact for one of the bidders, the defect was allegedly allowed to be cured as his bank guarantee amount was less than the requisite amount. 17. Further, it has to be seen in this case whether the bank guarantee, though defective, was capable of being enforced against the bank which gave the guarantee. No law has been shown to me from the side of the any of the respondents that the bank guarantee as originally given was not enforceable, particularly when read with rectification letter issued by the same bank. The document mentioned the correct name of the Bank with its registered office. The defect pointed out is that the name of a Branch Office of the bank was also mentioned therein which was different from the name of the Branch which issued the document. Now the legal entity bound by the guarantee is the Bank and not the Branch. To demonstrate by example, even if the branch issuing the guarantee were to be closed during the currency of the guarantee, it would still remain enforceable against the Bank as a whole. 18. However, these are factors which could have been taken into consideration for granting any relief to the petitioner if the writ petition had been filed shortly after the rejection of the technical bid. 19. In my opinion, after the petitioner delayed the matter so much as to allow the financial bids to be opened and third party rights to intervene, and those third parties namely the successful bidders have already been issued work orders and have commenced work on the contracts, it is not appropriate to entertain this writ petition for upsetting all that had taken place during this period of delay. 20. In the light of the reasons given above on which this case is being decided the following decisions referred during arguments are not relevant in this case: (1) Siemens Public Communication vs. Union of India, AIR 2009 SC 1204 . (2) Ghulam Rasool vs. State of J&K, SLP (Civil) No. 14126 of 2009 decided on 19.7.2009. (3) Vadi and Patwa vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 Gujarat 100. (4) Noble Resources vs. State of Orissa, 2006 AIR SCW 5408. 21. (2) Ghulam Rasool vs. State of J&K, SLP (Civil) No. 14126 of 2009 decided on 19.7.2009. (3) Vadi and Patwa vs. Union of India, AIR 1993 Gujarat 100. (4) Noble Resources vs. State of Orissa, 2006 AIR SCW 5408. 21. Another question argued from the respondents side was whether a bank guarantee required to be executed on stamp paper under Article 15 (Bond) of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 could be rectified by a letter without the requisite stamp. The question is left open as it is not necessary to be decided in this case. 22. Accordingly, I decline to interfere in this matter in the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.