JUDGMENT : 1. The office of the Superintending Engineer, State Highway Circle-IV, Public Works (Roads) Directorate, Government of West Bengal, respondent no.2 floated a tender for construction of a bridge over river Kaljani (near Balarampur) including approach link at 22 Km. of Dinhata-Balarampur-Chilakhana Road under Coochbehar highway division in the district of Coochbehar (hereafter the project). The estimated cost of the project upon issuance of corrigenda was ultimately reduced from Rs.33,32,13,000/-, as originally fixed, to Rs. 32,05,19,109/-. Consequently, the earnest money was reduced from Rs. 66,64,302/- to Rs. 64,10,400/-. 2. The first petitioner (hereafter the company) along with M/s. Makintosh Burn Ltd., respondent no.3 and Rajpat Contractors & Engineers Ltd., respondent no.4 responded to the tender notice. They were called upon to be present on the occasion of opening of the financial bids. It was found that while the company quoted a rate of 7% above the estimated cost, respondents 3 and 4 quoted 12.88% and 27% respectively above the estimated cost. Since the official respondents considered the rates quoted to be very high, the respondent no.2 by his letter dated 16.3.2010 invited the three interested parties to submit further bids on the lower side. While respondent no.4 did not submit any revised bid, the company expressed inclination to execute the project at 5.5% above the estimated cost whereas the respondent no.3 scaled down its rate from 12.88% above to 12% above the estimated cost. 3. It was one of the express terms and conditions of the tender that “Clause 49. No price preference will be admissible but during evaluation of Tender rates, concession as laid down in the Finance Department Audit Branch notification no.11 F dt. 10.02.2006 will be observed.” 4. Notification dated 10.2.2006 (hereafter the said notification) reads as follows : “ NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power conferred by clause (3) of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following amendment in the West Bengal Financial Rules, Volume-I, as subsequently amended (hereafter referred to as the said Rules), namely : AMENDMENT In the said Rules, for Note-1- The following concessions are allowed to M/s. Mackintosh Burn Ltd., M/s. Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. and M/s. Britannia Engineering Ltd.:- (i) M/s. Mackintosh Burn Ltd., M/s. Westinghouse Saxby Farmer Ltd. and M/s. Britannia Engineering Ltd. shall be eligible to be allowed 10% preference in rate vis-à-vis other organizations engaged in similar activities. Such preference shall, however, be given only for the purpose of selection, but once selected on the basis of such preference, the companies shall have to execute the work at the lowest valid price bid received in the process of selection, failing which orders will be placed with the organization/firm offering the lowest valid rate; (ii) The Companies shall be exempted from submitting earnest money for all tenders from the Govt. of West Bengal, State Govt. Undertakings and Statutory Bodies, directly controlled by the State Government; (iii) Security Deposit for all works controlled directly or indirectly by the State Government and executed by the Companies shall be limited to Rs.1 lakh. By order of the Governor, Sd/- P.K. Guha Roy Special Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department” 5. The petitioners responded to the notice inviting tender without raising any objection in respect of concessions to be made available to the firms/agencies mentioned in the said notification. 6. It is the stand of the official respondents that in terms of the said notification, the respondent no.3 was allowed 10% preference in rate vis-à-vis the rate quoted by the company. The arithmetic works out as follows : The estimated cost = 32,05,19,109/-; Company’s rate (5.5% above the estimated cost) = 33.18 crores; Respondent no.3’s rate (12% above the estimated cost) = 35.89 crores, less 10% = 32.30 crores. 7. The official respondents, thereafter, enquired from the respondent no.3 whether it was willing to execute the project at 5.5% above the estimated cost or not, being the lowest rate received in the tender process from the company. The respondent no.3 signified its willingness. 8. However, before work order/letter of intent could be issued, the petitioners being the company and one of its Directors approached this Court by filing the present petition. The writ petition was admitted. On the undertaking of the official respondents that no work order would be issued in favour of the respondent no.3 till such time the writ petition is finally decided, no interim order was passed. 9. The writ petition has since been finally heard on affidavits. 10. Mr. Sen, learned senior advocate for the petitioners did not advance any argument for invalidating the selection of the respondent no.3 on any of the grounds urged in the writ petition. 9. The writ petition has since been finally heard on affidavits. 10. Mr. Sen, learned senior advocate for the petitioners did not advance any argument for invalidating the selection of the respondent no.3 on any of the grounds urged in the writ petition. He, however, sought to contend that even upon application of the terms of the said notification, the respondent no.3 was not entitled to preference and, therefore, the official respondents deprived the company of its right to be selected for execution of the project. 11. According to him the company, on being invited to submit revised bid, agreed to execute the project at 5.5% above the estimated cost i.e. Rs.1,76,28,551/- plus the estimated cost of Rs.32,05,19.109/-. In terms of the said notification 10% preference vis-à-vis rate would mean 10% of 1,76,28,551/- i.e. Rs.17,62,855/-. The rate quoted by the respondent no.3 at 12% above the estimated cost works out to Rs. 35.89 crores. It is more than Rs.33,99,10,518/-, i.e. Rs.33,81,47,600/- + Rs.17,62,855/-, which is the maximum permissible limit after giving preference of 10% and, therefore, the respondent no.3 should not have been selected at all. 12. In this connection, the contents of paragraph 7 of the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners dealing with the counter affidavit of the official respondents may be noted detailing their calculations. It reads as follows: “With reference to paragraph 3(j) of the said Affidavit I state that my offer to do the entire work is 5.50% which is equivalent to Rs. 33,81,47,660/- (Rs.32,05,19,109/- + 1,76,28,550.995). On the other hand the respondent no.3 had given an offer of 12% which is equivalent to Rs. 35,89,402/- (Rs.32,05,19,109/- +3,84,62,293/-). Hence the respondent no.3 can do the work if they will give a preference of 10% of our rate i.e. Rs. 17,62,855/. So their offer should be Rs.33,99,10,518/ - (Rs.33,81,47,660/- +17,62,855). But their offer is Rs. 35,89,81,402. So even after preference of Rs. 10% their offer is more higher which is against the Government Notification dated 10th February, I further state that after opening of the tender our Company reduced the price to 5.5% whereas the respondent No.2 reduced the price only 0.88%. But still the respondent No.2 on 7th April, 2010 further negotiated with the M/s. Mackintosh Burn Limited and requested the respondent No.3 to do the work at 5.5% which is absolutely illegally, arbitrary, and malafide.” 13. But still the respondent No.2 on 7th April, 2010 further negotiated with the M/s. Mackintosh Burn Limited and requested the respondent No.3 to do the work at 5.5% which is absolutely illegally, arbitrary, and malafide.” 13. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside of the selection of the respondent no.3 for execution of the project and an order on the official respondents to award the work order in favour of the company. 14. Mr. Bose, learned Additional Government Pleader representing the official respondents resisted the petition by contending that no illegality was committed in selecting the respondent no.3 in preference to the company and hence no interference is warranted. He submitted that the revised bid of the company at 5.5% above the estimated cost works out to Rs. 33.81 crores. The respondent no.3 is entitled to a leverage of 10% of Rs.33.81 crores and, accordingly, Rs.37.19 crores is the outer limit. Since the respondent no.3 had offered to execute the project at 12% above the estimated cost i.e. Rs. 35.89 crores, its offer was well within the outer limit for attracting the preference clause mentioned in the said notification. He also contended that if a reverse calculation is made, it would be found that the respondent no.3 indeed was entitled to preference. Preference of 10 % less than the rate quoted by the respondent no.3 i.e. 12% above the estimated cost (Rs.35.89 crores) could be given. If 10% is deducted from Rs.35.89 crores, it works out to be Rs. 33.31 crores, which is less than Rs.33.81 crores offered by the company. 15. He, accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 16. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate representing the respondent no.3 referred to paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by it to impress that the respondent no.3 was rightly entitled to preference. 17. It appears from the said paragraph that a different manner of calculation was adopted by the respondent no.3 to project that its rate was within 10% allowable limit. Relevant portion thereof is quoted below: “9.**** Respondent No.3 was invited to revise the rate in terms of Clause 49 of the Tender Notice as well as in terms of the Notification No.1110-A dt. Relevant portion thereof is quoted below: “9.**** Respondent No.3 was invited to revise the rate in terms of Clause 49 of the Tender Notice as well as in terms of the Notification No.1110-A dt. 10.02.06 particularly in view of the fact that the rate as quoted by the petitioner being 5.5% above (i.e. 105.50% of) above the price Schedule attached to the Tender, 10% thereof comes to 10.55% of the said price Schedule therefore, with 10% preference the quoted rate of the answering respondent can be maximum of 116.05% (i.e. 105.50+10.55) of the price Schedule or 16.05% above the price Schedule, which the answering respondent actually quoted 12% above the price Schedule which is much less than the permissible 10% difference.” 18. Whichever way of calculation one looks at, he contended that there was no infirmity on the part of the official respondents in selecting the respondent no.3. 19. He too prayed that the official respondents may be discharged of the undertaking given to Court so as to enable issuance of work order in favour of the respondent no.3 at the earliest. 20. In reply, Mr. Sen, referred to the said notification and submitted that the same does not permit 10% leverage on the entire amount and, therefore, the entire process suffers from an error of law attracting judicial review. 21. I have heard the parties at length and considered the different calculations made by them. 22. By the said notification, the Government has proceeded to extend concession in favour of the firms/agencies mentioned therein which, inter alia, includes the respondent no.3. Such concession is ordinarily not granted and it may, in an appropriate case, even give ground to a charge of discrimination. However, it is noted that it has not been challenged before the Court. Therefore, no question of pronouncing on its legality, propriety and/or validity does arise. 23. As it stands the terms and conditions of the said notification have to be construed in its widest amplitude and given full effect so that the object for which the concession that is sought to be extended thereby may be derived by the firms/agencies for whose benefit the same has been issued. A restrictive construction of the terms and conditions of the said notification would, therefore, frustrate the object thereof. In other words, the construction that advances the object has to be preferred. 24. A restrictive construction of the terms and conditions of the said notification would, therefore, frustrate the object thereof. In other words, the construction that advances the object has to be preferred. 24. I do not suggest that the calculation worked out by the petitioners is wrong or erroneous. But it admits of no doubt that it is based on a narrow restrictive construction of the said notification and if I accept Mr. Sen’s manner of calculation of rate as mentioned above, that would defeat the object of the said notification. Calculation as per terms and conditions of the said notification, as has been demonstrated by the parties, can be worked out differently providing different results and the manner of application thereof, as adopted by the official respondents, in my opinion cannot be viewed to be absurd or unreasonable. It is settled law that if a clause can be read differently and the manner of reading thereof by the official respondents on being challenged before a Court of law is not found to be absurd or reasonable, and is a plausible one, the Court of Writ would not substitute its views for the view taken by the official respondents. In my considered view, the terms of the said notification in the manner the official respondents have construed it gives maximum leverage so as to achieve the object for which the same has been issued. I do not find the impugned action of the official respondents in selecting the respondent no.3 to be either absurd or unreasonable. 25. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. Undertaking stands discharged. 26. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment and order, if applied for, shall be given to the applicant as early as possible. Later : Prayer for stay of operation of the order has been made by Mr. Roy Chowdhury, learned advocate for the petitioners. The said prayer has been opposed by Mr. Bose and Mr. Banerjee, learned advocates for the State and the respondent no.3 respectively. Having considered such prayer, I find no reason to entertain it. The prayer stands rejected.