JUDGMENT Madan B. Lokur, C.J. 1. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the State of Tripura was entitled to cancel the tender process in respect of High Security Registration Plates on Motor Vehicles, and if so, whether the power was validly exercised. In my opinion, the answer to the first question is in the affirmative but in respect of the second question, the answer is in the negative. In view of the answer to the second question, the prayers in the writ petition must be granted. The Facts 2. On or about 20th August, 2009 Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (the State of Tripura and its officials - hereinafter referred to as the State or the Government) issued a notice inviting tender (NIT) for High Security Registration Plates for Motor Vehicles. The bidders were expected to submit their bid in two parts, the first part being a technical bid and the second part being a price bid or a financial bid. 3. Initially the last date for receiving the bids was 18th September, 2009 but this was eventually extended till 17th May, 2010. By that date, bids were tendered by five entities, namely: (a) Promukh Hoffman International Ltd, (b) M/S Hind Industries Ltd, (c) Akruti Security Plates Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner), (d) Real Mazon, and (e) Tonnejes Eastern Securities Ltd (Respondent No. 6). 4. Clause 2.2 of the NIT provides for the manner of submission of documents. This Clause specifically states that the offer shall be submitted in two separate envelopes numbered and marked on the cover as "Technical Qualification Bid" and "Financial Bid". Both the envelopes are required to be put inside a separate larger envelope marked as "BID FOR HIGH SECURITY REGISTRATION SYSTEM". Clause 2.2 of the NIT specifically provides that any deviation in the manner of submission of documents would lead to disqualification of the bid. 5. Insofar as Real Mazon and Tonnejes Eastern Securities Ltd (Respondent No. 6) are concerned, they submitted their bids in multiple packets, in violation of Clause 2.2 of the NIT. Consequently, their bids were not considered being "informal". Therefore, only three of the original five bids were considered by the State for award of the contract. 6. At this stage, it is important to state that neither Real Mazon nor Tonnejes Eastern Securities Ltd (Respondent No. 6) have challenged their disqualification. 7. Consequently, their bids were not considered being "informal". Therefore, only three of the original five bids were considered by the State for award of the contract. 6. At this stage, it is important to state that neither Real Mazon nor Tonnejes Eastern Securities Ltd (Respondent No. 6) have challenged their disqualification. 7. Clause 2.23 of the NIT provides for the criteria for evaluation of the bids. Clause 2.23.2 provides that an Evaluation Committee would be constituted by the Government of Tripura in the Transport Department for a detailed scrutiny of the bids. Accordingly, the State constituted an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the bids given by the remaining three bidders. 8. On or about 26th August, 2010 the Evaluation Committee examined the technical bid and the financial bid of the three remaining bidders and submitted a rather detailed report, along with its recommendations. 9. The financial bids were to be submitted in Form I and Form II. Clause 2.7.1 of the NIT provides that in Financial Bid Form I the bidder should quote rates for supplying and fixing complete set of registration plates including 3rd registration plate (where required) and snap lock for each category of vehicle. This Clause further states that in Financial Bid Form II the bidder should give item-wise details of rates for the purpose of Individual Registration Plate. The Clause stipulates that the sum total of Financial Bid Form II should not be more than the rate quoted in Financial Bid Form I. 10. Keeping this in mind, the Evaluation Committee concluded, on an examination of Financial Bid Form I, that Hind Industries had quoted the lowest average price among all three bidders. However, on an examination of Financial Bid Form II, the Evaluation Committee found anomalies in the rate quoted by Hind Industries as well as by Promukh Hoffman International Ltd. 11. In its Report/Recommendations, the Evaluation Committee concluded that: It is therefore imperative that both bidders M/s Promukh Hoffman International Ltd. and M/s Hind Industries Ltd. have to be disqualified for inconsistencies in their financial bid. The Evaluation Committee then examined the prices of the High Security Registration Plates in the three States that have implemented the scheme and found that the prices quoted in Tripura are substantially low. Accordingly, the Evaluation Committee recommended that the bid of the Petitioner be accepted with a weighted average price of Rs. 425/- per set. 12. The Evaluation Committee then examined the prices of the High Security Registration Plates in the three States that have implemented the scheme and found that the prices quoted in Tripura are substantially low. Accordingly, the Evaluation Committee recommended that the bid of the Petitioner be accepted with a weighted average price of Rs. 425/- per set. 12. Ordinarily, the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee ought to have been placed for approval before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board in terms of Clause 2.26.1 of the NIT which reads as follows: 2.26.1 Subject to the final approval of the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board, the committee appointed by the Transport Department will evaluate and compare bids determined to be substantially responsive only. 13. However, instead of placing the matter before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board, the Joint Secretary (Transport) examined the matter at his own level and in Note No. 5 [in File No. F.8(1)/TRANS/09/(loose)] dated 10-9-2010 paraphrased the Report/recommendations of the Evaluation Committee and put up the file for consideration. 14. Note No. 5 was then considered by the Special Secretary (Transport) in Note No. 6 on 14-9-2010. This Note is of considerable importance and is, therefore, reproduced below: NOTE No. 6 May kindly see Note No. 5/ante with reference to the letter from HIND INDUSTRIES Ltd at Flag-'A' regarding tender for manufacture and supply of High Security Registration Plate (HSRP). In their letter addressed to the Chief Minister, Hind Industries have alleged that although they have quoted lowest rates, there is a move to scuttle the tender process and they have urged for awarding the contract to them. The factual position regarding their bid has been clarified in Note No. 5/ante. The committee constituted by Transport Department for evaluation of the bids has observed in its report at Flag-'A' that the Hind Industries have quoted the lowest average price. However, the committee did not recommend their bid for acceptance on the ground that there are inconsistencies/anomalies in their financial bid. The bid submitted by Promukh Hoffman International has also not been considered on the same ground and the Committee has recommended the bid submitted by Ackruti Security Plate Pvt. Ltd. and recommended by the committee is higher than the lowest rate quoted by Hind Industries. 2. The bid submitted by Promukh Hoffman International has also not been considered on the same ground and the Committee has recommended the bid submitted by Ackruti Security Plate Pvt. Ltd. and recommended by the committee is higher than the lowest rate quoted by Hind Industries. 2. In the mean time another letter has been received from TONNEJES Eastern Security Technology Pvt. Ltd. in which it is alleged that financial bids of those bidders including M/S Hind Industries whose samples did not meet the requirements of the tender specification have been considered for opening while TONNEJES have not been given a chance to participate in the financial bid. So they have requested for cancelling the tender process. In so far as this allegation is concerned their bids submitted in multiple packets have been found as informal and therefore, their financial bid has not been opened. 3. The fact remains that Hind Industries has quoted the lowest rate but the Committee has not recommended their rate for some technicalities and recommended the rate quoted by the second highest bidder. The Committee has given reasons for such recommendation but if the recommendation is accepted, the unsuccessful bidders may file litigations and the whole process may get stuck. So the better option is to cancel the bidding process and go for fresh tender. While doing so, some changes may be incorporated in the tender document to remove the difficulties faced during this exercise. 4. It is mentioned in this connection that the report containing recommendations of the committee was earlier referred to Finance Department for their views vide Note No. 1-2 ante. Finance Department has advised Transport Department to follow the provisions contained in Delegation of Financial Power Rules of Tripura (DFPRT), 2007. As per relevant provisions of the DFPRT (Rule-22) the matter needs to be placed before appropriate purchase committee (in this case Supply Advisory Board) for decision. 5. Examined the matter with reference to the tender document. As per Clause 2.26 of the tender, the committee appointed by Transport Department is supposed to evaluate the compare bids which are substantially responsive subject to final approval of the Supply/Works Advisory Board. Clause 2.28.1 of the tender document provides that subject to Clause 2.26 i.e. the aforementioned clause, the decision of the government regarding evaluation and award of the bid shall be final and binding on all the bidders. Clause 2.28.1 of the tender document provides that subject to Clause 2.26 i.e. the aforementioned clause, the decision of the government regarding evaluation and award of the bid shall be final and binding on all the bidders. However, Clause 2.28.2 categorically says that the government reserves the right to reject any or all offers received from the bidders with or without assigning any reason. 6. Now it needs to be decided whether the Department can reject all the bids and go for fresh tender invoking the provision of Clause 2.28.2 of the bid document mentioned in para 5 or the matter should be placed before the Supply Advisory Board for examination of the matter and giving its recommendations. We may consult Law Department on this, if desired. Sd/- illegible, 14.09.10 S.S (Transport) Minister (Transport) C.S. pl. see and offer views. Sd/- illegible, 16.09.2010 In view of the facts stated at Para 3 of Note 6, it will be prudent to cancel the process and start the work de novo. Due care should be taken [in respect of the complications faced], while drafting the NIT afresh. Sd/- illegible, 16.09.10 15. As can be seen from the above Note, the Chief Secretary of the State of Tripura was of the opinion that in view of paragraph 3 thereof, it would be prudent to cancel the tender process and to start the work de novo. In coming to this conclusion, the Chief Secretary appears to have relied on Clause 2.28 of the NIT which reads as follows: 2.28. GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO ACCEPT ANY BID AND TO REJECT ANY OR ALL BIDS 2.28.1 Subject to Clause 2.26, the decision of the Government regarding the evaluation, qualification, opening and award of the bid shall be final and binding on all the bidders. 2.28.2 The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers received from the Bidders without any reasons. Although it is not very clear, it does appear that the recommendation of the Chief Secretary was accepted by the concerned Minister. 2.28.2 The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers received from the Bidders without any reasons. Although it is not very clear, it does appear that the recommendation of the Chief Secretary was accepted by the concerned Minister. This seems to be so from a reading of the order dated 18th September, 2010 whereby the State initiated action to issue a fresh NIT for the High Security Registration Plates for Motor Vehicles and the Memorandum dated 12th October, 2010 to the effect that the NIT has been cancelled on technical grounds by exercise of power under Clause 2.28.2 of the NIT. 16. Feeling aggrieved by the cancellation of the entire tender process and the denial of the contract, the Petitioner preferred this writ petition impugning Note No. 6 dated 14-9-2010/16-9-2010 as well as the order dated 18th September, 2010 for initiating a fresh tender process. By a subsequent amendment to the writ petition, the Petitioner challenged the Memorandum dated 12th October, 2010. The Memorandum dated 12th October, 2010 is important and it reads as follows: Government of Tripura Office of the Joint Transport Commissioner Agartala, Tripura MEMO NIT was made on 19.08.2009 in connection with implementation of H.S.R.P. in Tripura has been cancelled by the Govt. in Transport Deptt vide letter No. 8(1)-Trans/2009 dated 12.10.2010 on technical grounds by exercised the power under Clause 2.28.2 of the tender which runs as follows 2.28.2 The Government reserves the right to reject any or all offers received from the Bidders without assigning any reasons. Since the NIT and has been cancelled by the Govt., the bidders who have submitted their bid may take back bid documents alongwith EMD from the office of the undersigned in any working days as early as possible. To 1. M/S HIND INDUSTRIES LTD, B-3, Friends Colony (West) Main Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065 (India), Tel. Ph.098100-26562, Fax-011-26328644 2. PROMUKH HOFFMANN INTERNATIONAL LTD, 2nd Floor, Chakkilam House, 6-3-649/5, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082 Tel. Ph. 040-66668777/66669777 Fax-040-23327983 3. AKRUTI SECURITY PLATES PVT. LTD., Akruti Trade Centre, Road No. 7, MIDC Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Tel. Ph. 022-67037400 Fax-022-67037409 Sd/- 12/10/10 (S. Nama) Joint Transport Commissioner Agartala, Tripura 17. Ph.098100-26562, Fax-011-26328644 2. PROMUKH HOFFMANN INTERNATIONAL LTD, 2nd Floor, Chakkilam House, 6-3-649/5, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500 082 Tel. Ph. 040-66668777/66669777 Fax-040-23327983 3. AKRUTI SECURITY PLATES PVT. LTD., Akruti Trade Centre, Road No. 7, MIDC Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Tel. Ph. 022-67037400 Fax-022-67037409 Sd/- 12/10/10 (S. Nama) Joint Transport Commissioner Agartala, Tripura 17. The Petitioner also prays for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the State to forthwith refer the matter to the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board in conformity with the NIT as well as Rule 22 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2007. 18. At this stage, it is necessary to reproduce Rule 22 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2007. This reads as follows: 22. Rates and contracts- (1) There shall be committees at different levels to recommend rates and terms of contract in respect of stores, services and works in an advisory capacity with officials as given below: (a).... (b).... (c).... (d) The Finance Department shall constitute SUPPLY/WORK, ADVISORY BOARD (SAB/WAB) with the Chief Secretary as the chairman, the Finance Secretary, the Law Secretary and the PWD Secretary as Members. One of the senior officer viz. Spl. Secretary/Addl. Secretary/Joint Secretaries in the Finance Department as nominated from the Finance Department shall be the Member-Secretary. The Secretary of Industries Department shall be a permanent invitee in all meetings. Secretary of the concerned Department (except those Departments which are looked after by the Chief Secretary) and the Head of the Department to which the stores/services/works relates will attend the meeting. This Rule shows that the Government is well represented in the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board. 19. The State of Tripura and Respondent No. 6 filed counter affidavits and sought to justify the cancellation of the NIT. According to Respondent No. 6, the Petitioner has no locus standi to even file the writ petition and also that official notings on the Government files cannot be struck down by this Court. Respondent No. 6 has supported the cancellation of the tender process since it is contended that its bid was wrongly rejected. 20. The State of Tripura has contested the writ petition by stating in its counter affidavit that it has acted bona fide. Respondent No. 6 has supported the cancellation of the tender process since it is contended that its bid was wrongly rejected. 20. The State of Tripura has contested the writ petition by stating in its counter affidavit that it has acted bona fide. As regards placing the matter before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board it is submitted that the said Board would come into the picture only if the Administrative Department decides to go ahead with the tender process. In this case, since the Administrative Department had decided to cancel the tender process, there was no reason for sending the Report of the Evaluation Committee before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board for approval of its decision. 21. Having considered the matter and having heard learned Counsel for the parties in person and by consent through video-conferencing, I am of the opinion that, on the available facts, the writ petition must be allowed on the limited ground that procedurally the Report of the Evaluation Committee ought to have been placed before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board and thereafter the matter ought to have been placed before the Government for a final decision. Discussion 22. It is too late in the day for Respondent No. 6 to challenge the locus standi of the Petitioner to file the writ petition. The Petitioner was declared the only successful bidder and if the tender process is cancelled, only the Petitioner would suffer. Clearly, the Petitioner has a legitimate cause of action in approaching this Court for relief and is clearly a person aggrieved. This issue need not detain me any further. 23. As regards the challenge to certain notings in the official files, no doubt these notings have no "value" per se unless they are communicated or result in an order. This has long been the law since Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395 wherein the Supreme Court held in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the Report that: Indeed, it is possible that after expressing one opinion about a particular matter at a particular stage a Minister or the Council of Ministers may express quite a different opinion, one which may be completely opposed to the earlier opinion. Which of them can be regarded as the 'order' of the State Government? Which of them can be regarded as the 'order' of the State Government? Therefore to make the opinion amount to a decision of the Government it must be communicated to the person concerned.... Thus it is of the essence that the order has to be communicated to the person who would be affected by that order before the State and that person can be bound by that order. For, until the order is communicated to the person affected by it, it would be open to the Council of Ministers to consider the matter over and over again and, therefore, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character. This view has been followed in the decisions cited by learned Counsel, including State of Bihar v. Kripalu Shankar (1987) 3 SCC 34 , Gulabrao Keshavrao Patil v. State of Gujarat (1996) 2 SCC 26 and Sethi Auto Service Station v. Delhi Development Authority (2009) 1 SCC 180 . 24. Unfortunately, none of these decisions are apposite. The fact of the matter is that the official notings resulted in two orders - one dated 18th September, 2010 for initiating a fresh tender process and the other dated 12th October, 2010 cancelling the NIT in purported exercise of powers conferred by Clause 2.28.2 thereof. Therefore, the official notings resulted in orders which were communicated to all concerned. The Petitioner challenges these orders as well as the basis on which these orders were issued. That basis is to be found in the notings, and therefore, the collateral challenge to the notings. But that is hardly of much consequence. 25. The meat of the matter really lies in the exercise of power by the Government in cancelling the NIT. There is a clear distinction between the power to reject any or all bids and the expansive power to cancel the NIT. The first is a narrower power conferred by Clause 2.28 of the NIT and circumscribed by the other Clauses thereof. All or any of the bids can be rejected (for example) if they are "informal" (unacceptable in procedure) or unresponsive (unacceptable in substance). Additionally, the NIT postulates a set procedure to be followed. The set procedure is in three steps: 1. All responsive bids would be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee in terms of Clause 2.23 (Criteria for evaluation of bids). 2. Additionally, the NIT postulates a set procedure to be followed. The set procedure is in three steps: 1. All responsive bids would be evaluated by an Evaluation Committee in terms of Clause 2.23 (Criteria for evaluation of bids). 2. The Report of the Evaluation Committee would be subject to final approval by the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board in terms of Clause 2.26 (Evaluation and comparison of bids). 3. The Government is entitled to reject any or all offers without assigning any reason in terms of Clause 2.28 (Government's right to accept any bid and reject any or all bids). That the Government has the power to reject any or all offers without assigning any reason does not mean that the power is uncanalized or that it can be exercised arbitrarily. It also does not mean that because a reason is not required to be assigned, therefore, a reason need not exist. A reason must exist and that reason is liable to be tested through Article 14 of the Constitution. 26. In Union of India v. Dinesh Engineering Corporation (2001) 8 SCC 491 the Supreme Court held in paragraph 15 of the Report: Coming to the second question involved in these appeals, namely, the rejection of the tender of the writ Petitioner, it was argued on behalf of the Appellants that the Railways under Clause 16 of the Guidelines was entitled to reject any tender offer without assigning any reasons and it also has the power to accept or not to accept the lowest offer. We do not dispute this power provided the same is exercised within the realm of the object for which this clause is incorporated. This does not give an arbitrary power to the Railways to reject the bid offered by a party merely because it has that power. This is a power which can be exercised on the existence of certain conditions which in the opinion of the Railways are not in the interest of the Railways to accept the offer." (emphasis supplied). In paragraph 16 of the Report, the Supreme Court held that in contractual matters, the State should be entitled to some elbow room, but that elbow room is confined by Article 14 of the Constitution. In paragraph 16 of the Report, the Supreme Court held that in contractual matters, the State should be entitled to some elbow room, but that elbow room is confined by Article 14 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held: ...a public authority even in contractual matters should not have unfettered discretion and in contracts having commercial element even though some extra discretion is to be conceded in such authorities, they are bound to follow the norms recognised by courts while dealing with public property. This requirement is necessary to avoid unreasonable and arbitrary decisions being taken by public authorities whose actions are amenable to judicial review. Therefore, merely because the authority has certain elbow room available for use of discretion in accepting offer in contracts, the same will have to be done within the four corners of the requirements of law, especially Article 14 of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied). In the present case, it is not the contention of the State that it has rejected the bid of the Petitioner, although it claims to have exercised power under Clause 2.28 of the NIT. Were that the case of the State, the rejection would have to be tested for its reasonableness and rationale in the context of Article 14 of the Constitution. 27. The case of the Government goes a step further - it has cancelled the NIT itself. Is this permissible? Undoubtedly, the Government has an expansive and inherent power, as an aspect of good governance, to introduce or modify a policy decision. Therefore, it is permissible for the Government to cancel the NIT as a step in policy making. Consequently, the Government is entitled to cancel the tender process in respect of High Security Registration Plates on Motor Vehicles. 28. Having so held, the question really is this: Has the Government validly exercised its inherent power to cancel the NIT or is the exercise of power whimsical and arbitrary? Was there any valid reason to order cancellation of the NIT? The material on record clearly indicates that the cancellation of the NIT has been directed by the State without due application of mind to the facts of the case and it is, therefore, arbitrary. 29. The inherent and larger power with the State to cancel the NIT is also limited by the Constitution. The material on record clearly indicates that the cancellation of the NIT has been directed by the State without due application of mind to the facts of the case and it is, therefore, arbitrary. 29. The inherent and larger power with the State to cancel the NIT is also limited by the Constitution. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Shimnit Utsch India Pvt. Ltd. v. West Bengal Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (2010) 6 SCC 303 as follows: The courts have repeatedly held that government policy can be changed with changing circumstances and only on the ground of change, such policy will not be vitiated. The government has a discretion to adopt a different policy or alter or change its policy calculated to serve public interest and make it more effective. Choice in the balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy lies with the authority. But like any discretion exercisable by the government or public authority, change in policy must be in conformity with Wednesbury reasonableness and free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias and malice. In a case such as the present, the limitation would be the introduction of a policy or the modification of an existing policy. However, it is not the case of the Government that it has exercised this inherent power. The policy remains the same. The necessity of a few changes in the NIT documents, which seems to be in the mind of the Special Secretary (Transport) and the Chief Secretary, cannot be elevated to the status of a change in policy - it only amounts to changes in some terms of the NIT, nothing more and nothing less. 30. Therefore, it seems to me that the State appears to have made a hotchpotch of its narrower power to reject any or all bids under Clause 2.28 of the NIT and its larger power to change a policy decision, with the intention of bringing into play a proposed modified scheme. There is, unfortunately, no correlation between the two in this case and an attempt to integrate them suggests that the apparent objective sought to be achieved is quite different from the ostensible objective. This does not conform to the test of Wednesbury reasonableness, it is impermissible and arbitrary. 31. What then are the alternatives before the State? There is, unfortunately, no correlation between the two in this case and an attempt to integrate them suggests that the apparent objective sought to be achieved is quite different from the ostensible objective. This does not conform to the test of Wednesbury reasonableness, it is impermissible and arbitrary. 31. What then are the alternatives before the State? It has two alternatives - to change its policy (which it has not done, nor apparently does it propose to) or go through with the process as postulated by the NIT. The State did go through with the first stage of the process mentioned above by having the bids evaluated by the Evaluation Committee. However, for some inexplicable reason, the State did not go through with the process at the second stage, which is obtaining the approval (or disapproval as the case may be) of the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board as postulated by Clause 2.26 of the NIT. 32. In this regard, Note No. 6 drew the attention of the State to four viable options: 1. Adherence to Clause 2.26 of the NIT by referring the matter to the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board. 2. Adherence to Rule 22 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules of Tripura, 2007. 3. Adherence to the advice of the Finance Department to the Transport Department to follow these available provisions. 4. Seeking the opinion of the Law Department of the Government. Without even considering any of the various suggested options, the Chief Secretary thought it "prudent to cancel the process and start the work de novo". 33. The reason given by the Chief Secretary for cancelling the tender process is, to say the least, rather specious and based entirely on the contents of paragraph 3 of Note No. 6. What does paragraph 3 of Note No. 6 say? The text of paragraph 3 has been quoted above and it only says that: 1. The Evaluation Committee did not recommend the case of Hind Industries even though its rate was the lowest. This was due to some technicalities. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of this reason, it does appear that the provisions of Clause 2.26.1 of the NIT have completely been overlooked in this Note. 2. If the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee is accepted, the unsuccessful bidders may file litigations and the whole process may get stuck. This was due to some technicalities. Without going into the correctness or otherwise of this reason, it does appear that the provisions of Clause 2.26.1 of the NIT have completely been overlooked in this Note. 2. If the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee is accepted, the unsuccessful bidders may file litigations and the whole process may get stuck. Again without commenting on the correctness or otherwise of this view, cancellation of the bidding process would also lead to litigation and it has actually happened in this case! In Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 2 SCC 588 , the Supreme Court suggested the raising of two questions by the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review, before interfering in tender or contractual matters. The questions mentioned in paragraph 22 of the Report are: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached"; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. 34. It is quite clear to me that the tender process was unreasonably halted mid-way. The decision to do so may not be mala fide or intended to benefit someone - but it was certainly intended to prejudice the Petitioner and that too without any legitimate basis. The reasons for interdicting the process show that the terms of the NIT have not been taken note of by the State, nor have the provisions of Rule 22 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2007, nor have the ground realities been considered, and to halt any process mid-way only because an aggrieved party (in this case perhaps Hind Industries or Respondent No. 6) would knock the doors of the Court is meaningless to say the least. In the given fact situation, it is difficult to accept that the sudden decision to cancel the NIT by the Government was bona fide or in public interest. The State should have allowed the process to go through. 35. In the given fact situation, it is difficult to accept that the sudden decision to cancel the NIT by the Government was bona fide or in public interest. The State should have allowed the process to go through. 35. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that though the State is entitled to cancel the NIT (and it has done so) but the process leading to the cancellation has been vitiated by irrelevant considerations and the State has thereby acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Its decision to cancel the NIT and go in for a fresh tender process must, therefore, be struck down. The Report of the Evaluation Committee deserves to be placed before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board for its approval or disapproval. The NIT held out to all the bidders that a particular process would be followed, namely, that after the Report of the Evaluation Committee, the matter would be placed for approval before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board. There is no valid or cogent reason shown as to why the State chose to depart from the procedure held out to all the participants. No new policy or modification in the existing policy has been shown. Consequently, the laid down procedure as per the NIT is required to be followed by the State. 36. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is right in contending that the process laid down in the NIT is just and fair. It postulates an evaluation of the bids by the Evaluation Committee, a stage which has been crossed in this case. It also postulates the approval or rejection of the Report of the Evaluation Committee by the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board. This stage has been reached, but was short circuited. The circuit must be repaired. 37. Notwithstanding the terms of the NIT, the State is also bound by its Financial Rules. Rule 22 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2007 mandates a committee to recommend rates and terms of contract in an advisory capacity. Absolutely no reason has been proffered by the State to by-pass such a committee while cancelling the NIT. Surely, such a committee consisting, inter alia, of the Chief Secretary could have advised the Government to either accept the Report of the Evaluation Committee or reject it or change its policy altogether. Absolutely no reason has been proffered by the State to by-pass such a committee while cancelling the NIT. Surely, such a committee consisting, inter alia, of the Chief Secretary could have advised the Government to either accept the Report of the Evaluation Committee or reject it or change its policy altogether. No such opportunity was given to the committee which is mandated to look into issues such as the present in terms of Rule 22 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2007. Overreaching the committee has not been justified by the State except to say that the Administrative Department had decided to cancel the tender process, and so there was no reason for sending the Report of the Evaluation Committee before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board for approval of its decision. This is hardly an argument worthy of presenting. This is an additional reason why the actions of the State cannot stand judicial scrutiny. Relief 38. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the State of Tripura to cancel the NIT and go in for a fresh tender is quashed. The State of Tripura is directed to abide by the terms of the NIT, namely Clause 2.26 thereof as well as Rule 22 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 2007. Since the matter has already been examined by the Evaluation Committee, its Report should be placed before the Supply Advisory Board/Works Advisory Board for its final approval, which of course postulates rejection of the Report of the Evaluation Committee, subject to valid and justifiable reasons. 39. It is made clear that since it has been held that the State is entitled to cancel the NIT, it is at liberty to do so, but only in accordance with law. 40. With the above directions the writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.