JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned Standing counsel, Gauhati University, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ application was taken up for disposal at the admission stage. 2. This writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the provisional work order/letter dated 12/12/2011 (Annexure-VI to the writ petition), issued by the Superintending Engineer, Gauhati University for Shifting and Reconstruction of Aquaculture and Bio-Diversity Project of Gauhati University for works mentioned against NIT No. T/11-12/217 dated 27/9/2011. 3. The case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that he is a registered contractor under Class-1 (A) category under Assam Public Works Department, for short, APWD, having long experience in handling and executing big contracts and he owns/has necessary resources to take on lease equipments and machineries to complete successfully such contracts. It is stated that the petitioner, to his credit, has completed construction/improvement works of more than Rs. 7 crore against one single work order. 4. In response to a Short Notice Inviting Tender (NTT), issued by the respondent No. 4, published in a local daily newspaper, "Assam Tribune", in its issue dated 29/9/2011, inviting sealed tenders in two bid system from financially sound contractors/firms/individuals having adequate infrastructure facilities including machineries to carry out works indicated therein in connection with Shifting and Reconstruction of Aquaculture and Bio-Diversity Project of Gauhati University to be received till 2.00 p.m. on 14/10/2011, the petitioner submitted his tender within the stipulated time with necessary documents and furnishing information as required in terms of the NIT. 8 other tenderers had also submitted tender in respect of the work and on 17/11/2011, the technical bids were opened and at the time of opening of the technical bids, the representative of the petitioner was also present. Technical bids in respect of 5 tenderers were rejected and the technical bid of the petitioner was approved and on 22/11/2011, respondent No. 4 informed 4 tenderers including the petitioner to appear before a Committee from 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. with all documents in original for verification at the Executive Committee chamber of Gauhati University. Technical bids in respect of 5 tenderers were rejected and the technical bid of the petitioner was approved and on 22/11/2011, respondent No. 4 informed 4 tenderers including the petitioner to appear before a Committee from 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. with all documents in original for verification at the Executive Committee chamber of Gauhati University. On due verification, the documents furnished by the petitioner were found to be valid on comparison with the originals and therefore, the petitioner was legitimately expecting that he would be called by the respondent authorities for opening of his price bid. On 10/12/2011, in the evening hours, he learnt from a reliable source that the price bid of the respondent No. 5 was opened by respondent authorities without any intimation to the petitioner and the authority had also decided to award the contract to him. Subsequently, the respondent No. 4 had issued a provisional work order dated 12/12/2011 in favour of the respondent No. 5 directing the respondent No. 5 to start the work within 3 days from the date of issue of the letter, which, as has been noted earlier, is the subject matter of challenge of the instant writ petition. 5. It is stated that the respondent No. 5 is a second class contractor who was registered with APWD barely 6 months prior to the submission of tender and he could not have been awarded the work in question, valued at more than Rs. 2 crore in view of the fact that under the APWD norms, a person/contractor belonging to second class category cannot be awarded a contract above Rs. 1 crore. 6. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had filed an affidavit, to which a reply affidavit has also been filed by the writ petitioner. No reply affidavit has been filed to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 5. 7. In the affidavit, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had pleaded that the petitioner could not furnish original documents relating to contract of Vibratory Roller, Road Roller, Water Pump Sets, etc and categorically denied the assertions of the petitioner regarding submission of all original documents. It is pleaded that as per clause 2 of qualifying criteria for technical bid, the petitioner failed in technical part of the bid. It is pleaded that as per clause 2 of qualifying criteria for technical bid, the petitioner failed in technical part of the bid. Though the petitioner was found to be eligible along with 3 other tenderers in respect of the technical bid, the Technical Bids Evaluation Committee had decided to take a final decision only after proper verification of the original documents and accordingly, a letter dated 22/11/2011 was issued requiring the 4 eligible tenderers to appear before the committee, indicating specifically that in the event of failure to produce the original documents before the committee, the tender may be treated as cancelled. After examination of the original documents submitted by the tenderers, a list of Tool and Plants (T&P) available with the tenderers was prepared in a tabular form by the Technical Bids Evaluation Committee. Another meeting of the Technical Bids Evaluation Committee was held on 1/12/2011 and they had scrutinised the comparative statement prepared on 24/11/2011 and it was recorded that respondent No, 5 had fulfilled all the qualifying criteria under clause 2 of NIT for technical bid. In respect of the petitioner, it was indicated that he partially fulfilled the aforesaid qualifying criteria. The Construction Committee, thereafter, in the meeting held on 10/12/2011, vide Resolution No. 103 (i) accepted and approved the price bid of respondent No. 5 and resolved to allot the work to respondent No. 5 as per price bid and offer of rebate. By provisional work order dated 12/12/2011, the respondent No. 5 was requested to start the work within 3 days from the date of issue of the said order and submit necessary tender agreement before execution of the work. The letter was received by respondent No. 5 on 12/12/2011 and a formal agreement was also signed on 13/12/2011. It has also been stated that respondent No. 5 had given rebate of 10% over his quoted rate with his financial bid. 8. The respondent No. 5, in his affidavit, has justified the action taken by University authorities rejecting the technical bid of the writ petitioner and also in allotting the work order to him. It has also been stated that 90% of the work 'was under completion. 9. In the reply affidavit by the petitioner against the affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the petitioner has reiterated that all original documents were placed before the committee. It has also been stated that 90% of the work 'was under completion. 9. In the reply affidavit by the petitioner against the affidavit of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the petitioner has reiterated that all original documents were placed before the committee. It is also been stated that while the respondent No. 5 had offered 10% less than the estimated value, the petitioner had offered 23% less than the estimated value. It has also pleaded that technical bid of respondent No. 5 ought to have been declared unqualified as the respondent No. 5 did not submit the registration number of JCB. It is also pleaded that there was no third meeting of the Technical Bids Evaluation Committee on 1/12/2011 and the respondent No. 4 had only for-warded the name of respondent No. 5 to the construction committee. 10. Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities had illegally rejected the technical bid of the petitioner on the purported ground of his technical bid not being in compliance with clause 2 of the NTT relating to technical bid. On the other hand, the respondent No. 5 having not given the registration number of the JCB, the technical bid of the respondent No. 5 could not have been considered to be valid and therefore, the impugned provisional work order issued in favour of respondent No. 5 requires to be interfered with. The learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent authorities acted illegally in accepting the offer letter for rebate after opening of tender. It is also his submission that the respondent authorities wanted to grant undue favour to the respondent No. 5 is apparent from the fact that even before the respondent No. 5 executed the formal agreement, the respondent No. 5 had started work. The learned senior counsel submits that his technical bid being valid, respondent authorities committed manifest illegality in not opening the price bid of the petitioner and in only opening the bid of the respondent No. 5. The learned senior counsel also questions the credentials of the respondent No. 5, who is only a second class contractor and who does not have any experience to be allotted the work in question. The learned senior counsel also questions the credentials of the respondent No. 5, who is only a second class contractor and who does not have any experience to be allotted the work in question. The learned senior counsel contends that the petitioner has impeccable track record and the petitioner has been deliberately disqualified in the technical bid without any justifiable reason, only to subserve the interest of the respondent No. 5. 11. Mr. L.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the University authorities by following a transparent procedure, having found the technical bid of the respondent No. 5 to be only responsive, proceeded to open the price bid of the respondent No. 5 and had, accordingly, allotted the work in question to him. He submits that the petitioner did not produce all the original documents at the time of verification on 24/11/2011. He has also contended that there is no illegality on the part of the respondent authorities in accepting the rebate offered by respondent No. 5 which was a part of the tender documents. The learned counsel submits that no case is made out by the petitioner for interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel places reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 and in the case of Siemens Public Communication Network Pvt. Ltd and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2008) 16 SCC 215 to impress upon this Court the scope of judicial review in a matter relating to award of contract. 12. Mr. Sharma has also produced the relevant records for the perusal of this Court. 13. Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that there was no requirement in the NIT that only 1st class contractor registered under APWD can tender for the work. The learned counsel endorses the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and further contends that the work in question is on the verge of completion and/therefore, in public interest, the impugned order should not be interfered with at this stage. 14. The learned counsel endorses the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and further contends that the work in question is on the verge of completion and/therefore, in public interest, the impugned order should not be interfered with at this stage. 14. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record and the records produced by Mr. Sharma. 15. Contrary to what has been stated in the reply affidavit that there was no third meeting of Technical Bids Evaluation Committee on 1/12/2011, the record reveals that the members had assembled and all the members had duly signed the attendance sheet and the resolution was signed by the Registrar, Gauhati University. It is not correct that it was the handiwork of respondent No. 4, who had, all by himself, forwarded the comparative statement to the Construction Committee with observations of the so called meeting dated 1/12/2011. 16. A perusal of the T & P as prepared by the Technical Bids Evaluation Committee shows that it is not correct as has been contended in the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent No. 5 did not submit any registration number regarding his JCB. The registration of the JCB is reflected in the said T & P and Certificate of Registration is also available in the records made available by Mr. L.P. Sharma. 17. The NIT dated 29/9/2011 invited sealed tenders from financially sound contractors/firms and individuals having adequate infrastructure facilities including machineries to carry out the work in connection with Shifting and Reconstruction of Aquaculture and Bio-Diversity Project, which has the following 5 components : (a) Earth filling work in proposed Bio-Diversity Park (G.U.) (b) Construction of pond dike by earth filling (c) Construction of ponds of aqua hatchery (d) Construction of Master drain (e) Construction of A.T. Building (Remaining work). 18. The NTT does not stipulate that only Class-1 contractors of APWD would be entitled to participate in the tender process. Therefore, the mere fact that the respondent No. 5 is a 2nd class contractor under APWD will not make him ineligible to participate in tender process. 19. The NTT also indicated the qualifying criteria for technical bid, which is as follows: Qualifying criteria for technical bid : 1. Experience of successfully completing similar works of total value not less than Rs. 19. The NTT also indicated the qualifying criteria for technical bid, which is as follows: Qualifying criteria for technical bid : 1. Experience of successfully completing similar works of total value not less than Rs. 50 lakhs in construction of same type of project during last 3 (three) years. 2. The tenderer must have his own infrastructure facilities and machineries like JCB; Dumper truck; Vibratory roller; Excavator; water pump set, shovel etc required for timely completion of the above work. 3. Experience in similar types of work executed in Academic Institution like University, College etc. 20. Time for completion of the work was fixed at 60 days from the date of issue of written order to commence work/work order/letter of acceptance of tender. The part-A containing the techno-commercial part of the bid, in terms of clause 7 of the General Conditions of Contract, was to be opened at the Executive Council chamber of Gauhati University in presence of the intending tenderers or their authorised representatives and part-B of the tender was to be returned to the tenderers who are found to be under qualified after opening of part-A. Clause 2 of the General Conditions of Contract provides that no request of any change of rates shall be entertained after receipt of the tender. Perusal of the records demonstrates that along with his tender, the respondent No. 5 had also offered rebate of 10% and it is not that he had offered rebate of 10% after tenders were opened. Initially, Technical Bids Evaluation Committee had short listed 4 tenderers including the petitioner for verification of the documents and, accordingly, on 24/11/2011, all the aforesaid tenderers were directed to produce the original documents. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in paragraphs 8 and 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition had listed the items in respect of which the petitioner did not produce the original documents. In para 28, additionally, it was also stated that the petitioner did not submit any document in respect of Vibratory Roller, which is the most essential item for compaction of earth. The petitioner, in his reply affidavit, contended that though trucks and rollers are not necessary equipments, he had submitted the list of the same. With regard to Vibratory Roller, it was stated that Vibratory Roller as well as Tendem Roller is one and similar equipment. 21. The petitioner, in his reply affidavit, contended that though trucks and rollers are not necessary equipments, he had submitted the list of the same. With regard to Vibratory Roller, it was stated that Vibratory Roller as well as Tendem Roller is one and similar equipment. 21. A perusal of the qualifying criteria for technical bid as indicated in the NIT shows that the tenderer must have his own JCB, Dumper Truck, Vibratory Roller, Excavator, Water Pump Set, Shovel etc. It appears from the documents annexed with the tender of the writ petitioner that an invoice of Greaves Cotton Ltd. was enclosed stating the same to be in respect of Vibratory Roller. However, the invoice shows that the same was in respect of Tendem Roller. No documents have been produced either before the Technical Bids Evaluation Committee along with tender or even before this Court to establish that Vibratory Roller and Tendem Roller are one and the same thing. The position that emerges is that the petitioner did not submit any document with regard to Vibratory Roller and therefore, it is not necessary to examine whether the petitioner failed to produce other documents as indicated in paragraphs 8 and 28 of the affidavit-in-opposition. 22. The scope of judicial review in the matter of award of contracts is very limited and the Court will exercise discretion only when it is satisfied that the action of the public authority is detrimental to public interest. 23. In Jagdish Mandal (supra), the Apex Court at paragraph 22 observed thus : Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made "lawfully" and not to check whether choice or decision is "sound". When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public, interest, Courts will not, in exercise of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural evaluation or error in assessment of prejudice to tenderer, is made out. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public, interest, Courts will not, in exercise of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural evaluation or error in assessment of prejudice to tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes The tenderer or contractor can always seek damages in a Civil Court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of mole hills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade Courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour some one; 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. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of state largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealership and franchise) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action. 24. In Siemens (supra), in paragraph 40, the Supreme Court stated thus : On examining the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that none of the criteria has been satisfied justifying Court's interference in the grant of contract in favour of the appellants. When the power of judicial review is invoked in the matters relating to tender or award of contracts, certain special features have to be considered. When the power of judicial review is invoked in the matters relating to tender or award of contracts, certain special features have to be considered. A contract is a commercial transaction and evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. In such cases principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contracts is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts will not exercise the power of judicial review and interfere even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that there is a procedural lacuna. 25. In the affidavit-in-opposition which was filed on 18/5/2012, in paragraphs 9 and 32, while it was stated that 60% of the work was completed, in paragraph 21, it was stated that more than 35% work was already completed. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had submitted that the word 35% was wrongly typed and the same should have been typed as 60%. 26. The affidavit of respondent No. 5, filed on 4/2/2012, shows that almost 90% of the work was under completion. As noted earlier, there was no rebuttal affidavit to the affidavit of the respondent No. 5. 27. In View of the aforesaid discussions, the provisional work order dated 12/12/2011 issued by the respondent No. 4 does not require interference in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and accordingly, the writ petition shall stand dismissed. No. cost. Petition dismissed