JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. (i) The appellant herein, who is a Class-I contractor, registered with the Public Works Department (in short, 'PWD'), Government of Tripura, participated in a tender process, which had been initiated by respondent No. 4, namely, Executive Engineer (EL), Internal Electrification Division, PWD, inviting tenders from the Central and State Public Sector Undertakings/Enterprises and eligible contractors/firms/agencies of appropriate class registered with PWD/TTAADC/MEC/CPWD/Railway/Other State PWD by publishing tender notice, in this regard, dated 23.12.2009, for the work, namely, Construction of Examination Branch at Tripura University Complex, Sujamaninagar/providing concealed internal electrification thereof. The appellant, too, as indicated hereinbefore, participated in the said tender process by submitting his tender in terms of the conditions stipulated in the tender notice and by observing the formalities as required. (ii) In the said tender process, as many as 8 (eight) tenders, including the appellant, had participated by submitting their respective tenders. The tenders were opened, on 26.01.2010, in presence of the tenderers/representatives of the tenderers, the Assistant Engineer concerned as well as the respondent No. 4, namely, Executive Engineer (EL), Internal Electrification Division, PWD, Government of Tripura, Agartala. On opening the tenders, 4 (four) tenders were found to be formal/i.e., out of 8 (eight) tenders/only 4 (four) tenders were found to be in order inasmuch as these tenders had complied with all necessary formalities. Consequently, while the said four tenders were accepted the remaining four tenders were rejected treating them as informal or not in conformity with the requirements as stipulated by the tender notice. (iii) The appellant was found and declared by the respondent No. 4 to be the lowest formal tenderer. Upon preparing the comparative statement, respondent No. 4 recommended to the respondent No. 3, namely, Superintending Engineer 2nd Circle, Government of Tripura, the appellant's tender, for acceptance, treating him as the lowest formal tenderer. On examining the recommendations of the respondent No. 4, respondent No. 3, too, agreed with the recommendations of respondent No. 4 and forwarded the matter to the respondent No. 2, namely, Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Tripura. On examining the recommendations of the respondent No. 4, respondent No. 3, too, agreed with the recommendations of respondent No. 4 and forwarded the matter to the respondent No. 2, namely, Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Tripura. (iv) However, during the period, when the tender of the present appellant was under consideration, for decision, by the Chief Engineer, the appellant came to know, from official source, that, while the matter of issuing work order in favour of the appellant was in progress, respondent No. 2, namely, Chief Engineer, PWD, Government of Tripura, invited one informal tenderer, namely, Ratan Kumar Acharjee, for negotiation without calling any other tenderer including the appellant, though there was no protest or objection by the said Ratan Kumar Acharjee against the declaration of the appellant as the formal lowest tenderer or against declaration of the said Ratan Kumar Acharjee as the informal tenderer. The letter, whereby the ineligible (informal) tenderer, namely, Ratan Kumar Acharjee, was invited for the alleged negotiation, read as under: To Sri Ratan Kumar Acharjee, Ramkrisna Palli, 79 Tilla, Kunjaban, Agartala, Mobile-9436561248. Name of work: Construction of Examination Branch at Tripura University Complex, Surjamaninagar, Providing Concealed internal electrification. Sir, Please make it convenient to meet the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B), Agartala, in his office chamber on 05.04.2010, at 3-30 p.m., in connection with the above mentioned work. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Executive Engineer, Project Circle, PWD (R & D), Agartala (v) A letter was also issued to the respondent No. 4 by the Executive Engineer, Project Circle, PWD (R & D), Government of Tripura, requesting the latter to be present during the discussion to be held, in the office chamber of respondent No. 2, with the said informal tenderer, namely, Ratan Kumar Acharjee. The letter reads as under: To, The Executive Engineer, Internal Electrification Division, PWD (R & D), Agartala. Name of work: Construction of Examination Branch at Tripura University Complex, Surjamaninagar/Providing Concealed internal electrification. Sir, I am directed to request you to remain present with all documents/clarifications related to the above work, during discussion to be held with Sri Ratan Kumar Acharjee, on 05.04.2010, at 3-30 p.m., in the office chamber of the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B). Name of work: Construction of Examination Branch at Tripura University Complex, Surjamaninagar/Providing Concealed internal electrification. Sir, I am directed to request you to remain present with all documents/clarifications related to the above work, during discussion to be held with Sri Ratan Kumar Acharjee, on 05.04.2010, at 3-30 p.m., in the office chamber of the Chief Engineer, PWD (R & B). Yours faithfully, Sd/- Executive Engineer, Project Circle, PWD (R & D), Agartala (vi) The appellant also came to know that the after discussion with the said informal tenderer, Ratan Kumar Acharjee, the Chief Engineer had issued a letter/notice to cancel the earlier Notice Inviting Tender, dated 23.12.2009, with direction to issue tender notice afresh, though the comparative statement reveals that the tender notice was published in as many as seven newspapers, the newspapers being: Dainik Sambad, Agartala; Aajkal (L), Agartala; Jagaran, Agartala; Manash, Agartala;, Tripura Mukh, Agartala; Business Standard, Kolkata; and Pioneer (N-D). (vii) The reasons for inviting a fresh tender, assigned by the Chief Engineer, were, however, as under: (a) competition though made, but not in proper manner which indicate low keenness by the bidders. (b) tender evaluation at the EE level was improper (viii) The appellant further came to know that after discussion with the said informal tenderer, namely, Ratan Kumar Acharjee, the Executive Engineer, Internal Electrification Division, PWD, Government of Tripura, acting upon the communication from the respondent No. 3, which conveyed the decision of the Chief Engineer to cancel the earlier tender and to re-invite tenders for the work, issued a press notice, dated 6.4.2010, re-inviting tender for the work, which was covered by the earlier tender, dated 23.12.2009. (ix) Alleging that the cancellation of the tender, dated 23.12.2009 aforementioned and the direction for issuance of a fresh tender were the result of arbitrariness and mala fide, the appellant filed a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, putting to challenge the order of cancellation of the tender notice, dated 23.12.2009, and the legality of the subsequent tender notice, dated 06.04.2010, aforementioned. This writ petition gave rise to WP (C) 175/2010. This writ petition gave rise to WP (C) 175/2010. (x) The State respondents resisted the writ petition by filing their counter-affidavit, wherein they contended, inter alia, that the appellant-writ petitioner was not the lowest tenderer and that he had no right to get the work inasmuch he had quoted 6% below the estimated cost; whereas the said Ratan Kumar Acharjee's offered rate was 11% below the estimated cost and, hence, it was Ratan Kumar Acharjee, whose tender was, though informal, the lowest tender. The decision to invite fresh tender did not, therefore, suffer from any mala fide or arbitrariness. (xi) The case, as set up by the writ petitioner, did not, however, find favour with the learned Single Judge of this Court, and, by judgment and order, dated 19.04.2011, the writ petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition, the writ petitioner is before us, as appellant, in the present appeal. We have heard Mr. K. N. Bhattacharje, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents. 2. Before we enter into the merit of the present appeal, what needs to be borne in mind is that the validity of any given order has to be examined, in law, on the basis of the grounds mentioned in the order and not on the basis of the grounds, which were not mentioned in the order, or which were subsequently added as grounds. It is also trite that the grounds, assigned in an order, cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Undoubtedly, therefore, the validity of the impugned order must be adjudged by the reasons mentioned in the order of the Chief Engineer and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or by way of arguments raised by the learned Government counsel, for, the subsequently assigned reasons, howsoever attractive the same may be, would, if allowed to prevail, mean that an order, which was bad in the beginning, may, by the time it comes to the Court on account of the challenge put to it, get validated by additional grounds later thought of or brought on record. The Supreme Court, therefore, made this aspect of law clear, in Commissioner of Police Vs. Goverdhan Das Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 , wherein it held: ... The Supreme Court, therefore, made this aspect of law clear, in Commissioner of Police Vs. Goverdhan Das Bhanji, AIR 1952 SC 16 , wherein it held: ... public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities re meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the action and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. 3. The above passage, appearing in Goverdhan Das Bhanji (supra), was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court, in MS Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 409, wherein the Supreme Court further held that the orders are not like old wine, which become better as they grow older. Consequently, it is not open to the authorities concerned, or to the learned counsel for the State respondents, to assign any reason, which did not find mention in the order, whereby issuance of fresh tender was directed by the respondent No. 2, namely, Chief Engineer, PWD. 4. Bearing in mind what have been indicated above, let us come back to the merit of the appeal. While dealing with the merit of the appeal, what attracts our attention, most prominently, is that, according to the State respondents, the appellant was not the lowest tenderer inasmuch as his quoted value was 6% below the estimated cost, whereas the informal tenderer, namely, Ratan Kumar Acharjee, had quoted 11% below the estimated cost. 5. Thus, it was submitted, on behalf of the respondents, in the writ petition, that the appellant was not the lowest tenderer. While considering this aspect of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the submission, which was so made, on behalf of the State respondents, in the writ petition, is wholly untenable in law inasmuch as it is only after determining the validity of a tender that the question of treating the tender as the lowest or the highest tender can arise. If a person's tender is found to be infirm or invalid, the fact that he is the lowest bidder or the lowest tenderer has no meaning at all. If a person's tender is found to be infirm or invalid, the fact that he is the lowest bidder or the lowest tenderer has no meaning at all. This apart, was the allegation, that the present appellant was not the lowest bidder, a sound reason for calling of a fresh tender? The answer to this pointed question has to be an emphatic 'No' inasmuch as the reasons, which have been assigned by the Chief Engineer, in his order, dated 06.04.2010, while calling for fresh tender, do not mention at all that the present appellant was not the lowest tenderer. Furthermore, the said Ratan Kumar Acharjee could not have been, and ought not to have been, treated as the lowest tenderer, when his tender had been found to be informal. What is also curious to note is that even the said informal tenderer, namely, Ratan Kumar Acharjee, had not protested to his being regarded as an 'informal tenderer'. 6. Thus, over zealousness, on the part of the Chief Engineer, to call an informal tenderer, such as, Ratan Kumar Acharjee, for negotiation is astounding, particularly, when no reason, far less convincing reason, for calling the informal tenderer (Ratan Kumar Acharjee) has been assigned nor is any reason/explanation discernible, in this regard, from the materials on records inasmuch as the letter, addressed to Ratan Kumar Acharjee, merely requested him to make it convenient to meet the Chief Engineer in the latter's office chamber, on 05.04.2010, at 3.30 p.m., in connection with the tender work, in question, and following this meeting, the decision to call for a fresh tender was conveyed, on 6.4.2010, by the Superintendent Engineer, Project Circle, PWD (R & B), addressed to the Superintending Engineer, 2nd Circle, PWD (R & B). This cannot, but be regarded as wholly arbitrary and mala fide inasmuch as the actual reason or reasons for cancellation of the tender process, which was initiated by the tender notice, dated 23.12.2009, has remained unassigned till date. 7. Coupled with the above, the comparative statement, prepared in the present case, shows that the tender notice, had been published, as already mentioned above, in as many as 7 (seven) newspapers. It is also not the case of the respondents that those newspapers do not have adequate circulation. 7. Coupled with the above, the comparative statement, prepared in the present case, shows that the tender notice, had been published, as already mentioned above, in as many as 7 (seven) newspapers. It is also not the case of the respondents that those newspapers do not have adequate circulation. One could have, perhaps, upheld the Chief Engineer's decisions to call for afresh tender, but for the fact that this decision was ex facie arbitrarily taken after the Chief Engineer's meeting, on 05.04.2010 at 3.30 p.m., with Ratan Kumar Acharjee, who had already been declared as an informal tenderer in the same tender process. Why Ratan Kumar Acharjee, in particular, was called for the said meeting, despite his having been declared an informal tenderer, has not been explained by the State respondents nor is there any plausible reason discernible form the materials on record and this important and unexplained aspect of the conduct of the State respondents, particularly, that of the Chief Engineer, appears to have completely escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. 8. The power of judicial review of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed not against a decision, but the decision-making process. If an administrator, in any process of decision making, takes into account an irrelevant factor, the decision would become bad in law. Similarly, if the administrator does not take into account a factor, which is relevant, then also, the decision is bad in law. An administrative decision, in order to become valid, has to take into account all factors, which are relevant, and must keep excluded from the purview of consideration every such factor, which is irrelevant. 9. In the case at hand, in the face of complete silence maintained by the Chief Engineer as to why Ratan Kumar Acharjee, whose tender had already been declared as an informal tender, was called for a meeting in connection with the work, covered by the impugned tender, one has no option but to hold, and we do hold, that the undisclosed reason is a glaring example of an arbitrary exercise of power by the Chief Engineer. 10. 10. Coupled with the above, the arbitrary exercise of power by the Chief Engineer is also marred by mala fide inasmuch as there is no reason for him for not approving the recommendations, which had been made by respondent No. 4 and, agreed to by respondent No. 3 as regards acceptance of the tender of the present appellant. The grounds, assigned by the Chief Engineer for not approving the recommendations and/or for taking the decision to go for re-tender (as quoted by the Superintending Engineer, in his letter, dated 06.04.2010, aforementioned) were, (a) competition though made, but not in proper manner which indicate low keenness by the bidders, and (b) tender evaluation at the EE level was improper. However, what would have been the proper manner for inviting tender and how the tender evaluation process, at the level of the Executive Engineer, improper, have not been indicated in the said order. Thus, how the Chief Engineer came to such conclusion, is a mystery. No ground/reason, which has been subsequently assigned by the learned Government counsel, can fulfill the omission, which took place in the Chief Engineer's order. However, all these aspects, which are of utmost importance, appear to have, if we may reiterate, wholly escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge at the time of dealing with the writ petition. The learned Single Judge apparently has fallen in error in treating the tender of Ratan Kumar Acharjee as a formal tender, when his the tender, having already been found to be infirm, could not have been, and was rightly not, treated as the lowest tender by respondent No. 4 and 3, namely, Executive Engineer (EL), Internal Electrical Division, and the Superintending Engineer, 2nd Circle, respectively. It may also be reiterated here that even Ratan Kumar Acharjee did not raise objection to his being regarded as an informal tenderer. When, thus, the tender of Ratan Kumar Acharjee was informal or infirm, he could not have been regarded as the lowest tenderer howsoever low might have been the value quoted by him. 11. Though, relying upon the decision in Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. When, thus, the tender of Ratan Kumar Acharjee was informal or infirm, he could not have been regarded as the lowest tenderer howsoever low might have been the value quoted by him. 11. Though, relying upon the decision in Poddar Steel Corporation Vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors., reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273 , the learned Single Judge has, it appears, come to the conclusion that solvency certificate, in the present case, was not an essential condition of the tender notice, we find it difficult to sustain this reasoning inasmuch as a person cannot be awarded a work unless he is solvent and, if in terms of the tender notice, requisite solvency certificate is not submitted by a tenderer, he, can, by no means, be regarded as a tenderer fit for being awarded the contract work Poddar Steel Corporation's case (supra) is a case, where a cheque had been submitted instead of Demand Draft and/or cash, as the earnest money for the tender. While considering applicability of the decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) to the case at hand, we have no doubt that although, even by way of cheque the interest of the authority, inviting tender, can be protected solvency certificate is mandatory for the purpose of determining financial soundness of the tenderer or for reaching the conclusion that the tenderer concerned would, when awarded the contract work, be able to execute the contract work Solvency certificate cannot, therefore, be treated to be a mere formality or an unessential eligibility solvency certificate. The fact that Ratan Kumar Acharjee knew, that his tender had been regarded as informal inasmuch as he had not submitted solvency certificate, is apparent from the fact that he did not agitate to the rejection of his tender, because of the fact that he had not submitted solvency certificate; rather, he remained silent. However, while Ratan Kumar Acharjee remained silent record, the Chief Engineer, for unexplained and unknown reasons, called Ratan Kumar Acharjee for discussion and, following the discussion, which took place between the Chief Engineer and Ratan Kumar Acharjee, the earlier tender process was cancelled and a fresh tender process was directed to be resorted to. If this act of the Chief Engineer cannot be regarded as arbitrary and mala fide, we wonder what other acts can be treated as arbitrary and mala fide. 12. If this act of the Chief Engineer cannot be regarded as arbitrary and mala fide, we wonder what other acts can be treated as arbitrary and mala fide. 12. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, more particularly, the respondents having not been able to assign any sustainable, reason for taking the decision to invite tender afresh, we are of the firm view that the decision of the respondents to go for a fresh tender process cannot be sustained and must be set aside and quashed. Consequently, we hereby set aside and quash the tender notice, dated 06.04.2010 (i.e., the second tender notice) and direct the State respondents to proceed with the tender process in terms of the recommendations, made by the respondent Nos. 4 and 3 pursuant to the tender notice, dated 23.12.2009. 13. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order, dated 19.04.2011, shall also accordingly stand set aside. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed