JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. The work order being No. E-TENDER/2010- MSRRDA/VII/UKL/P-936/610 dated 21st March, 2011 issued by the respondent No. 2, Chief Engineer, Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency (MSRRDA) for the package No. MNO 936 of the PMGSY Phase No. VII of Ukhrul District, Manipur (Kharasom to Soraphung) in favour of respondent No. 3, Shri Khasim Vashum, had been put to challenge in the writ petition. Heard Mr. A. Sachikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Th. Ibohal, learned senior GA appearing for respondent No.1, Mr. Jalal Uddin, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Ms Puspa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. The Government of India launched a scheme called "Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana" (PMGSY) on 25th December, 2000 to provide all weather access to unconnected habitations. The primary objective of the PMGSY is to provide connectivity by way of an all weather road (with necessary culverts and cross-drainage structures, which is operable throughout the year), to the eligible unconnected habitations in rural areas in such a way that all unconnected habitations with a population of 1000 persons and above are covered in three years (2000- 2003) and all unconnected habitations with a population of 500 persons and above by the end of the Tenth Plan Period (2007). In respect of the Hill States (North-East, Sikkim, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Uttaranchal) and the Desert Areas (as identified in the Desert Development Programme) as well as the Tribal (Schedule V) areas, the objective would be to connect habitations with population of 250 persons and above. 3. The PMGSY permits up-gradation (to the prescribed standard) of existing roads in those districts where all the eligible inhabitants of the designated population size have been provided all weather road connectivity. Ukhrul District is one of the districts in Manipur where connectivity to inhabitants are still poor and certain remote areas have no road to connect the district headquarters, as such, Ukhrul District is also one of the beneficiaries of the said PMGSY scheme of the Government of Manipur 4. As per the guidelines issued by the Central Government, the State Government would identify one or two suitable agencies. As per the guidelines issued by the Central Government, the State Government would identify one or two suitable agencies. For the State of Manipur, Manipur State Rural Road Development Agency (MSRRDA for short) established and constituted under the control and jurisdiction of the Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, Government of Manipur is the implementing Agency for such road under the PMGSY scheme. The respondent No. 2 (Chief Engineer, MSRRDA) issued notice inviting tender under NIT No. E-TENDER/PMGSY/01/PH-VII/2009-10 dated 27th March, 2010 through E-Tendering system for the Package No. MN0 936 (Kharasom to Soraphung) of PMGSY Package No. VII from eligible candidates for execution of contract work. 5. As per Standard Bid Documents/guidelines of PMGSY the authority will award the contract to the bidder whose bid has been determined: (i) to be substantially responsive to the bidding documents and who has offered the lowest evaluated Bid price, provided that such Bidder has been determined to be (a) eligible in accordance with the provisions of S.B.D (Standard Bidding Documents) and the instructions to the bidders (ITB), and (b) qualified in accordance with the provisions of S.B.D and I.T.B and (ii) to be within the available bid capacity adjusted to account for his bid price which is evaluated the lowest in any of the packages opened earlier than the one under consideration. 6. Bidders are categorized depending upon the bid amount offered in their financial bids as L 1, L 2, L 3, L 4 and L 5 and so on. The lowest bidder is identified as L 1, second lowest as L 2 and third lowest as L 3 etc. The eligibility for consideration of the award of contract has been considered amongst the bidders whose financial bid amount is within '-5' and does not exceed '+5' of the estimated cost. '-5' is to be determined by applying estimated cost by 0.05 and '+5' is to be determined by multiplying standard cost by.05. If the eligible bidders within the aforesaid '-5' and '+5' are tie in financial bids, consideration of the award is to be determined in accordance with Clause 30.2 of the S.B.D. In case bid amount in a particular category exceed more than +5% of the amount worked out on the basis of the current schedule rate plus (or minus), the enhancement (or decrease) on account of relevant cost index, is to be recommended by the concerned Chief Engineer, CPWD. Excess beyond 5% and up to 10% only may be permitted with the prior approval of next higher authority. 7. For easy reference, clauses 29, 29.1, 30, 30.1, 30.2, 30.3 of the SBD are reproduced hereunder: 29. Award Criteria 29.1 Subject to Clause 31 of the ITB, the Employer will award the Contract to the Bidder whose Bid has been determined: i. to be substantially responsive to the bidding documents and who has offered the lowest evaluated Bid price, provided that such Bidder has been determined to be (a) eligible in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3 of ITB, and (b) qualified in accordance with the provisions of Clause 4 of ITB; and ii. to be within the available bid capacity adjusted to account for his bid price which is evaluated the lowest in any of the packages opened earlier than the one under consideration. 30. Employer's Right to Accept any Bid and to Reject any or all Bids 30.1 Notwithstanding Clause 29 above, the Employer reserves the right to accept or reject any Bid, and to cancel the bidding process and reject all bids, at any time prior to the award of Contract, without thereby incurring any liability to the affected Bidder or bidders or any obligation to inform the affected Bidder or bidders of the grounds for the Employer's action. 30.2 In case of tie in the Financial Bid preference will be given to the Bidders who score higher marks in the Technical Bid. The Financial Bid for the Maintenance component also will be given due weightage while evaluating the over-all Financial Bid. The decision of Employer in any case, will be final. 30.3 Evaluation/Acceptance of the Financial Bids of the Bidder, will be generally governed by sub clause 18.4.3.3 of Chapter 18 of CPWD Operation Manual 2003 which is reproduced below: Clause 18.4.3.3 of CPWD Operation Manual-2003: Where the items included in the tender are available in the current Schedule of Rates, the amount of tender to be accepted does not exceed by more than 5% of the amount worked out on the basis of the current schedule of Rates plus (or minus) the enhancement (or decrease) on account of relevant cost index, authorized by the concerned Chief Engineer, CPWD. Excess beyond 5% and upto 10% only may be permitted with the prior approval of next higher authority. 8. Excess beyond 5% and upto 10% only may be permitted with the prior approval of next higher authority. 8. In response to the NIT through e-tendering system for the said contract work i.e. No. MN0 936 (Kharasom to Soraphung), petitioner and others had submitted their bids. The comparative statement of bidders i.e. (petitioner, respondent No. 3 and others) for the said contract work i.e Package No. MN0 936 was circulated through the website of the department, which read as follows: Total in Figures Total in Percentage Lowest Amount Quoted By: Kavei Lamchaopou, Vareiyo V.S,Ms Continental Construction and Name of Work: Kharasom to Soraphung District Ukhrul Package No: MN0 936 Time Allowed:18 months Road Length:15.00 km. Approx. Estt Summary Details Sl. No. Bidder Name Amount Bid Rank Sheet Name 1. Kavei Lamchaopou 3,69,60,567.50 L1 BoQ1 2. Vareiyo V.s 3,69,60,567.50 L1 3. Mingthing Horam 3,69,60,567.50 L1 4. Ms Continental Con-struction and Co 3,69,60,567.50 L1 5. Pakasana Hijam 3,69,60,567.50 L1 6. Sheryo Hungyo 3,69,60,567.50 L1 7. Ajon Gonmei 3,69,60,567.51 L2 8. Khupkhohao Kilong (the petitioner) 3,69,60,567.51 L2 9. Chaoba Maimom 3,69,60,567.51 L2 10. S N Pavei 3,69,60,567.51 L2 11. Shongvah Thanmi 3,69,60,567.51 L2 12. kvs (respondent No. 3) 3,69,60,567.52 L3 Summary of Comparison of Tender for Package No. 936 Road From Kharasom To Soraphung (Calculation as per Data uploaded/published by MSRRDA on the internet at http://pmgsytendersman.gov.in) Total Construction: Maintenance Tender Amount Rs.38,905,860.53 Rs.37,060,860.53 Rs.1,845,000.00 Lower Limit (-5%) Rs.36,960,567.5035 35,207,817.5035 Rs.1,752,750.0000 Upper Limit (+5%) Rs. 40,851,153.5565 Rs. 38,913,903.55 65 Rs. 1,937,250.0000 Sl. No Bidder Name Bid rank Amount Quoted Percentage of Quoted Amount to Tender Amount Remarks Total Amount Quoted Q/Amount for Construction Component Q/Amount for 5 years (Maintenance) Total Construction Component % Maintenance Component % 1. Kavei Lamchaopou L1 Rs.36,960,567.50 Rs.35,206,911.50 1,753,656.00 -5.00000001 -5.00244464 -4.95089431 Construction below -5% 2. Vareiyo m V.s L1 Rs.36,960,567.50 Rs.35,00,068.04 Rs.1,660,499.46 -5.00000001 -4.75108366 -10.00002927 Maintenance below -5% 3. Mingthing Hora L1 Rs.36,960,567.50 Rs35,209,300.50 Rs.1,751,267.00 -5.00000001 -4.99599848 -508037940 Maintenance below -5% 4. Ms Continental Constru L1 Rs.36,960,567.50 Rs35,209,302.50 Rs1,751,265.00 -5.00000001 -4.99599309 -5.08048780 Maintenance below -5% 5. Pakasana Hijam L1 Rs36,960,567.50 Rs.35,209,277.50 Rs1,751,290.00 -5.00000001 -4.99606054 -5.07913279 Maintenance below – 5% 6. Shreyo Hungyo L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs.35,300,068.04 Rs1,660,499.47 -4.99999998 -4.75108366 -10.00002873 Maintenance below -5% 7. Ajon Gonme L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs.35,207,817.54 Rs1,752,749.97 -4.99999998 -4.99999990 -5.00000163 Maintenance below -5% 8. Khupkhohao Kilong L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs35,207,817.51 Rs1,752,750.00 -4.99999998 -4.99999990 -5.00000000 Lowest without any disqualification 9.. Pakasana Hijam L1 Rs36,960,567.50 Rs.35,209,277.50 Rs1,751,290.00 -5.00000001 -4.99606054 -5.07913279 Maintenance below – 5% 6. Shreyo Hungyo L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs.35,300,068.04 Rs1,660,499.47 -4.99999998 -4.75108366 -10.00002873 Maintenance below -5% 7. Ajon Gonme L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs.35,207,817.54 Rs1,752,749.97 -4.99999998 -4.99999990 -5.00000163 Maintenance below -5% 8. Khupkhohao Kilong L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs35,207,817.51 Rs1,752,750.00 -4.99999998 -4.99999990 -5.00000000 Lowest without any disqualification 9.. Chaoba Maimom L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs.35,207,817.51 Rs1,752,750.00 -4.99999998 -4.99999990 -5.00000000 10. S.N.Pavei L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs35,207,817.51 Rs1,752,750.00 -4.00000008 -4.99999990 -5.00000000 11. Shongvah Thanmi L2 Rs.36,960,567.51 Rs35,209,209,29981 Rs.1,751,267.70 -4.99999998 -4.99600035 -5.08034146 Maintenance below 5% 12. XKvs Respondent No.3 L3 Rs. 36,960,567.52 Rs. 35,207,817.52 Rs. 1,752,750.00 -499999996 -4.99999996 -5.00000000 Not Lowest in Construction . 9. It is further case of the petitioner that those contractors whose bid stood first, bid rank L 1, of the package No. MNO 936 was very much below the standard cost which is below 5% of the estimated cost and petitioner and 5 other contractors stood at 2nd bid rank L 2, of package No. MN0 936 and were nearest to the estimated cost and contractors who stood at 3rd bid rank L 3 of package No. MN) 936 was higher than the estimated cost which is higher than 5% of the estimated cost. It is also further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 stood at 3rd bid rank L 3, as the above chart clearly shows his rank. It is admitted fact that the petitioner who stood at L 2 and also eligible for the contract work under SBD has better right for the said contract work than respondent No. 3 who admittedly stood at L 3. 10. As the petitioner who stood at L 2 and also eligible under different clauses of the SBD had a series of negotiations and consultations at the level of the Chief Engineer (Respondent No. 2) for finalization for giving acceptance as well as for issuing work order of Package No. MN0 936. The petitioner also had entered into an agreement dated 20.08.2010 with other contractors who are at the same bid rank i.e. L 2 that after through considerations amongst themselves they have agreed to make an arrangement for awarding the said contract work in favour of the petitioner. In the eventuality of some bidders are at tie in the financial bids, clause 30.2 of the SBD is to be invoked. In the eventuality of some bidders are at tie in the financial bids, clause 30.2 of the SBD is to be invoked. Under clause 30.02, in case of tie in financial bids preference will be given to the bidder who score higher marks in the technical bids and also financial bids for the maintenance component will also be given due weightage while evaluating offer of financial bids and decision of the employer in any case will be final. Clause 30.2 will be applied to amongst bidders who are tie in the financial bids. In other words giving preference to bidder who scores higher marks in technical bid does not arise amongst bidders who stood at different ranks in the financial bid i.e. L 1, L 2 and L 3. Question of giving preference to bidder who score higher marks in technical bid does not arise amongst L 2 and L 3 inasmuch as the bidder at L 2 is not comparable with the bidder at L 3. 11. This Court in a number of cases i.e. MC (WP(C)) No. 392/2010 (Reference: WP(C) No. 639 of 2010), Writ Appeal No. 71 of 2010 etc held that Clause 30.2 of the S.B.D requires that in the case of tie in the financial bid preference will be given to the bidder who scores higher mark in technical bid and it does not provide in the case of tie in the financial bids, offer made by such bidders will be rejected and there is no question of comparison of bidders at different ranks i.e. L 1, L 2, L 3 and L 4 for the purpose of ascertaining who scored higher marks in the technical bid. 12. The petitioner had been selected and recommended by the Committee for the said Package No. MN0 936 and also such recommendation for the contract work of the said Package No. MN0 936 was also approved by the concerned Minister i.e., Chairman of the MSRRDA. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the concerned authority did not issue the work order on the basis of the said approval of the Chairman, MSRRDA i.e, the concerned Minister i.e. Hon'ble Minister, R.D., Government of Manipur. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, the concerned authority did not issue the work order on the basis of the said approval of the Chairman, MSRRDA i.e, the concerned Minister i.e. Hon'ble Minister, R.D., Government of Manipur. But more shockingly, respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer, MSRRDA, as if an authority above the Chairman, i.e. Hon'ble Minister, R.D., issued the impugned work order i.e. Work Order No.E.TENDER/2010-MSRRDA/VII/UKL/P-936/610 dated 21.03.2011 in favour of private respondent No. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned work order dated 21.03.2011 by adopting pick and choose method and also that respondent No. 3 is a person of his liking. The act of respondent Nos.1 and 2 for awarding the contract work for the Package No. MN0 936 under the impugned work order dated 21.03.2011 are arbitrary, malafide and illegal. There is no rational for awarding the contract work under Package No. MN0 936 to respondent No. 3 whose bid is higher than that of the petitioner, who is also eligible under the SBD for the contract work. 13. The State respondent, i.e. respondent No. 1 filed affidavit in opposition, wherein the State respondent did not deny that as per record, petitioner stood at L 2 and respondent No. 3 stood at L 3. Further, State respondent stated that only in the case of a number of bidders are at tie at one level either L1, L2 or L3, clause 30.2 will be invoked. Respondent No. 2, Chief Engineer, also filed affidavit in opposition wherein there is no whisper or reason for awarding the contract work of Package No. MN0 936 (Kharasom to Soraphung) to respondent No. 3 by giving special preference to him (respondent No. 3) even if the petitioner who stood at L 2 has better claim than respondent No. 3 who stood at L 3. 14. It is really painful for this court to hear that respondent No. 2, the Chief Engineer, not only in this case but also in other cases, issued work orders to the persons of his liking for different packages of work under the PMGSY; even if the persons of his likings have no better right in comparison with others for getting the contract work. This Court in a number of cases i.e. WP(C) No. 678 of 2010, WP(C) No. 777 of 2010, WP(C) No. 670 of 2010 and others had set aside the work orders issued by the respondent No. 2, Chief Engineer, MSRRDA, Manipur for different packages of contract work of the PMGSY. 15. The Government in a welfare State is the regulator and dispenser of special services and provider of a large number of benefits, including jobs contracts, licences, quotas, mineral rights etc. With tremendous expansion of welfare and social service functions increasing control of material and economic resources and large scale assumption of industrial and commercial activities by the State, the power of the executive Government to affect the lives of the people is steadily growing. The attainment of socio-economic justice being a conscious end of State policy, there is a vast and inevitable increase in the frequency with which ordinary citizens come into relationship of direct encounter with State power-holders. This renders it necessary to structure and restrict the power of the executive Government so as to prevent its arbitrary application or exercise. The discretion of the Government has been held to be not unlimited in that the Government cannot give or withhold largess in its arbitrary discretion or at its sweet will. The Government cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs or enter into contract or issue quota or licences only in favour of those having grey hairs or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith. The Government is still the Government when it acts in the matter of granting largess and it cannot act arbitrarily. It does not stand in the same position as a private individual. (Ref: Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs The International Airport Authority of India & Ors: AIR 1979 SC 1628 ) The Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty's case (supra) (para 20) held that: 20. Now, obviously where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same constitutional or public law limitations as Government. Now, obviously where a corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same constitutional or public law limitations as Government. The rule inhibiting arbitrary action by Government which we have discussed above must apply equally where such corporation is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or otherwise, and it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person it likes at its sweet will, but its action must be in conformity with some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. 16. The principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by the Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, it must be clearly stated that there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. No doubt, judicial review of the Government's freedom of contract is only to the decision making process and not the merit of the decision itself; even then, the court can look into as to whether the decisions/actions is vitiated by arbitrariness, unfairness, illegality or irrationality or Wednesbury unreasonableness, i.e. when the decision is such as no reasonable person on proper application of mind could take or procedural impropriety. The Apex Court in Tata Cellular Vs Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 held that - The principles of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers by Government bodies in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism. However, there are inherent limitations in exercise of that power of judicial review. Government is the guardian of the finances of the State. It is expected to protect the financial interest of the State. The right to refuse the lowest or any other tender is always available to the Government. But, the principles laid down in Article 14 of the Constitution have to be kept in view while accepting or refusing a tender. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. There can be no question of infringement of Article 14 if the Government tries to get the best person or the best quotation. The right to choose cannot be considered to be an arbitrary power. Of course, if the said power is exercised for any collateral purpose the exercise of that power will be struck down. Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters whether contractual or political in nature or issues of social policy; thus they are not essentially justiciable and the need to remedy any unfairness. Such an unfairness is set right by judicial review. 17. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Thought that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the court can examine the decision-making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. The State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision-making process the court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the court should intervene. [Ref: Air India Ltd Vs Cochin International Airport Ltd & Ors : (2000) 2 SCC 617 . 18. The purpose of judicial review of the administrative action of the contractual matters is to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Further, its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made lawfully. [Ref: Air India Ltd Vs Cochin International Airport Ltd & Ors : (2000) 2 SCC 617 . 18. The purpose of judicial review of the administrative action of the contractual matters is to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Further, its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made lawfully. The Apex Court in Jagdish Mandal Vs State of Orissa & Ors (2007) 14 SCC 517 held that "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 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. 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 tender/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action." 19. The Apex Court in Sushila Chemicals Pvt Ltd & Anr Vs Bharat Coking Coal ltd & Ors : (2010) 10 SCC 388 (para 20 and 21 of the SCC) held as under: 20. It is settled by a series of decisions of this Court starting from Shrilekha Vidyarthi V State of U.P : (1991) 1 SCC 212 that even in the domain of contractual matters, the High Court can entertain a writ petition on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution when the impugned act of the State or its instrumentality is arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable or in breach of obligations under public law. 21. In Sterling Computers Ltd v M&N Publications Ltd : (1993) 1 SCC 445 however, this Court held: (SCC p.464, para 28) 28.... Public authorities are essentially different from those of private persons a public authority must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant ones. 20. 21. In Sterling Computers Ltd v M&N Publications Ltd : (1993) 1 SCC 445 however, this Court held: (SCC p.464, para 28) 28.... Public authorities are essentially different from those of private persons a public authority must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant ones. 20. The Apex Court in New Horizons Ltd & Anr Vs Union of India & Ors : (1995) 1 SCC 478 had set out the circumstances in which the Court could lift the veil to ascertain the true nature of a decision which had been taken in order to satisfy itself that the same was not unjust and was not opposed to the interest of Revenue. Para 36 and 37 of the SCC in New Horizons Ltd & Anr's case (supra) read as follows: 36. After making a special study of this branch of the law, a learned scholar has discerned four different attitudes towards the company in judicial pronouncements. According to him these categories, in progressive order, are (i) peeping behind the veil; (ii) penetrating the veil; (iii) extending the veil; and (iv) ignoring the veil. The decisions relating to determination of residence or enemy status of a company have been placed by him in the category of "peeping behind the veil" where the court peeps behind the veil and concludes from the shareholders or from the people in control of the company, something about the nature of the company. (See S. Ottolenghi: From Peeping Behind the Corporate Veil to Ignoring it completely: (1990) 53 Mod L Rev 338, 340) 37. This Court has adopted a similar approach and in some cases it has seen through the corporate veil. In Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd v Brojo Nath Ganguly : (1986) 3 SCC 156 the Court was considering the question whether the appellant company was an agency or instrumentality of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution. It was said: (SCR p. 349: SCC p. 202, para 67) For the purpose of Article 12 one must necessarily see through the corporate veil to ascertain whether behind that veil the face of an instrumentality or agency of the State. It was said: (SCR p. 349: SCC p. 202, para 67) For the purpose of Article 12 one must necessarily see through the corporate veil to ascertain whether behind that veil the face of an instrumentality or agency of the State. So also in State of U.P. v Renusagar Pwer Co: (1988) 4 SCC 59 it has been observed: (SCR p. 668: SCC p. 95, para 68) The veil on corporate personality even though not lifted sometimes, is becoming more and more transparent in modern company jurisprudence. 21. The ratio laid down in New Horizons Ltd & Anr's case (supra) is also followed by the Apex Court in Glodyne Technoserve Ltd Vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors : (2011) 5 SCC 103 . Para 22 and 23 of the SCC in Glodyne Technoserve Ltd's case (supra) read as follows: 22. Mr. Salve urged that the bid documents submitted by the appellant fully satisfy the aforesaid tests and the rejection of the appellant's bid was unlawful and cannot be sustained. In this regard Mr. Salve also referred to the decision of this Court in New Horizons Ltd v Union of India: (1995) 1 SCC 478 which sets out the circumstances in which the Court could lift the veil to ascertain the true nature of a decision which had been taken in order to satisfy itself that the same was not unjust and was not opposed to the interest of Revenue. 23. Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Reliance Energy Ltd v Maharashtra State Road Development Corpn Ltd: (2007) 8 SCC 1 , which was essentially a decision in regard to the right of every participant to a level playing field in respect of government contracts and the extent of judicial review by the Court under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution, in cases of illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and Wednesbury unreasonableness. 22. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above, this court, in the above factual background of the present case, is of considered view that there are arbitrariness, unfairness and irrationality and unreasonableness in issuing the impugned work order No. E-TENDER/2010-MSRRDA/VII/UKL/P-936/610 dated 21st March, 2011 in favour of respondent No. 3. 22. Keeping in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases discussed above, this court, in the above factual background of the present case, is of considered view that there are arbitrariness, unfairness and irrationality and unreasonableness in issuing the impugned work order No. E-TENDER/2010-MSRRDA/VII/UKL/P-936/610 dated 21st March, 2011 in favour of respondent No. 3. Over and above, by applying Wednesbury principles, this Court further conclude that decision of the respondent No. 2 is such, no authority directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it, accordingly, the impugned work order dated 21.03.2011 is set aside and contract work should be awarded, in the given case to the bidder who is most eligible, after taking into consideration of bids of the bidders according to the SBD and ITB. As stated above in para 15, this case (the present case) is not the first case, respondent No. 2 had awarded contract works arbitrarily, illegally, irrationally and in clear violation of the Wednesbury principles and the provisions of SBD and ITB to the persons of his choice, accordingly, for the ends of justice and also in the interest of the society a cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) is imposed to the incumbent of the office of the Chief Engineer, MSRRDA i.e. Shri P. Kipgen, who should deposit the cost in the Chief Minister's Relief Fund or in the fund for ex-gratia for the families of the victims killed by the extremists, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order by respondent No. 2. The said amount of Rs. 25,000/- should be from his remuneration as Chief Engineer, MSRRDA. Further, till the cost of Rs. 25,000/- is deposited by the respondent No. 2, MSRRDA shall not release his remuneration as Chief Engineer MSRRDA. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed