JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Talapatra 1. The writ petitions are tied up on considering that a common thread of the challenge binds by the genus and also for the reason that sans some variation of facts, commonness is discernible to which the learned counsel for the parties as well have agreed to. The grievance in both the cases emanates from a corrigendum dated 02.05.2011 by enlarging the scope of participation of the prospective bidders after pre-bid conference held on 06.12.2010 in respect of the tender No. NZR/MM/SC/ES/AMC-Flow Line/03/2010- 11/R16TC10006 dated 08.11.2010 was issued by the competent authority of the ONGC for collecting rate contract for laying of Oil/Gas/Water injection pipelines in the oil field of Assam Asset in W.P (C) No. 5211 of 2011 (M/s. Zeeneel Construction & Maintenance Vrs. Union of India and Others) hereinafter referred to as the Zeeneel. The similar tender was floated by the competent authority in the ONGC by the Notice Inviting Tender No. NZR/MM/SC/ES/AMC-Flow Line/03/2010-11/R16TC10006 dated 08.11.2010 for laying of Oil/Gas/Water injection pipelines in the oil field of Assam Asset in the W.P(c) No. 2718 of 2011 (in the matter of M/s. Khirud Kumar Bordoloi and 15 others Vrs. The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and others) hereinafter referred to as the Bordoloi. Other grievances as ancillary are related to acceptance of the rate as quoted by the L1, which far below than the work rate and changes as made in the wake of the said corrigendum. Some essential facts as reflected in the records may briefly be noted for appreciation of the challenge and also for locating the factual variation between two writ petitions: 2. W.P (C) No. 2718 of 2011 The petitioner are firms engaged in various contract works awarded by the ONGC and other firms and executing the rate contract for laying of Oil/Gas/Water injection pipelines in the oil field of Assam Asset ONGC for the period of 2008-2011. On 08.11.2010 the ONGC Ltd issued the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) as stated for laying of Oil/Gas/Water injection pipelines in the oil field of Assam Asset for a period of three years. The date of opening of the tender was fixed on 11.01.2011. On 08.11.2010 the ONGC Ltd issued the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT for short) as stated for laying of Oil/Gas/Water injection pipelines in the oil field of Assam Asset for a period of three years. The date of opening of the tender was fixed on 11.01.2011. The said NIT did not contain the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium clause as the tender committee of the ONGC was of the view that already there existed 21 bidders in the fray and keeping the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium clause would lead to participation of more small and inexperienced vendor. The petitioners asserted that the tender committee took conscious decision to keep such experienced small vendors at bay from the tender process. After the tender papers were collected by the petitioners, the pre-bid consultation was held between the intending bidders and the ONGC on 06.12.2010. The petitioners projected certain queries and explanation, such as reimbursement of service tax by the ONGC and they illustrated the example of reimbursement from the other Assets of the ONGC. After the pre bid conference, the ONGC limited issued a corrigendum under No. NZR/MM/SC/ES/AMC-Flow Line/03/2010-11 dated 02.05.2011 bringing some modifications of the original tender and also incorporating the clause of the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium bids, the last date of submissions of tenders and opening date of the tenders on 31.05.2011. The said corrigendum is available at Annexure-IV. The petitioners also submitted that the said corrigendum is also silent about the issue of reimbursement of the service tax. The petitioners further asserted that previously also the tenders were settled without the said MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium clause. As such the legality of the corrigendum has been questioned in the writ petition. While dilating the challenge a further ahead, the petitioner strongly contended that by holding the pre bid consultation the standard terms and conditions of the NIT cannot be changed as the purpose of pre bid conference has been well-delineated. It is provided in Clause 6(1) of the NIT and according to the petitioner the terms and conditions which are not part of the standard terms and conditions of the tender can only be modified. The standard terms and conditions includes "General Conditions of Contract", "Specific Conditions of Contract" and "Bid Evaluation Criteria". The MOU clause being part of the bid evaluation criteria cannot be modified as a result of any pre-bid conference. The standard terms and conditions includes "General Conditions of Contract", "Specific Conditions of Contract" and "Bid Evaluation Criteria". The MOU clause being part of the bid evaluation criteria cannot be modified as a result of any pre-bid conference. Moreover, reimbursement of the service tax which was raised in the pre bid conference was not taken care by the ONGC. The petitioners laid bare their apprehension stating that participation of the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium of the small vendors would result in abnormally low rate and ultimately push to the retendering. The petitioners submit that inclusion of the MOU clause by way of said corrigendum would only affect the interest of the petitioners bringing about heavy losses. The petitioners' contention is not cloaked but bare that when there is no dearth of technically sound vendors, the inclusion of the MOU clause for inducting the small vendors in the name of consortium or joint venture is nothing short of a colourable exercise of power of collateral purpose which cannot be stated a valid action in the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. 3. W.P (C) No. 5211 of 2011 The petitioner has been dealing and executing various contract works under the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, the ONGC and other Government and semi Government Departments. The petitioners firm was awarded contract for hiring of rate contract for laying and maintenance of underground carbon steel pipelines in various fields of Mehsana Asset for a period of 3 (three) years 2008-2011 and the firm had executed the work for Mehsana Asset. In response to the Notice Inviting Tender (for short NIT) No. NZR/MM/SC/ES/AMC-Flow Line/03/2010- 11/R16TC10006 dated 08.11.2010 for laying of Oil/Gas/Water injection pipelines in the oil field of Assam Asset for a period of three years the petitioners intended to participate in the tender. The last date of opening of the tender was fixed on 11.01.2011. The said tender also did not include the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium clause since the tendering committee has been of the view that there are existing 21 bidders in the process and retention of MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium clause would lead to participation of more small and inexperienced vendors in the bid and that would further lead to abnormal rates and ultimately to retendering. The petitioners collected the tender papers and participated in the pre-bid conference on 06.12.2010 where some inexperienced bidders raised query regarding inclusion of the MOU clause. The petitioners collected the tender papers and participated in the pre-bid conference on 06.12.2010 where some inexperienced bidders raised query regarding inclusion of the MOU clause. Thereafter, the ONGC authority issued a corrigendum No. NZR/MM/SC/ES/AMC-Flow Line/03/2010-11 dated 02.05.2011 for purpose of carrying out some modifications in the original tender terms. Also for inclusion of the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium clause. The last date of submission of the tender was re-fixed on 31.05.2011. The said corrigendum is available at Annexure-II. After such corrigendum was issued the petitioners on due compliance of the tender condition submitted the tender papers. On 31.05.2011 when the petitioner along with other tenderers appeared in the office of the General Manager, the ONGC, Nazira they are informed that a writ petition was moved before this Court by one of the prospective tenderers for setting aside the tender dated 08.11.2010 and the corrigendum dated 02.05.2011. On the basis of such information the petitioner came to know about the existence of the other writ petition being W. P.(C) No. 2718 of 2011 as filed by one of the prospective tenderers. By the order dated 27.05.2011 this Court directed the ONGC not to finalize the tender process. The ONGC opened the Techno Commercial Bid on 31.05.2011 and thereafter price bid was opened on 07.09.2011. 30 firms participated in the tender process and on opening of the price bid it surfaced that the lowest bidder namely M/s. Lakwa Steel Construction, Sivasager quoted 42.60% below the rate provided in the schedule of rate. The petitioner has provided the elaborate information regarding the rate quoted by all 30 firms and thereafter contended that the ONGC on 20.09.2011 by a e-mail asked the petitioner referring to the rate quoted by the L1 bidder i.e. 42.60% below the schedule rate of the tender requested to match its price with the L1 price. The petitioner was categorically asked to confirm yes or no in the enclosed confirmation format in separate sealed covers for A and B i.e. SBS(-) ZRT(-) latest by 19.09.2011. The L1's rate is further below by 27.6% than the work rate. In the backdrop of the startling upward mobility of the price of materials particularly Steel, aluminum pipe, Synthetic enamel points, various mm ND Pipe etc. it is an unworkable rate as the price came down to Rs. 76 per metre. The L1's rate is further below by 27.6% than the work rate. In the backdrop of the startling upward mobility of the price of materials particularly Steel, aluminum pipe, Synthetic enamel points, various mm ND Pipe etc. it is an unworkable rate as the price came down to Rs. 76 per metre. Whereas the petitioner was awarded the contract work for the period from 2008 to 2011 at Rs. 132.25 which is 15% above the previous years price. The contract work for 2011 to 2014 would have been fixed 15% above the earlier rate of the existing contract for the period of 2008-2011. The petitioner has narrated his own experience while executing the rate contract for laying and maintenance of underground carbon steel pipelines in various field of Mehesana Asset for a period of three years. The petitioners' grievance as emerged from the said narrative is that the ONGC has accepted the L1 bid of the respondent No. 6 without making any analysis of the rate and that itself shows lack of appreciation of the relevant factors contributing to the workable rate. The petitioner also for this purpose referred to the clause 5.4 of the pre-tendering activity of the said Work Manual of 2007 which reads as under: 5.4. The accuracy range of estimates prepared on the basis of schedule of quantities and schedule of rates as mentioned above shall be considered as + /- 10% As per Clause 56.0 to 56.6 of award of work of the said Work Manual also read as follows: 56.0 PRESCRIBED LIMITS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF TENDER Discounts/rebates offered by any tenderer shall not be considered for evaluation of tenders. However, if the lowest bidder happens to be the final acceptable tender4er for award of contract and if he had offered any discount/rebate, the contract shall be awarded after taking into consideration such discount/rebate. These provisions shall be in corporate in the tender document. 56.1 Offer quoted by L-1 bidder within the accuracy range (+/-) indicated in the estimated cost prepared as per the approved procedure shall be the normal limits for acceptance of tenders. In case of 3 or m ore acceptable bids, and the quoted of L-1 bidder within the normal limits of acceptance, then the work may be awarded to L-1 bidder without resorting negotiations. In case of 3 or m ore acceptable bids, and the quoted of L-1 bidder within the normal limits of acceptance, then the work may be awarded to L-1 bidder without resorting negotiations. 56.2 In case where the estimates have been prepared on the basis of budgetary quotations and the accuracy range of these estimates cannot be determined and 3 or more acceptable bids have been received against such a tender, this will be processed for finalization without resorting to negotiations. 56.3 A. i. There shall note any negotiations. Negotiations if at all shall be an exception and only in the case of proprietary items or in the case of items with limited source of supply. Negotiations shall be held with L-1 only. Counter offers tantamount to negotiations and should be treated at par with negotiation. ii. Negotiations can be recommended in exceptional circumstances only after due application of mind and recoding valid, logical reasons justifying negotiations. In case of inability to obtain the desired results by way of reduction in rates and negotiations prove infructuous, satisfactory explanations are required to be recorded by the committee who recommended the negotiations. The committee shall be responsible for lack of application of mind in case its negotiations have only unnecessarily delayed the award of work/contract. B. The model time frame for according such approval to completion of the entire process of award of tenders should not exceed one month from the date of submission of recommendations. In case the file has to be approved at the next higher level a maximum of 15 days may be added for clearance at each level. The overall time frame should be within the validity period of tender/contract. C. In case of L-1 backing out there should be re-tendering as per existing instructions. (Reference: CVC Office order no. 68/10/05 dated 25/10/2005). 56.4 If the negotiated offer of L-1 bidder is still not within then normal limits of acceptance, the offer may be examined on the merit of the case and put up the recommendations for the approval of CTAA. 56.5 Negotiations with L-1 bidder, if required, will be carried out the approval of Level - 1 officer for non EPC cases and Director concerned in EPC level cases. Approval should be obtained prior4 to call of L-1 bidder for negotiations. 56.5 Negotiations with L-1 bidder, if required, will be carried out the approval of Level - 1 officer for non EPC cases and Director concerned in EPC level cases. Approval should be obtained prior4 to call of L-1 bidder for negotiations. 56.6 When the tendered amount of L-1 bidder is lowest than the accuracy range of the estimated cost, the offer be examined w.r.t the workability of rates as compared with the estimated cost as per scope of work and recommendations shall be submitted as per merit of the case for the approval of CTAA 56.7. In case, the contractor fails to execute the contract satisfactorily in terms of the contract provisions, the contactor shall be put on holiday for a period of Two Years from the scheduled date of completion of the work for further business with ONGCL as per prevailing ONGCL procedures, without any further reference to Contractor. The petitioner's appreciation of the provisions, extracted from the Work Manual, 2007, has led to a conclusion that the accuracy rate to be considered as plus/minus 10% and there cannot be any reason to ask the petitioner and other tenderers to match down the bid which is 42.60% below the schedule rate of the tender, as such the action of the ONGC is highly illegal, arbitrary, un-authorized, unreasonable, unjust, whimsical and capricious and warrants interference by Court. Basing on such contention of the petitioner finally holds that the ONGC by fixing the L1 rate has violated the procedural norms clearly and as such the process as espoused by the ONGC has been infracted and such exercise of the ONGC is colourable one for collateral purpose. Therefore, determination of the L1 be struck down and the ONGC be directed to award the said work at rate which is within minus 10% of the schedule rate of the tender and after perusal of the materials on record and after hearing the parties. 4. On the other hand the ONGC in both the cases has taken a common position for defending their action on the face of the allegations of infraction as well as for clarifying the process as carried on, on the basis of the relevant materials and the authority created thereunder and without any prejudicial aberration whatsoever stating that the clause regarding MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium clause was left out from NIT Dated. 08.11.2010. 08.11.2010. However, as soon as the same was pointed in the pre bid conference by some of the intending bidders, the same was corrected and the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause was inserted. It is stated that MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause is an integral part of the ONGC's tendering policy for both domestic and international tenders. This clause allows bidders to pool resources and experiences required for a particular job, for eligibility as well as for execution. This provision helps the domestic bidders to participate in international tenders on the basis of a suitable tie up with international firms having experience and technology. In case of the domestic tenders, it helps the local vendors to participate in the tenders with the support of experienced partners. Therefore, this clause is in the interest of the local vendors and is important for development local expertise and job experience. In the tender, the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause had been initially dropped considering that this may not be relevant for the tendered job, as some of the local vendors were executing the similar work. But, some of the intending bidders raised queries in the pre-bid conference against the omission of the said provision and some intending bidders requested the ONGC to include the said clause and accordingly, taking into consideration, all the relevant facts and circumstances, the ONGC decided to retain this clause in line with the tendering policy of the ONGC and the earlier tenders issued for similar and other works. After scrutinizing the intending bidders and having deliberated upon the ONGC authority decided to issue the said corrigendum. The ONGC contends that it would be evident from a perusal of Clause 6.1 of the Instructions to Bidders wherein it is provided that in case any specific term and condition, other than a "standard terms and conditions of tender" requires to be modified, then the same will be considered for modification. Obviously, such modification of a tender condition cannot be done in one day and the same would require the consideration of the tender committee and the approval of the competent authorities of the ONGC. Obviously, such modification of a tender condition cannot be done in one day and the same would require the consideration of the tender committee and the approval of the competent authorities of the ONGC. Moreover, as per the various Manuals of the ONGC and instructions issued from time to time, certain time period is also fixed for replying to the queries raised in the pre-bid conference, which are required to be recorded in the form of minutes and thereafter the same is to be issued to the bidders. In the pre-bid conference held in connection with the present tender, various queries were raised including few objections regarding the exclusion of the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause and requests for inserting the same. Considering the matter in its entirety the tender committee decided to include the aforesaid MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause into the tender terms and conditions. The ONGC has categorically denied any other purpose as attributed by the petitioners but it has been done as a matter of policy. As regards the Service Tax/VAT and CPF registration certificates from bidders, it implies that the ONGC wants bidders to comply with the tax requirements of the Government of India. In turn, the ONGC reimburses the same to bidders, as the case may be. As regards the issue of the service tax, it is stated that the ONGC has been continuously changing its methodology to deal with the service tax for better clarity and transparency in tenders. Earlier, the ONGC was reimbursing the service tax as applicability of service tax on various services was not clear and it was difficult for the bidders to quote service tax. Now, there is sufficient clarity on the applicability of service tax, the ONGC has adopted a uniform policy of treating service tax as any other tax like sales tax etc. The bidder has to quote for the service tax in their bid and get paid for the service tax along with the payment for the services rendered. In this tender also bidders have been asked to quote their prices inclusive of service tax and they have been asked to indicate the service tax component i.e. the rate of service tax, separately for the purpose of adjustment of rate in case there is any increase/decrease in the service tax rate in the future as per change in law. In this tender also bidders have been asked to quote their prices inclusive of service tax and they have been asked to indicate the service tax component i.e. the rate of service tax, separately for the purpose of adjustment of rate in case there is any increase/decrease in the service tax rate in the future as per change in law. While quoting the rate, the bidder is required to quote the rate inclusive of service tax and also separately indicate the rate of tax. In case the rate of service tax is increased then the ONGC would make the corresponding deduction. However, the duty and responsibility of payment of the service tax would lie with the contractor not with the ONGC The payment, therefore, as made to the contractor is inclusive of the service tax. The ONGC in their affidavit-in-opposition categorically denied that the authorities of the ONGC never replied to the queries of the petitioners regarding reimbursement of the service tax as alleged. The ONGC had denied of any policy decision, more particularly of the tender committee not to include the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause and that the said decision was taken in respect of all the contracts of the ONGC. The contract for hiring of scrapping winch chassis as mentioned by the petitioner in the Bordoloi is a contract for hiring of a particular vehicle and for that the competent authorities at the ONGC after considering the nature of services available in the market and past experience etc. was of the view that such a condition would be redundant in the said tender for the fact that in case of hiring of a vehicle, a joint venture/consortium or a party having a MOU with another party may not be necessary. As stated earlier, it has been stated that the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause is an integral part of the NITs of the ONGC and is included in almost all the ONGC tenders across all units in the country. The said clause is some time dropped considering the relevance in the tender. It is stated that MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause is very much essential for the purpose of supporting the local entrepreneurs who can participate in tender process with the help of a party who has the requisite experience and technical know-how. The said clause is some time dropped considering the relevance in the tender. It is stated that MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause is very much essential for the purpose of supporting the local entrepreneurs who can participate in tender process with the help of a party who has the requisite experience and technical know-how. Therefore, its omission would have the effect of limiting the number of eligible bidders and its inclusion would give a much wider range of participation. The view of the ONGC inclusion of the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause proved to be enterprising because of the fact that some of the local vendors after purchasing the bid documents, showed their interest in participating in the tender process and requested that the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause should be included in the tender also, in the line with the earlier tenders on the same work. The corrigendum, according to the ONGC, is a restoration of the policy decision of the ONGC rather than being in violation of its policy. It is denied that the corrigendum dated 2.5.2011 is at all arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal, unauthorized, irregular, uncalled for, unjust, unreasonable and without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside and quashed as alleged. 5. It has been denied that the standard terms and conditions of the tender are the general conditions of the tender and the special conditions of the contract (SCC). By the corrigendum dated 2.5.2011 what has been amended is the instruction to the bidders (ITB), which is admittedly is not a part of the standard terms and conditions of the tender. With the amendment to the Instructions to Bidders a corresponding amendment in the Bid Evaluation Criteria has to be in order that the two are in conformity to each other. Therefore, it would be evident that the Bid Evaluation Criteria is not a standard terms and conditions of the tender and as such varies from tender to tender. The entire tender consist of five parts namely (i) the instruction to Bidders, (ii) the General Conditions of Contract, (iii) the Special Conditions of Contract, (iv) Bid Evaluation Criteria and (v) price bid proforma. The entire tender consist of five parts namely (i) the instruction to Bidders, (ii) the General Conditions of Contract, (iii) the Special Conditions of Contract, (iv) Bid Evaluation Criteria and (v) price bid proforma. If the interpretation sought to be given by the petitioners to the term "standard terms and conditions of the tender" is accepted, then Clause 6.1 of the instruction to bidder would be redundant in as much as, in such an event if any objection is raised on behalf of the bidders regarding any condition in the contract, the same would be meaningless because it is held that the Bid Evaluation Criteria is a part of the standard terms and conditions of the tender then nothing can be amended or changed even in case a bidder has some query or objection. The allegation that the changes in the Bid Evaluation Criteria have been brought only to accommodate some favoured contractors without any basis and absolutely incorrect. 6. As regards the L1 or as to the apprehension by the petitioners about the abnormal rates being collected is totally unfounded and is categorically denied by the ONGC. The ONGC has categorically stated that in the earlier tender for similar work, floated in the year 2008, viz. Tender No. NZR/MM/C & M/Pipeline/54/2007-08/R16AC07005, the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause was very much there. The ONGC has also denied that the MOU/Joint Venture/Consortium Clause is not a part of any policy of the ONGC. It has been asserted that exclusion of the said clause is by way of exception in consideration of the redundancy, special situation specific to that tender and in the given circumstances of the particular tender. The ONGC has stated that the tender conditions were changed during the course of pre-bid conference and in line with the queries raised by the intending bidders including the petitioners. The said changes have been incorporated in the tender prior to the submission of the bids by any of the bidders and, therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by issuance of the corrigendum dated 02.05.2011. Further the technical specification has not been changed in any manner so as to influence the decision of an intending bidder to change the price quoted. Further the technical specification has not been changed in any manner so as to influence the decision of an intending bidder to change the price quoted. It is reiterated that through the corrigendum the ONGC has resorted an eligibility clause, which is present in almost all tenders floated by the ONGC and which had been dropped from the present tender under the facts and circumstances as stated and has been included for purpose of bringing the present tender in line with the uniform tendering policy of the ONGC. They had stated that it is not a case for that purpose where the petitioners have been prejudicially affected so far the technical bids or the price bid is concerned. The ONGC has categorically stated that none of the bidders in the present tender has submitted the bid till the query raised in the pre-bid meeting held on 06.12.2010 has been answered by the ONGC. All bids, including the bids of the petitioners were submitted after issuance of the corrigendum dated 02.05.2011. Therefore, no prejudice, whatsoever has been suffered by the petitioners by the issuance of the corrigendum dated 02.05.2011. Basing on such assertion it is pleaded that the ONGC be permitted to go ahead and to complete the tender process in accordance with law. 7. In the Zeeneel an additional issue of accepting the L1 has been dwelled upon by the ONGC stating that the petitioner was asked to match with the rate of the L1 bidder as per tender conditions viz. Clause B3.11 of the Bid Evaluation Criteria (BEC) wherein it is specifically provided that bidders would have to quote overall (+) or (-) % in percentage in comparison to the rates of the ONGC, as provided in the Schedule of Rates and after selection of the L1 bidder, all other bidders will be asked to match the rate offered by the L1 bidder. Thereafter the entire work would be divided amongst 21 bidders, 10% of the work would be allotted to the L1 bidders and the balance 90% work would be allotted to the 20 bidders @ 4.5% each and in case there are less 20 bidders, who agree to match the L1 rate, then the 90% work would be divided equally amongst the successful bidders. The petitioner not having agreed to match the L1 rate does not have any locus to file the present writ petition and say that the L1 rate is excessively unreasonable. Moreover, as per the tender conditions and standard procedure, the L1 bid cannot be ignored. It has been further stated that the tender in question was an open indigenous tender and the bidders were free to quote any rates, which according to bidder are workable. Moreover, from the statements made in paragraph 13 of the Zeeneel's petition it would be evident that 20 out of 30 bidders i.e. 67% of the bidders including the petitioners in the Borduloi who are the existing contractors doing/executing similar works have quoted rates in the range of (-)20% to (-)42.6% and 17 bidders are agreed to work at the L1 price of (-)42.6%. Therefore, so many bidders have agreed to work at such rate and have voluntarily accepted the lowest rate, the said rate truly represents the market rates and the statement of the petitioner that the rates are not workable is incorrect and accordingly, denied by the ONGC. According to them that (-) 42.6% as quoted by the L1 is workable and reasonable rate. The ONGC has discarded straightway the assertion of the petitioner in the Zeeneel. According to the ONGC rates of Mehsana Asset cannot be compared with the rates of Assam Asset. Having said that rates of any tender are obtained through the open competition and it is for the bidders to quote the rates. As per tender conditions, the L1 rates have to be accepted and if some bidders are not agreeable to work at a particular rate, it is not open for the ONGC to say that the rates are on the lower side. M/s. Lakwa Steel Construction, the respondent No. 6 in the Zeeneel has on their volition quoted rates of (-) 42.6% and 17 other bidders have agreed to match the said rate. Hence the rate quoted by the bidders cannot be said to be unworkable as projected by the Zeeneel, the ONGC strongly denied that without making any analysis of the rate as quoted by the L1 has been accepted or it suffers from non application of mind as alleged. For elucidation further, the ONGC asserted that the Work Manual, 2007 is not applicable to the present tender. For elucidation further, the ONGC asserted that the Work Manual, 2007 is not applicable to the present tender. By the Circular dated 30.06.2008 issued by the competent authority of the ONGC, it has been stated that the issue as to whether Works Manual or Material Management (MM) Manual should be followed in tenders processed by the Materials Management (MM) Department it has been clarified that for the tenders which are processed by the Material Management (MM) Department of the ONGC, only the Material Management Manual should be followed. Further stated that, even assuming for the argument's sake but not admitting that the Works Manual shall apply in the present tender then the Clause 5.4 of the Works Manual, without referring to Clause Nos. 5.1 to 5.3 would nothing but an attempt to mislead this Court inasmuch as, the works as mentioned above appearing in the clause 5.4 indicates that the said clause is applicable in case of the Schedule of Quantities (SOQ) and Schedule of Rates (SOR) prepared under Clause 5.1 to 5.3 which are only for civil and electrical works. The clause which specifies the preparation of the cost estimates of pipelines etc. is the clause 5.6 and there is no provision/scope of any accuracy of (+)/(-) 10% while preparing such estimates. Moreover, the said clause is only with regard to the accuracy of the ONGC while preparing the SOQ and SOR for Civil and electrical work. As such Works Manual is not applicable in the tender process under reference. As the ONGC asserted the Material Management Manual (MMM) were only apply so far the Clause 56.0 to 56.6 of the Works Manual have nothing to do with the present tendering process. 8. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Bordoloi submitted that this tender process has lost its sanctity for interference by the tendering authority by way of changing the standard specifications of the tender. He submits that as per the Work Manual, 2007, the work manual shall be applicable for all type of works or items rate and LSTK basis covering Civil & Electrical, E & M Works, Instrumentation and E and T Works, Offshore Works, Dry Docking Works, O & M Works, Onshore Works, Rigs and Equipments Repair Works as detailed under para 2.0 of the Works Manual, 2007. As sequel to the Clause 1.1 of the Works Manual, Mr. As sequel to the Clause 1.1 of the Works Manual, Mr. Dutta, learned Senior counsel referred to the definition of the 'Works' as appearing in Clause 2.1 where the following has been provided: "Works" shall mean any activity/group of activities/turnkey or otherwise such as construction works inclusive of civil, mechanical, electrical, C&M, operation, pipelines and oil field installations for onshore & offshore, repair & maintenance, materials and services, related to these installations/works undertaken to achieve the desired objectives of ONGC Some exceptions Mr. Dutta, senior counsel pointed out, are also catalogued but those do not cover the present work. Thereafter, he pointed out that apart from the works as listed in the work manual all other activities/jobs shall be got executed through the MM Manual. Since the work is of laying of the pipelines and oil field installation, the work must be covered by the Work Manual 2007 and has to be carried out as per guidelines of the Work Manual, 2007. He continued to submit that the detailed guidelines are available in the Work Manual, 2007. Where it has been also stated that the accuracy range of the estimate prepared on the schedule of the quantities and the schedule of rates as mentioned shall be considered as (+)/(-) 10% on the schedule of rates. It has been provided in Clause 5.3 that the said rate has to be derived. Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel referring to the Clause 24.2 of the said manual submitted that the major qualifying criteria in respect of the two bid system and the essential qualifying requirement in respect of the single bid system must be specified clearly in the NIT and be published in the ONGC tender website so that prospective bidders are aware of this requirement at the time of buying the bidding documents. As sequel to that he further submitted that in Clause 55.4 it has been categorically stated: However, if, as a sequel to the pre-bid conference, modifications are required in the BEC/specifications/tender conditions (excluding commercial conditions standardized by PMC and excluding the major qualifying criteria), prior approval of the CTAA would have to be obtained by the work centre by providing detailed justification for agreeing to such modifications. Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel further submitted that by the corrigendum dated 02.05.2011, the respondent, the ONGC the standard terms of the contract has been changed. Mr. Dutta, learned senior counsel further submitted that by the corrigendum dated 02.05.2011, the respondent, the ONGC the standard terms of the contract has been changed. The Annexure-1 appended to the corrigendum dated 02.05.2011 clearly demonstrates that how the changes have occurred. He submitted that these are the pointers of the extreme arbitrariness in the administrative action. 9. Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the Zeeneel has also released the similar salvo and stated that entire tender process has been vitiated for arbitrary action of the ONGC. But his focus was on acceptance of the L1 bidder. Referring to Clause 56.1 of the Work Manual, 2007. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel strenuously argued that the entire exercise of selecting the L1 has been carried out in violation of the said provision and so has been done so that the entire exercise culminate in the retendering. Gainfully Clause 56.1 is quoted: Offer quoted by L-1 bidder within the accuracy range (+/-) indicated in the estimated cost prepared as per the approved procedure shall be the normal limits for acceptance of tender. In case of 3 or m ore acceptable bids, and the quote of L-1 bidder wit h in the normal limits of acceptance, then the work may be awarded to L-1 bidder without resorting to negotiations He further submitted on the basis of Clause No. 5.3 that the workable rate is surveyed by the Service/Project execution group to collect costs/budgetary quotations as per the existing practices as duly approved by the level-II officers. The prevailing market rates is surveyed by a Committee of the officers comprising of the representatives of the level not below E-1 from the attached finance and Service/Project execution group. The committee for collection of market rates is constituted by not lower than the Level-II officers in consultation with the local finance. However, the committee should ensure that the budgetary quotations are collected from the reputed parties. The basic market rates and the analysis of rates of the individual items will be approved by not lower than the Level-II officers. Mr. Das, on the basis of the said provision submitted that the L1 has quoted a rate below 42.60 and despite that he has been selected as the L1 without any question. From the affidavit-in-opposition, it is apparent that the ONGC has accepted that rate. Mr. Das, on the basis of the said provision submitted that the L1 has quoted a rate below 42.60 and despite that he has been selected as the L1 without any question. From the affidavit-in-opposition, it is apparent that the ONGC has accepted that rate. He further submitted that this is a fit case where this Court should interfere the arbitrary action of the respondent, the ONGC. 10. On the other hand, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the ONGC at the out set stated that the writ petitions are not maintainable for the reason that all the writ petitioners after participating in the tenders in terms of the corrigendum dated 02-05- 2011 have approached this Court, they are estopped by their conduct to question the action. In support of his contention he referred a decision of the Apex Court in Tafcon Projects (I)(P) Ltd. Vrs. Union of India and others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 788 where the Apex Court held: we need express no view on this matter because in any event Respondent 3's offer of an upfront payment of Rs. 2.50 lakhs per year, which was much lower than that offered by the appellant M/s. Tafcon. Therefore, whichever meaning is accepted, untimately M/s. Tafcon's offer was much better than that of respondent 3 and its selection cannot be faulted. Besides Respondent 3 had bid pursuant to the tender notice and participated in the proceedings before the Selection Committee. It cannot now take advantage of any alleged vagueness in the tender notice. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel further submitted that by a Circular under No. MAT/PMC/WM/1/08 dated 30-06- 2008 the decision of the corporate material management has been communicated. The said circular contends inter alia: The issue regarding whether to follow the Works Manual of MM Manual in ternders which are being processed b y the MM Deptt. has caused considerable confusion in the Work Centres. In fact only MM Manual should be followed for tenders which are being processed by the MM Deptt. With a view to avoid confusion at Work Centre level, it is suggested that following clause should be incorporated in the Works Manual, 2007. For tenders which are to be processed by the MM Deptt as per BDP. Only MM Manual is to be followed. With a view to avoid confusion at Work Centre level, it is suggested that following clause should be incorporated in the Works Manual, 2007. For tenders which are to be processed by the MM Deptt as per BDP. Only MM Manual is to be followed. From the tender document it would be found that the tender has been floated by the GM Head (MM) Assam Asset, Material Management Department, as such the tending process is remotely related with the Work Manual, 2007, it has been guided by the Material Management Mannual. As such there is no relevance of the Work Manual, 2007. In addition thereto, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submitted that there had been no violation of the appropriate manual and to prove his point, Mr. Choudhury referring to the corrigendum dated 02- 05-2011 submitted that the corrigendum itself would prove that the standard specification have not been altered what has been altered is the instruction of the bidders and some consequential changes in the terms and conditions of the tenders have taken place to adjust the said change. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners is absolutely without substance. As regars, selection of the L1, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel submitted that the Clause 56.1 is not the absolute yardstick but there can be variation in view of Clause 56.6 of the Work Manual 2007 which stipulates that when the tender amount of the L1 is lower than accuracy range of the estimated cost, the offer be examined w.r.t the workable rates as compared with the estimated cost as per scope of the work and the recommendations are required to be submitted as per merit of the case for the approval of CTAA. In the case in hand the workability has been scrutinized and in the affidavit-in-opposition the reasons have been assigned by the ONGC and as such, there can be any question of any breach of the espoused policy of the tendering by the ONGC or in the selection of the L1. The ONGC has produced the relevant records before the Court for examination. 11. The ONGC has produced the relevant records before the Court for examination. 11. On consideration of the rival contentions and on scrutiny of the records as available before this Court, this Court finds that the contention of the petitioners that there had been breach of the Works Manual, 2007 cannot be accepted in view of the circular dated 30-06-2008 which categorically stipulates that for tenders which are processed by the MM Department as per the DDP, the MM Manual is to be followed. In the writ petitions there is no whisper of the breach of any provision of the MM Manual. Moreover, no breach also as well could be established by the petitioner of the provisions as incorporated in the Work Manual, 2007. As regards selection of the L1, the explanation as given by the ONGC on the workable rate does not appear absurd and there rationale is quite consistent to Clause 56.6 of the Work Manual, 2007. Therefore, on the yardstick of the Work Manual, 2007 also the ONGC is not prohibited from accepting the rate far below +/- 10% of the estimated rate. Moreover, this Court shall not extend its authority for interfering the exercise of assessing the workable rate of a commercial bid. This should be left with the domain of the executives or the authorities. Unless it has been demonstrated the entire decision is tainted by the unreasonableness, no interference can be expected of this Court. Moreover, this Court finds that all the writ petitioners participated in the bid after the corrigendum dated 02-05-2011 was issued and they quoted their rate accordingly. Thus, they are estopped by their conduct to question the validity of the change that has been implanted by way of corrigendum dated 02-05-2011 in the original NIT. Moreover, for such corrigendum, no prejudice has been caused to the writ petitioners and as such even there is no reason to test the action of the ONGC-respondent in the touchstone of proportionality. As corollary to these findings, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no costs in the fact and circumstances of the case. The interim order as passed earlier stands vacated. The ONGC would be at liberty to finalize the tender process and to take appropriate decision on relevant consideration. Petition dismissed.