JUDGMENT Biplab Kumar Sharma, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the tender process that was initiated vide Annexure P/2 e-advertisement dated 03.07.2013. The work involved is construction of road from 3.00 KM point of Hunli-Anini BRO Road to Abrango under Prime Minister Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY). The bid opening date was specified as 26.07.2013 at 11 AM. Standard Bid Document (SBD) was to be downloaded w.e.f. 04.07.2013 upto 25.07.2013 (4 PM). It was also specified that during the period of 04.07.2013 to 14.07.2013 (4 PM), clarification could be obtained. Bids was to be submitted during the period from 15.07.2013 to 25.07.2013 (4 PM). According to the petitioner, the respondents arbitrarily modified the existing criteria and added new qualifying criteria at the stage of online uploading of the scanned bid documents which were never mentioned under the SBD. As a result, the petitioner could not participate in the bidding. 2. Referring to various clauses of the tender documents, it is the case of the petitioner that due to non-fulfilling the modified and fresh criteria, the bid documents of the petitioner was not accepted by the web-page of the computer and hence it could not participate in the e-tendering process. 3. Counter affidavits have been filed by the official as well as the private respondents. In the affidavit filed by the official respondents, the aforesaid plea of the petitioner has been denied. In paragraph 6, 7 & 9 of the affidavit, it has been stated thus:- 6. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph-6 of the writ petition, the deponent states that respondent do agree upon term and condition as stated and accordingly bidders were asked for financial detail for last five years i.e., from 2008-09 to 2012-13. However, space for financial detail beyond required period has been provided online which is optional for the bidders. Bidders may or may ignore not fill up the space or fill 'NOT APPLICABLE'. Clarification and instruction of this issue was communicated during interaction with bidders in pre-bid meeting held on 15th July 2013 which the appellant did not bother to attend. Pre bid meetings is arranged for all bidders for each packages to sort out such issues. Clarification on any issue pertaining to e-tendering process can also be obtained from concern authority in any working hours. Pre bid meetings is arranged for all bidders for each packages to sort out such issues. Clarification on any issue pertaining to e-tendering process can also be obtained from concern authority in any working hours. So far as sale tax/VAT certificate and character certificates are concern bidders are required to upload only the documents which are sought for and any space provided by default are to be marked not applicable or not available. So, document not accepted by the web page of the computer as stated by the petitioner is again a false reason. Respondent is surprised to know that petitioner could not upload bid documents because of the reasons as stated above whereas three other bidders namely: (1) M/s. GYT Trading Centre, Itanagar, (2) M/s. Tamchi Kusuk, Itanagar and Geepong Enterprise have successfully uploaded their bid under same terms and conditions. Further to this it is pertinent to mention here that bidders are required to registered their Digital signature Certificate in respect of their firm in PMGSY portal well in advance, whereas, it appears from downloaded documents enclosed by the petitioner at Annexure p/3 of the writ petition, that DSC registration has been accepted only on 24th July 2013 i.e., just one day before last date of uploading the bid documents. 7. That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the deponent states that bidders are required to upload only the documents which are sought for. Any other documents required by the system as default are to mark not applicable or not available. Clarification and instructions in regards to these technical issues were shared with bidders during pre-bid meeting held on 15th July 2013 petitioner neither attended the pre-bid meeting nor did he contact any of authority concern seeking clarification on these technical issues. Provision for bidders to seek clarification on tender process is laid down in Section 2, clauses 9 of the SBD. 8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 8 and 10 of the writ petition, the deponent states that petitioner firm could not upload his bid document in time nor for the reason as stated by him but for the reasons of late registration to PMGSY e-tendering website and other reasons as explained in above paras. 8. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 8 and 10 of the writ petition, the deponent states that petitioner firm could not upload his bid document in time nor for the reason as stated by him but for the reasons of late registration to PMGSY e-tendering website and other reasons as explained in above paras. Hence, petition submitted by the petitioner form for re-tendering of PMGSY road works from 3 km point of Hunli-Anini BRO road to Abrango cannot be considered as it would be unjust and deprivation to 3 (three) other bidders who has successfully uploaded their bids. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6 (impleaded respondent) it has been stated that for bidding under PMGSY, through electronic bid submission, detailed guidelines for viewing biddings and submission of the online bid were available at the website of the department and that the petitioner could have easily availed of the same. It has been denied that there was failure on the part of the petitioner to upload the bid documents. It has further been stated that the writ petition has been filed with an ulterior motive. Referring to the SBD, it is the stand of the respondent No. 6 that everything was clear and unambiguous and the grounds on which the writ petition is structured are not at all sustainable. Referring to the time schedule for submission of bids, it has also been stated that in case of any doubt, the petitioner could have obtained the clarification during the period 04.07.2013 to 14.07.2013. The affidavit farther states that the petitioner did not even submit the original documents before the respondent No. 5. Referring to another firm, namely, M/s. Geepong Enterprises, it has been stated in the affidavit that the said firm had also successfully uploaded the bid documents but failed to verify the original documents before the respondent No. 5 on the fixed date i.e. 25.07.2013 and as such the bid of the said firm was also rejected at the time of technical evaluation. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 7 (also impleaded respondent), same is the stand, taken. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 7 (also impleaded respondent), same is the stand, taken. Referring to the different dates fixed for submission of tenders along with the clarifications etc, it has been contended that the petitioner could have obtained the required clarification in case of any doubt instead of filing a writ petition with distorted facts. It has been stated in the affidavit that the Annexure P/5 coolly annexed to the writ petition would reveal that the petitioner did not even upload the financial reports for the last 5 (five) years starting from 2008-09 onwards as sought for by the department. As stated in the affidavit, even the registration of the DSC by the petitioner was only on 24.07.2013, whereas the last date for submission of bid was 25.07.2013. The respondent has further stated that the petitioner's bid even otherwise could have been declared non-responsive in terms of Clause-5 of the NIT and also clause 12.2(d) of the ITB, which requires that original documents should be submitted to the respondent No. 5 by hand 2 (two) days before the opening of the technical bid, failing which the bids would be declared non-responsive. 6. I have heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned AAG, AP, appearing on behalf of the official respondents and so also Mr. D. Panging and Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel representing respondents No. 6 and 7 respectively. I have also perused the entire materials on records. 7. Referring to the pleadings in the writ petition, Mr. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner having been deprived of the participation in the tender process because of the change in the qualifying criteria, the tender process is required to be interfered with. On the other hand, Mr. K. Ete, learned AAG, AP, questioned the very maintainability of the writ petition, submitted that when the others could submit the bids, the plea of the petitioner is not tenable in law. Referring to the decisions reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 (Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.) and (2005) 4 SCC 435 (Global Energy Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & Ors.), he submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, no judicial interference is called for in the impugned tender process. State of Karnataka & Ors.) and (2005) 4 SCC 435 (Global Energy Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. & Ors.), he submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, no judicial interference is called for in the impugned tender process. 8. Both Mr. D. Panging and Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel representing respondents No. 6 and 7 referring to the respective counter affidavits of the said two respondents, submitted that the very conduct of the petitioner would go to show that the plea raised in the writ petition is an afterthought, making the writ petition liable to be dismissed. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 6 also referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398 (Kishore Samrite Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) in this regard. 9. As indicated above, the e-advertisement clearly indicate that in case of any clarification, the prospective tenderer could obtain the same during the period from 04.07.2013 to 14.07.2013. Admittedly, the petitioner did not seek any clarification in the matter. It is in this context, the learned counsel for the private respondents and so also the learned AAG made the submission that when the petitioner could get the registration of the DSC only on 24.07.2013, just one day ahead of the last date of submission of bid on 25.07.2013, its plea in the writ petition is an afterthought. Further, as per clause-5 of the NIT and Clause 12.2(d) of the ITB, the petitioner was required to submit original documents to the respondent No. 5 by hand, two days before opening of the technical bid. It was stipulated that upon failure to do so, the bid will be declared non-responsive. Admittedly, the petitioner did not even submit the original documents before the respondent No. 5. Under similar circumstances, another firm namely, M/s. Geepong Enterprises which had successfully uploaded the bid but failed to verify the original documents before the respondent No. 5 on 24.07.2013, its bid was rejected at the time of technical evaluation of the bids. 10. The bidders were asked for financial detail for last five years from 2008-09 to 2012-2013. However, space for financial detail beyond the required period had been provided online which was optional for the bidders. 10. The bidders were asked for financial detail for last five years from 2008-09 to 2012-2013. However, space for financial detail beyond the required period had been provided online which was optional for the bidders. The petitioner could have ignored the particular space or could have furnished the remark "not applicable" coupled with this, pre-bid meeting was arranged for all bidders for each packages to sort out such issues. 11. So far as Sales, Tax/VAT certificate and Character Certificates are concerned, as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, the bidders were required to upload only the documents which were sought for and in space provided by default, were to be marked as "not applicable" or "not available". The bidders were also required to register their Digital Signature Certificate in respect of their firm in PMSGY portal well in advance whereas the petitioner obtained the DSC registration only on 24.07.2013 i.e. just one day before the last date of uploading the bid documents. There is nothing to indicate that any new criteria had been introduced at any stage of e-tendering. PMGSY e-tendering portal is based on Gep NIC software developed by the NICCA, New Delhi and the options for additional documents available online were by default. Hence, the plea of arbitrary introduction of new criteria or modification and insertion in any arbitrary manner as has been alleged by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 12. The decision on which the learned AAG, AP has placed reliance are on the scope of judicial review in respect of terms of tender notice. Unless it is found to be wholly arbitrary, discriminatory or actuated by malice, the terms of tender notice are not subject to judicial review. The Court cannot interfere with the conditions/eligibility criteria in tender in grounds that some other terms could have been fairer, wiser or more logical. In the instant case, there is no allegation of any malafide and colourable exercise of power. 13. The Court cannot interfere with the conditions/eligibility criteria in tender in grounds that some other terms could have been fairer, wiser or more logical. In the instant case, there is no allegation of any malafide and colourable exercise of power. 13. Kishore Samrite (supra) has been pressed into service by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 in reference to the statement made in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, in which it has been stated that the respondents have not proceeded any further to finalize the tender and that the technical bid has not been opened till the date of filing of the writ petition and that no final settlement of the contract has been made. The writ petition was filed on 29.07.2013 but before that technical bid was opened and the process started towards finalizing the tender process. According to the learned counsel for respondent No. 6, because of the aforesaid misleading statement of the writ petitioner, the interim stay was granted but for which it would not have been granted. In paragraph 36 of the said decision of the Apex Court, it has been observed thus:- 36. The party not approaching the Court with clean hands would be liable to be non-suited and such party, who has also succeeded in polluting the stream of justice by making patently false statements, cannot claim relief, especially under Article 136 of the Constitution. While approaching the Court, a litigant must state correct facts and come with clean hands. Where such statement of facts is based on some information, the source of such information must also be disclosed. Totally misconceived petition amounts to an abuse of process of Court and such a litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to an abuse of process of Court. A litigant is bound to make full and true disclosure of facts. 14. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The interim order dated 30.07.2013 operating in this proceeding stands vacated. Petition dismissed