Hasnain Massodi, J.:- Petitioner is a joint venture enterprise engaged in construction, operation and maintenance of potable water systems, waste water systems, Water Treatment Plants, Pumping Stations, roads, bridges and other like project. Respondent is a society registered under J & K Societies Registration Act, wholly owned by State Government and respondent No. 3 is its Project Manager. 2. Petitioner responded to a tender notice floated by respondent No. 3 on 20th December 2013, whereby offers were invited from the interested parties for, Providing, laying joint testing and commissioning of raw water pipeline, from Higher reaches of Dood Ganga Nallah to Kralipora water Treatment Plant. 3. Having regard to the nature of the project and cost involved, the respondent No. 3 decided to adopt dual bid system to allot the contract. An interested party was to submit technical bid in the prescribed format as also, the price bid. The technical bid would indicate the expertise and experience of the tenderer and its resources mobilization capacity for execution of the project so that only an aspirant satisfying the prescribed qualification, found capable of executing the contract was considered for allotment of the contract. It was only after the technical bid was accepted that the price bid was to be opened and contract allotted to the eligible tenderer having regard to the price quoted and other relevant considerations. 4. In terms of Tender Notice, Offers/Bids were to be delivered on or before 1500 hours on 28th January 2014 together with the bid security. Pre bidding meeting was to be held on 10th January 2014, and a site visit conducted on the same date. Technical bids, as per tenderer notice, were to be opened on 28th January 2014 and the financial bids on 20th March 2014. 5. Petitioner's technical bid as also that of other tenderers were opened on 28th January 2014. Its technical bid as also that of 6 other tenderers were accepted. The financial bids made by petitioner and other 6 qualified companies were opened on 20th March 2014. Petitioner was found to have quoted an amount of Rs. 43,07,04,068/= (revised Rs. 42,57,04,068.00) for execution of the project. The price quoted by the petitioner was lowest amongst seven technically qualified bidders. 6. Petitioner while quoting the price bid gave breakup of price for Pipe Laying and Road Restoration as Rs. 30,80,42,268.00 and Rs. 11,76,61,800.00 respectively. Petitioner was found to have quoted an amount of Rs. 43,07,04,068/= (revised Rs. 42,57,04,068.00) for execution of the project. The price quoted by the petitioner was lowest amongst seven technically qualified bidders. 6. Petitioner while quoting the price bid gave breakup of price for Pipe Laying and Road Restoration as Rs. 30,80,42,268.00 and Rs. 11,76,61,800.00 respectively. In addition to above breakup, petitioner also quoted item-wise price of twenty six items for Pipe Laying and seven items for Road Laying. 7. Petitioner having regard to the prices quoted expected respondents to allot contract in its favour, in as-much as petitioner was declared technically qualified and price quoted by petitioner was found to be lowest with the difference of Rs. 1.37 crores between petitioner's price and that quoted by second lowest tenderer. However, as per information received by the petitioner his status was pushed down to seventh place in the comparative list, on the ground that there was discrepancy in unit prices per Kg as petitioner quoted unit price for HYSD Bars (Item No. 21) at Rs. 65/= per Kg for the aforesaid item in figures and sixty five thousand in words, though the total amount for supply of 128164 Kg of HYSD bars was corresponded to the prices quoted in figures. The decision was taken notwithstanding petitioner's communicated dated 11th April 2014, to clarify the position and setting that rate quoted in figures would prevail. Petitioner in wake of decision taken by the respondents, obviously would be out of race as he would become the highest bidder, though overall price quoted by petitioner is lowest amongst seven technically qualified tenderers. 8. The decision taken by the respondent to bring petitioner down from L1(Lowest bidder) to L7 (Highest bidder) is questioned in the petition on hand, on the grounds set out in the petition. It is contended that the discrepancy found in the price quoted for HYSD bars in figures and words is attributable to clerical error. The very fact that total amount computed on account of supply of 128164 Kg of HYSD bars corresponds to total price worked out on the basis of unit price in figures, according to petitioner, is sufficient to indicate that the error is a mere lapse and therefore waivable. The very fact that total amount computed on account of supply of 128164 Kg of HYSD bars corresponds to total price worked out on the basis of unit price in figures, according to petitioner, is sufficient to indicate that the error is a mere lapse and therefore waivable. Reference is made to the Bidding Documents section 1 - Instructions to Bidders and in particular to Clauses 27, 31 and 33 to urge that the error in question is to be ignored in as-much as it does not constitute any material deviation. It is maintained that petitioner's status of Lowest Bidder (L1) cannot be downgraded on the ground of so called discrepancy and that the petitioner deserves to be allotted the contract in question, having regard to his technical qualification and the price quoted. 9. Respondents dispute petitioner's claim to be lowest bidder on the ground that when the price quoted is evaluated taking into account unit price quoted for supply of HYSD bars (Item No. 21) in words, the overall rates offered by the petitioner are much above the next highest bidder. Respondents plead that in terms of Clause 33.1(d) ITB, in case of discrepancy between price in figures and words, price quoted in words is to prevail. It is pleaded that the petitioner because of his negligence and carelessness does not deserve any concession. Respondents insists that any rectification of error committed by the petitioner would not be permissible under law in as much as such rectification is likely to affect rights of other contenders for the contract. It is insisted that the conditions laid down in the Bid Document are critical and having regard to the value of the contract, are to be strictly complied and a careless bidder like petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence. Petitioner is alleged to have failed to act promptly in the matter and to have taken no steps to correct mistake, even after it was noticed in his tender document. 10. I have gone through the pleadings as also record available on the file, I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. Petitioner is alleged to have failed to act promptly in the matter and to have taken no steps to correct mistake, even after it was noticed in his tender document. 10. I have gone through the pleadings as also record available on the file, I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. Before coming to the nature of lapse attributed to the petitioner and whether such lapse makes the bid non-responsive and the lapse incondonable, or incorrigible it would be appropriate to examine the extent and scope of Judicial Review in matters relating to tenders and award of contract by Government or its functionaries. 12. Supreme Court in Siemons Public Communication Private Limited and ors. V/s. Union of India and others AIR (2009) SC 1204, had an occasion to deal with the subject. The court referring to law laid down in Asia Foundation and Reconstruction Limited Vs. Trafalgar house Construction (1) Ltd. and others (1997) 1 SCC 738 , observed, 34. When the power of Judicial review is invoked in the matters relating to tenders or award of contracts., certain special features have to be considered. A contract is a commercial transaction and evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. In such cases principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contracts is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not exercise the power of judicial review and interfere even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that there is a procedural lacuna. 13. The matter earlier fell for consideration of the Apex Court in Purvankara Projects Ltd. V/s Hotel Venus International and ors. (2007) 10 SCC 33 . It was held that court cannot press into service doctrine of fairness to amend, alter or vary the express terms of tender or contract or to judge as to how the tender terms should have been framed. It was held that working out terms of tender is a privilege of the Government that invites tenders and the court cannot in the name of Judicial review declare a condition as Implied term not expressly provided in the tender. The court emphasizing limitation on exercise of judicial review in such matters referred to following observation made by it in Directorate of Education V/s Educomp Datamatics Ltd. (2004), 4 SCC 19. 9. The court emphasizing limitation on exercise of judicial review in such matters referred to following observation made by it in Directorate of Education V/s Educomp Datamatics Ltd. (2004), 4 SCC 19. 9. It is well settled now that the courts can scrutinize the award of the contracts by the Government or its agencies in exercise of their powers of judicial review to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism. However, there are inherent limitations in the exercise of the power of judicial review in such matters. The point as to the extent of judicial review permissible in contractual matters while inviting bids by issuing tenders has been examined in depth by this Court in Tata Cellular V Union of India. After examining the entire case law the following principles have been deduced: (SCC pp. 687-88, para 94) 94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If are view of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by malafides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 10. In Air India Ltd. V. Cochin International Airport Ltd., SCC (2000) 2. 617, this court observed: The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the state, is essentially a commercial transaction. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 10. In Air India Ltd. V. Cochin International Airport Ltd., SCC (2000) 2. 617, this court observed: The award of a contract, whether it is by a private party or by a public body or the state, is essentially a commercial transaction. In arriving at a commercial decision considerations which are paramount are commercial considerations. The state can choose its own method to arrive at a decision. It can fix its own terms of invitation to tender and that is not open to judicial scrutiny. It can enter into negotiations before finally deciding to accept one of the offers made to it. Price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. It is free to grant any relaxation, for bona fide reasons. It the tender conditions permit such a relaxation. It may not accept the offer even though it happens to be the highest or lowest. But the state, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to here to the norms, standards and procedure laid down by them are cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though 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. 11 This principle was again restated by this Court in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. V. Commr., Ulhasnagar Municipal Corpn. (2000) 5 SCC 287 . It was held that the terms and conditions in the tender are prescribed by the Government bearing in mind the nature of contract and in such matters the authority calling for the tender is the best judge to prescribe the terms and conditions of the tender. It is not for the courts to say whether the conditions prescribed in the tender under consideration were better than the ones prescribed in the earlier tender invitations. Supreme Court in recent Case reported as Tejas Construction & International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa and Anr. 2012 (3) Supreme 376 . While dealing with the scope of Judicial review in contract matter observed: 13. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in master Marine Service (P) Ltd. V. Metcafe & Hodgkinson(P) Ltd. & Ors. Supreme Court in recent Case reported as Tejas Construction & International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Council, Sendhwa and Anr. 2012 (3) Supreme 376 . While dealing with the scope of Judicial review in contract matter observed: 13. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in master Marine Service (P) Ltd. V. Metcafe & Hodgkinson(P) Ltd. & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 138 and Jagdish mandal V. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517 where this Court laid down the following test for judicial interference in exercise of power of judicial review of administrative action: Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review should pose to itself the following questions: i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is malafide 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 From the above over-view of case law on the subject, the broad principles that emerges are that the courts should normally not interfere in commercial transactions, as the state is best equipped to take decisions in such matters and such decisions are expected to be taken on alive to dictates of public interest. Courts in the name of judicial review are not to reframe the eligibility criteria laid down in the tender notice or the rules regulating award of contract. The power of Judicial review is to be exercised only if the decision making process is found to be arbitrary, capacious, in conflict with the mandate of rule of law or in serious conflict with the public interest. 14. After brief survey of principles governing exercise of Judicial review in the matters of tenders and contracts by the Government, let us now examine whether the decision of respondent No. 3 to push down petitioner to L7 i.e. highest bidder, smacks of arbitrariness and calls for exercise of power of judicial review. 14. After brief survey of principles governing exercise of Judicial review in the matters of tenders and contracts by the Government, let us now examine whether the decision of respondent No. 3 to push down petitioner to L7 i.e. highest bidder, smacks of arbitrariness and calls for exercise of power of judicial review. Learned Counsel for the respondents insists that petitioner having regard to nature of the contract proposed to be allotted and the amount involved ought to have been vigilant and avoided any error in the tender documents. 15. It is argued that in case petitioner for one or other reason did not notice error in question i.e. discrepancy between price per Kg quoted in figures and words for supply of HYSD bars it should have been quick enough to correct the error at an earliest opportunity. It is argued that as petitioner was negligent at the time of submission of the bid, and no steps were taken to get the error corrected when the price bid was opened or even thereafter, he cannot be permitted to correct the error. 16. Learned counsel placing reliance on law laid down in West Bengal State Electricity Board V. Patel Engineering. Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 451 insists that in a contract like one in question strict adherence to Instructions to Bidder is essential and cannot be branded as a pedantic approach. Learned Counsel to buttress his arguments seeks to also draw support from law laid down in M/s. Ranjit Construction V National Highway Authority Ltd. and ors. AIR 2004, Delhi 64, where it was emphasized that Government contract warrants strict adherence to procedural instructions by the bidder and any disregard for such instructions would make bid non-responsive therefore liable to be rejected. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand argues that error crept in Item No. 21 of the tender document was to be condoned, as it did not get reflected in the total amount worked out by multiplying price quoted in figures by quantity of commodity to be supplied. Learned Counsel insists that as facts of West Bengal State Electricity Board case (Supra) are distinguishable from the facts of present case, the law laid down therein has no application to the present controversy. 18. Learned Counsel insists that as facts of West Bengal State Electricity Board case (Supra) are distinguishable from the facts of present case, the law laid down therein has no application to the present controversy. 18. The only controversy in the present case relates to price quoted for HYSD bars of Fp415 grade of various diameters (Item No. 21) per Kg. Though the petitioner quoted Rs. 65 per Kg in the relevant column of the Bidding Document in figures, in words it quoted price as Sixty Five Thousand Per Kilogram. The amount worked out for 128164 Kg of HYSD bars was Rs. 83,30,660 (i.e. 128164x 65). Had petitioner computed total price for supply of 128164 Kg of HYSD bars at the rate of Rs. 65000 Per Kg, i.e. rate per Kg quoted in words, the total amount would have been Rs. 83,30,660.000. This however was not done by the petitioner, as it quoted price for supply of 128164 Kg of HYSD bars taking unit price as Rs. 65 per Kg. The total bid amount i.e. Rs. 43,07,04,068 reflects the price for supply of HYSD bars at the rate of 65 per Kg and not 65000/- quotes in words in the bidding document. 19. The question arises as to whether the respondents were to rectify the error on their own taking it as non-conformity not constituting a material deviation, reservation or omission or at least respondents were to give an opportunity to the petitioner to clarify its stand and rectify the error, or the error is un-condonable and therefore petitioner's bid has been rightly evaluated as highest, though except for the error it indisputably is lowest offer. 20. To find out an answer to the question we are to give a closer look to the Bidding Procedure and in particular to relevant clause of Section I ITB. 21. Clause 27, Section I - ITB leaves room for clarification of Bids. It provides: 27. Clarification of Bids: 27.1: To assist in the examination, evaluation and comparison of the Technical and Price Bids, the Employer may, at its discretion, ask any Bidder for a clarification of its bid. Any clarification submitted by a Bidder that is not in response to a request by the Employer shall not be considered. The Employer's request for clarification and the response shall be in writing. Any clarification submitted by a Bidder that is not in response to a request by the Employer shall not be considered. The Employer's request for clarification and the response shall be in writing. No change in the substance of the Technical Bid or prices in the Price Bid shall be sought, offered, or permitted, except to confirm the correction of arithmetic errors discovered by the Employer in the evaluation of the Price Bids, in accordance with ITB 33. 27.2: If a Bidder does not provide clarification of its Bid by the date and time set in the Employer's request for clarification, its bid may be rejected. Clause 31, Non-material, Non-Conformities. 31.1: Provided that a bid is substantially responsive, the Employer may waive any nonconformities in the Bid that does not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission. 31.2: Provided that a Technical Bids substantially responsive, the Employer may request that the Bidder submit the necessary information or documentation within a reasonable period of time, to rectify non-material non-conformities in the Technical Bid related to documentation requirements. Requesting information or documentation on such non-conformities shall not be related to any aspect of the Price Bid. Failure of the Bidder to comply with the request may result in the rejection of its Bid. 31.3: Provided that a Technical Bid is substantially responsive, the Employer shall rectify nonmaterial, nonconformities related to the Bid Price. To this effect, the Bid price shall be adjusted, for comparison purposes only, to reflect the price of a missing or non-conforming item or component. The adjustment shall be made using the method indicated in section 3(Evaluation and Qualification Criteria). Para 33. Correction of Arithmetic Errors. To this effect, the Bid price shall be adjusted, for comparison purposes only, to reflect the price of a missing or non-conforming item or component. The adjustment shall be made using the method indicated in section 3(Evaluation and Qualification Criteria). Para 33. Correction of Arithmetic Errors. 33.1: During the evaluation of price Bids, the Employer shall correct arithmetical errors on the following basis: a) If there is a discrepancy between the unit price and the total price that is obtained by multiplying the unit price and quantity, the unit price shall prevail and the total price shall be corrected, unless in the opinion of the Employer there is an obvious misplacement of the decimal point in the unit price, in which case the total price as quoted shall be govern and the unit price shall be corrected; b) if there is an error in a total corresponding to the addition or subtraction of subtotals, the subtotals shall prevail and the total shall be corrected; c) If there is a discrepancy between the bid price in the Summary of Bill of Quantities and the bid amount of item (c) of the Letter of Price Bid, the bid price in the Summary of Bill of Quantities will prevail and the bid amount in item (c) of the Letter of Price Bid will be corrected; and d) If there is a discrepancy between words and figures, the amount in words shall prevail, unless the amount expressed in words is related to an arithmetic error, in which case the amount in figures shall prevail subject to (a),(b) and (c) above. 33.2: If the Bidder that submitted the lowest evaluated does not accept the correction of errors, its Bid shall be disqualified and its bid security may be forfeited or its bid securing declaration executed. 22. The respondent 3 in terms of Clause 27 is given discretion to ask a Bidder for clarification of its Bid. It is only in case the Bidder fails to offer explanation that the Employer (respondent No. 3 in present case) is to reflect bid. Clause 31 goes a step further, it deals with waivable nonconformities. In terms of Clause 31, non-conformity with ITB or terms of Tender Notice is to be ignored where such non-conformity does not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission. Where non-conformity is material and attributable to arithmetic error Clause 33 comes into play. Clause 31 goes a step further, it deals with waivable nonconformities. In terms of Clause 31, non-conformity with ITB or terms of Tender Notice is to be ignored where such non-conformity does not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission. Where non-conformity is material and attributable to arithmetic error Clause 33 comes into play. It leaves scope for correction of arithmetic errors subject to the condition laid down there in. 23. In the present case, the error in price quoted in words for supply of HYSD bars (Item No. 21) as already pointed out is not reflected in Line Item total for the item, i.e. supply of 128164 Kg of HYSD bars. Had it been internalized while computing the total price involved in supply of 128164 per Kgs. of the item in question and thereafter in the aggregate or grand total, the respondents possibly would not be required to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make necessary clarification. As price for supply of 128164 KG of HYSD bars was worked out on the basis of unit price given in figures, the error was non-substantial and non-material and called for clarification, from the respondents No. 3. In terms of Clause 27 discretion is given to the Employer (respondent No. 3 in present case) to call for clarification in such circumstances from the bidder. Such discretion, it needs no emphasis is to be exercised objectively and in a transparent manner. The provision for such discretion is not mere ornamental or superfluous in nature. It is intended to achieve an important purpose. There would be no better reason to exercise discretion than one warranted by public interest. Object of Clause 27 is not to chase out/ignore the Lowest Bidder otherwise technically qualified, on account of non-material error that can be clarified by the bidder. Imperatives of public interest would require Employer(respondent No. 3 in present case), to obtain clarification, where, it does not amount to change, in substance of Technical Bid or Price Bid and what is sought to be clarified is not a material error or discrepancy. Here neither discrepancy in price quoted in figures and words for Item No. 21 has been brought to the notice of petitioner nor petitioner asked to offer clarification of its bid. It is pertinent to point out that the price quoted by the petitioner, admittedly is Rs. Here neither discrepancy in price quoted in figures and words for Item No. 21 has been brought to the notice of petitioner nor petitioner asked to offer clarification of its bid. It is pertinent to point out that the price quoted by the petitioner, admittedly is Rs. 1.37 crores less than the second lowest Bidder. It hardly needs to be emphasized that public interest would insist on allotment of contract to the Lowest Bidder provided he is found to be technically competent to execute the contract. Petitioner admittedly crossed the first impediment and was declared technically qualified to execute the contract. Therefore, public interest would require that petitioner was offered an opportunity to make the clarification. 24. In West Bengal State Electricity Board case (supra), the respondent in effect sought change in Unit Price as also Line item total. The respondents company while quoting unit price for Rock Excavation in INR, repeated the unit rate in INR instead of US $. To make it more clear Unit Price was quoted as 148.08 INR and the Unit Price in US $ that ought to have been US $ 3.38 was also quoted as Rs. 148.08. There was an error in Line unit total also. In place of Rs. 1,48,080.00, the respondents company had quoted Line unit total as Rs. 1,48,077.97. In item Impervious Core Embankment, the quantity column was left blank. The Unit Price was quoted as Rs. 1,48,080.00 in place of 84.21 in figures as well as in words. The quantity was sought to entered as 3900 against the column left blank. Such errors were not restricted to only two items mentioned above but were detected in 35 other items. The respondents company obviously sought correction of Unit Price and Line Item total. The errors made constituted a material deviation. The Apex Court referring to Clause 27, titled Classification of Bids and Clause 29 titled Correction of Errors of ITB held that the correction intended to be made by the respondent company would not be permissible under relevant Clause of TDS in as much as the company sought to make changes in Unit Price. The Apex Court referring to Clause 27, titled Classification of Bids and Clause 29 titled Correction of Errors of ITB held that the correction intended to be made by the respondent company would not be permissible under relevant Clause of TDS in as much as the company sought to make changes in Unit Price. It was held that once the unit rate and Line item total are filled by the bidder, both i.e. unit rate and Line item total are treated as unalterable at the instance of bidder, though arithmetical errors in arriving at the Line item total by the multiplication would be permitted to be corrected at his instance. The court emphasizing importance of the Instructions to Bidders in contracts of public importance, involving international competition observed: 24. The degree of care required in such a bidding is greater than in ordinary local bids for small works. It is essential to maintain the sanctity and integrity of process of tender/bid and also award of a contract. The appellant, Respondents 1 to 4 and Respondents 10 and 11 are all bound by the ITB which should be complied with scrupulously. In a work of this nature and magnitude where bidders who fulfill prequalification alone are invited to bid, adherence to instructions cannot be given a go-by by branding it as a pedantic approach, otherwise it will encourage and provide scope for discrimination, arbitrariness and favourtism which are totally opposed to the rule of law and constitutional values. The very purpose of issuing rules/instructions is to ensure their values. The very purpose of issuing rules/instructions is to ensure their enforcement lest the rule of law should be a casualty. Relaxation or waiver of a rule or condition, unless so provided under the ITB, by the State or its agencies (the appellant) in favour of one bidder would create justifiable doubts in the minds of other bidders, would impair the rule of transparency and fairness and provide room for manipulation to suit the whims of the state agencies in picking and choosing a bidder for awarding contracts as in the case of distributing bounty or charity. Such approach should always be avoided. Where power to relax or waive a rule or a condition exists under the rules. It has to be done strictly in compliance with the rules. Such approach should always be avoided. Where power to relax or waive a rule or a condition exists under the rules. It has to be done strictly in compliance with the rules. Therefore adherence to the ITB or rules is the best principle to be followed, which is also in the best public interest. The court finding the respondents company to have been guilty of negligence held it disentitled to relief in equity, on the ground of mistake. 25. Reverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner as already pointed out does not seek any change in Unit Price or Line Item total. The error that has crept in does not constitute a material deviation or change in substance of the bid. Nonetheless, it may be argued as pleaded in reply to writ petition that as the error relates to discrepancy in the unit price in words and figures Clause 33(1)(d) would be attracted and error held to be not open to correction. However, Clarification would not be one prohibited under Clause-33(1)(d) ITB for the reasons, that follow. It is pertinent to point out that Clause-29(1)(c) Correction of Error ITB (in West Bengal Electricity Board Case) is not pari materia with Clause-33(1)(d) ITB, in present case. Both the Clauses, however deal with similar discrepancies. While in Clause-29.1(c) discrepancy between figures and words of unit rate are mentioned, we do not find a specific reference to unit price in Clause-33(1)(d) of ITB in present case. Clause-33.1(d) deals with discrepancies between words and in figures in case of Line Item total and not unit rate. I hold so firstly because Clause-33.1(d), in the present case unlike Clause-29 ITB governing the matter before the Apex Court, does not make a specific reference to Unit Price and secondly under Clause 33.1(d) in case of discrepancies between words and figures, amount in words is to prevail unless the amount expressed in words is related to arithmetic error. It would be advantageous to reproduce Clause-29.1(c) ITB referred to in West Bengal State electricity Board's and Clause-33.1(d) ITB applicable to the present case. 29.1(c): where there is a discrepancy between figures and in words of a unit rate, the unit rate as quoted in words will govern. It would be advantageous to reproduce Clause-29.1(c) ITB referred to in West Bengal State electricity Board's and Clause-33.1(d) ITB applicable to the present case. 29.1(c): where there is a discrepancy between figures and in words of a unit rate, the unit rate as quoted in words will govern. (Emphasis supplied) 33.1(d): if there is a discrepancy between words and figures, the amount in words shall prevail, unless the amount expressed in words is related to an arithmetic error, in which case the amount in figures shall prevail subject to (a), (b) and (c) above. (Emphasis supplied) Had it been the intention of the authors of ITB in present case, to apply Clause-33.1(d), to the discrepancies between figures and in words of unit rate they would have specifically made mention of Unit rate as has been done in case of Clause 29(1)(d). Secondly, there is no scope for any arithmetical error in case of discrepancies between figures and words in case of unit rate. Arithmetical error would arise when the error is attributable to multiplication. To illustrate, if a bidder quotes Unit price in figures as Rs. 75 and in words as seven hundred and fifty, the discrepancies would not be attributable to arithmetical error because he had not to multiply amount in figures to convert it into words. This make it amply clear that Clause-33.1(d) intends to deal with discrepancies between figures and in words in Line item total or aggregate/grand total of the price bid. 26. The above discussion apart Employer in terms of Clause-27 ITB is required to ask the bidder for clarification of its bid. It is only after bidders would fail to respond to communication if any, received from Employer requiring it to make clarification of its bid that the Employer would be free to reject his bid. As Clause-27, ITB leaves scope for clarification and also places a rider on Employer's power to reject the bid by providing that only after the bidder fails to respond to the communication asking for clarification, the Employer can reflect the bid, it follows that discretion vested in Employer (respondent No. 3 in the present case) is to be exercised in a fair and objective manner to ensure that a bidder otherwise eligible is not denied consideration only because of lapse that can be clarified. It was therefore incumbent upon the respondent No. 3 to ask the petitioner to clarify discrepancies between figures and words in Unit Price for HYSD bars (Item No. 21). 27. One more aspect of the case needs to be noticed. The Government functionaries clothed with power to award Government contracts indisputably a public largesse, are required to act in a fair, transparent and objective manner while dealing with tendering process or awarding contracts. The rules of game are not to be acted upon in a hyper-technical manner, unmindful of what is otherwise a fact of common knowledge and not to trip people up or penalize an aspirant for contract. Whatever is not fair, transparent and objective, would be in conflict with Rule of Law and therefore tainted with arbitrariness. To illustrate, in a contract say for supply of 1000 dozens eggs, a bidder in the bid documents records offered price in figures as Rs. 60/-, but due to a writing mistake records such price as Rs. sixty thousand per dozen in words, though he works out total price for supply of 1000 dozens as Rs. 60,000/- and not 60,000,000 as the amount would be in case price per dozen in words is taken into account. Would it not be fair for the Employer/contract awarding authority to all as bidder to clarify his bid, when the Employer/contract awarding authority is well aware the price of eggs is in the range of Rs. 60/- per dozen of eggs and not sixty thousand quoted in words. Would it be open to penalize the bidder, throw him out from competition, more so when his bid is lowest. Same is the case here. Price of per Kg HYSD bars is in range of Rs. 65 per Kg and not sixty five thousand as recorded in words. 28. The lapse is otherwise waivable in terms of Clause-31.1 and 31.2. Failure of the petitioner to mention Unit Price in words, as recorded in figures could very well be taken as a non-conformity that does not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission, and condonable in terms of terms of aforesaid Clauses. A bare look at the Clause 31 would reveal that respondent Employer is to waive non-conformities in the Bid provided: i) The Bid is substantially responsive. ii) The non-conformities do not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission. A bare look at the Clause 31 would reveal that respondent Employer is to waive non-conformities in the Bid provided: i) The Bid is substantially responsive. ii) The non-conformities do not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission. In case, the non-conformity are not waived, the Employer still is to rectify non-material, non-conformities relating to the Price Bid, provided Technical Bid is substantially responsive. A bid is responsive when it substantially adhere to the terms and condition of Tender Notice. In the case in hand, petitioners bid indisputably was a responsive bid. Respondents therefore, was enjoined upon to waive the lapse. 29. A Division Bench of Delhi High Court in M/s. Supreme Infrastructure India Limited Vs. Rail Vikas Nigam Limited and another WP (c) no. 381/2012 was called upon to adjudicate upon a matter involving similar controversy as in present case. In this case, petitioner in the bid document quoted unit rate as Rs. 2820/- in place of Rs. 54,000 per metric tone. The discrepancy was attributed to the clerical error as 2820 was the quantity (2820 mt. tonnes) to be supplied and the petitioner's company while preparing the bid document, inadvertently recorded it as the price per unit. However, Line unit total reflected the correct amount. It represented estimated quantity multiplied by the unit rate of Rs. 54,000. The respondent, however, computed the Line unit total by multiplying the estimated quantity with the rate quoted by the petitioner i.e., Rs. 2820/- per metric tones. It asked the petitioner to accept the correction informing him that in case he failed to accept the correction, the bid offer would be rejected and bid security forfeited. 30. Petitioner assailed the communication received in this behalf, in a writ petition before Delhi High Court pleading that error in Unit Price was a typographical error and to be treated as such, as the Line unit total was corresponding to the actual unit price intended to be quoted. The writ petition was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the correction would amount to change in the unit price and therefore not permissible under relevant clause of ITB. Respondents to reinforce their stand relied on West Bengal State Electricity Board case (supra). The writ petition was opposed by the respondent on the ground that the correction would amount to change in the unit price and therefore not permissible under relevant clause of ITB. Respondents to reinforce their stand relied on West Bengal State Electricity Board case (supra). 31 The Court held the lapse to be a mere typographical/writing error on the part of the petitioner in filling up the Unit Rate on the ground that the explanation given by the petitioner was completely plausible that the error was due to mental fatigue or carelessness and further on the ground that the line unit total represented the actual Unit Price intended to be quoted and not Rs. 2820 inadvertently penned down by the petitioner by his own hand. It was also pointed out that the market rate of the item in question was admittedly in the range of Rs. 50,000 per metric tones. The court held that the respondents ought to have sought explanation from the petitioner and allowed him an opportunity to explain the discrepancy. It was held: 27. Under clause 27, it was open to respondent No. 1 to seek clarification from the petitioner of its price bid. The discretion vested in respondent No. 1, i.e., whether or not to ask the bidder to furnish a clarification, has to be exercised reasonably and not arbitrarily. The limitation is that while seeking such clarification, the bidder cannot change in the substance the price in the price bid. However, the bidder is permitted to confirm the correction of arithmetic errors that may be discovered by the employer in the evaluation of the price bids in accordance with ITB 31. When respondent No. 1 examined the petitioner's bid and found that the petitioner had penned down the rate in respect of the supply of TM. T-Fe 500 reinforcement steel at Rs. 2820/- which incidentally was also the quantity mentioned in the BOQ and, at the same time, total amount quoted was Rs. 15,22,80,000/-, which translated to nearly twenty times the amount which would have been arrived at by multiplying the quantity of 2820 M.T. by the rate of Rs. 2820/- per M.T., the respondent ought to have felt the need to seek a clarification particularly when the market rate for the said BOQ item is in the range of Rs. 15,22,80,000/-, which translated to nearly twenty times the amount which would have been arrived at by multiplying the quantity of 2820 M.T. by the rate of Rs. 2820/- per M.T., the respondent ought to have felt the need to seek a clarification particularly when the market rate for the said BOQ item is in the range of Rs. 50,000/- per M.T. and the respondent was simultaneously processing the other bids of the petitioner in respect of packet 2 and 3 and combination packages 1 and 3, wherein the petitioner had uniformly quoted the rate of Rs. 54,000/- per M.T., for the same BOQ item. Had the respondent No. 1 done a little exercise of reverse calculation, i.e. of dividing the total amount of Rs. 15,22,80,000/- by the quantity of 2820 per M.T., it would have arrived at the rate of Rs. 54,000/- per M.T., which was also quoted by the petitioner in respect of other packages. Had respondent No. 1 not shut its eyes and mind, as unfortunately it did it would have been clear to as day light that there was an obvious typographical/writing error in filling the unit rate by the petitioner. The court proceed to hold: 30. We cannot agree with the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was seeking to either withdraw, substitute or modify its price bid, after having submitted the same. Respondent No. 1 being a public authority dealing with public funds, owes a public duty to not out rightly reject a bid and that too the lowest bid on such flimsy and superficial grounds as taken by it in the present case. The result of the actions of respondent No. 1 if sustained, would be that the public exchequer would be poorer by about Rs. 7 crores, since the price quoted by the petitioner-who was otherwise found to be technically qualified was lower by the said amount. When compared to the bid of respondent No. 3, if the process of evaluation of bids is to be the said amount. When compared to the bid of respondent No. 3, if the process of evaluation of bids is to be done so mechanically as done in the present case, and without the use of mental faculties, intellect and exercise of human discretion, the exercise could have been left to be completed by machines/computers. When compared to the bid of respondent No. 3, if the process of evaluation of bids is to be done so mechanically as done in the present case, and without the use of mental faculties, intellect and exercise of human discretion, the exercise could have been left to be completed by machines/computers. However, that is not done because, in the matter of evaluation of bids in a tender process, the employer particularly when it is a public body dealing with public funds, is expected to function and conduct itself with reasonable prudence expected of any common man in the business. The employer cannot get bogged down by the literal rule, even if there be one (which we do not find in the present case), and throw to winds the basic common sense approach and shut its eyes to such obvious errors, to defeat not only the rights of a deserving bidder, but also sacrifice pubic interest in the process. Respondent No. 1 has failed to prudently exercise the discretion vested in it by the tender conditions to deal with the aforesaid situation. It is clearly a case where the price bid with the full bid amounts has been correctly submitted, but a typographical/writing error has crept in, in respect of one of the items in the BOQ which is but obvious. It appears that the said decision on principles supports the case of the petitioner rather than the case of the respondents. On facts it appears to be a totally different case as we will notice presently, it was because of the facts of that case that the Supreme Court decided against the bidder who had made mistakes and committed omissions ins submitting the bid document. 32. The court also referred to Gouranga Lal Chatterjee and others V/s State of West Bengal, (2002) 253 ITR 678 , where the facts, in which a bidder was not entitled to make the correction was emphasized and observed: 42. In Patel Engineering, (2001) SCR 352, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that clauses in ITB should be complied with scrupulously and adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-by by branding it as pedantic approach it has also been stated that adherence to the ITB or rules is the best principle and in the best public interest 43. In Patel Engineering, (2001) SCR 352, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that clauses in ITB should be complied with scrupulously and adherence to the instructions cannot be given a go-by by branding it as pedantic approach it has also been stated that adherence to the ITB or rules is the best principle and in the best public interest 43. But the factual context of the case in Patel Engineering, (2001) 1 SCR 352 should be considered to appreciate those observations. In Patel Engineering, the learned judges of the Supreme Court found, on facts, that the errors which were sought to be corrected are not mere clerical or mechanical ones. If those errors are allowed to be corrected, that would result in rewriting unit rates in 37 entries and also appending an explanation regarding the splitting of unit rates. 33. As the respondent No. 1 (M/s. Supreme Infrastructure Indian (Ltd.) case) ignoring petitioner's bid had allowed contract to respondent No. 3 in the petition, the court holding the petitioner entitled to initially get the contract allotted in its favour, awarded damages. The respondent No 3 was given liberty to execute the contract at the rates quoted by the petitioner and in the event, it was not acceptable to him to stop the work and allow the petitioner to complete the work on tendered rates. The court quashing communication issued by respondent No. 3, making correction in the petitioner's price bid in respect of Item no. 2061 and directed the rate quoted for said item to be read as Rs. 5400/- per metric tones. The facts of the present case are identical to the facts of M/s. Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. case. As a matter of fact, lapse or error in the referred case was more serious and material than the lapse in present case. In aforesaid case, petitioner sought change in the Unit Price, in figures as well as in words. In the present case lapse relates only to discrepancy between Unit price quoted in figures and words. 34. The plea taken by respondents that petitioner did not deserve any concession because of his negligence in getting the discrepancy in Unit Price of HYSD Bars clarified/corrected with reasonable dispatch, is devoid of any merit. Bids were submitted on 28th January 2014. The price bid was opened on 20th March 2014. 34. The plea taken by respondents that petitioner did not deserve any concession because of his negligence in getting the discrepancy in Unit Price of HYSD Bars clarified/corrected with reasonable dispatch, is devoid of any merit. Bids were submitted on 28th January 2014. The price bid was opened on 20th March 2014. The petitioner vide communication Dated 11th April 2014 informed respondents that there was a writing mistake in Unit Price quoted by it for HYSD Bars and the price quoted in figures i.e. Rs. 65/was to prevail. The petitioner fairly conceded that he would have no claim whatsoever on the basis of Unit price quoted in words. Petitioner therefore cannot be held guilty of any negligence in taking steps for clarifying this stand. In Supreme infrastructure Indian Limited (supra) the bids were submitted on 3rd June 2011, the employer informed the petitioner vide communication dated 4th May 2012 about error in Unit Price quoted by him and the petitioner vide communicated 9th May 2012 requested for correction in Unit Price from Rs. 2820 per mt to Rs. 54000/- per mt. Court held petitioner not to be guilty of any delay and latches even though he submitted bid on 3rd June 2011, did not take any step thereafter to get Unit Price corrected and woke up only after he received communicated dated 4th may 2012 from the Employer. The court condoning the delay observed. 34. This is for the reasons that the petitioner had quoted the total amount correctly. The error was only a typographic/writing error which, it appears, did not come to the petitioner's notice till respondent No. 1 issued the impugned communication dated 04.05/2012 purporting to make the correction of the quoted gross amount for the BOQ item in question. The submission of the petitioner that at the time of opening of the price bids only the total quoted amounts were read out and that the individual rates quoted in BOQ were not read out, and on that basis the petitioner was found to be the L-1 bidder, has also not been controverted by the respondents. Therefore, the said error did not come to the notice of the petitioner even after the tender opening. Therefore, the said error did not come to the notice of the petitioner even after the tender opening. In the present case also there was no discrepancy in Line Item total or aggregate/gross bid amount, so petitioner cannot be held to have been guilty of any negligence so as to reject his case for clarification of a writing error. 35. The conclusion to be drawn from the above discussion may be serialised as under: i) Clause 27 ITB Bidding Document relating to the work in question is not lifeless, vestigious or superfluous provision, but is intended to be adhered by the Employer where the Bid offered is found is to require clarification. ii) The power under Clause 27 conferred on to the Employer is to be exercised in a fair, transparent and objective manner, so that the public interest does not become a casualty. iii) Clause 31 ITB Bidding Document is an equally important provision to be made operational so that non-material, non-conformity is not used to chase away a technically qualified bidder from the tendering process, though, his is the lowest bid and except for such non-material, non-conformity, the contract is to go to such bidder. The Employer is to ignore such waivable non-conformity where technical Bid and price bid are found to be responsive or to even correct such errors. iv) That the discrepancy in Unit Price for HYSD Bars (Item No. 21) in figures and words is a mere writing error making it necessary for the Employer (Respondent No. 3) to seek clarification and even waive the discrepancy as it does not constitute a material deviation, reservation or omission, and is waivable v) That the discrepancy in question in view of the case set up by petitioner is to taken to be clarified as a writing mistake in view of communicated dated 11th April 2014. vi) That the discrepancy for HYSD Bars (Item No. 21) does not attract Clause 33.1(d) and therefore the Unit Price in words is not to prevail over in Unit Price in figures, having regard to the text of Clause 33.1(d). vii) That the decision taken by the respondents to downgrade petitioner from Lowest Bidder (L1) to the Highest Bidder (L7) is in conflict with letter and spirit of Clause 27, 31 and 33 ITB Bidding Document. vii) That the decision taken by the respondents to downgrade petitioner from Lowest Bidder (L1) to the Highest Bidder (L7) is in conflict with letter and spirit of Clause 27, 31 and 33 ITB Bidding Document. viii) That the decision taken by the respondents to downgrade petitioner from Lowest Bidder(L1) is against public interest as the public interest would call for award of contract to technically qualified lower bidder and in terms of impugned decision, the Lowest Bidder though technically qualified sought to be arbitrary is excluded and the bidder who quoted next cover bid is Rs. 1.37 crores to be exact higher as compared to the petitioner. ix) That the decision taken by the respondents to downgrade petitioner from Lowest Bidder (L1) to Highest Bidder (L7) is arbitrary, irrational and against public interest and therefore amenable to judicial review. 36. For the reasons discussed the writ petition is allowed, the decision taken by the respondents to downgrade petitioner from Lowest Bidder (L1) to Highest Bidder (L7) is set aside. Resultantly, petitioner is held to have status of lowest bidder as reflected initially in comparative statement and his such status is restored. Respondents are directed to treat petitioner, as the Lowest Bidder (L1) while finalizing tendering process. The respondents shall accordingly finalize tendering process with due dispatch and award the contract for construction of Providing, laying, joining, testing and commissioning of Raw Water Pipeline from higher reaches of Doodganga Nallah, Kralipora Water Treatment Plant at Srinagar without delay so that the funds allotted do not go waste and the target group is not deprived of the benefits of the project. Allowed