JUDGEMENT & ORDER A.K. Goswami, J: This intra-court appeal is filed by the respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition No.11(K)/2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 26.8.2013, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the work order dated 10.12.2012 issued by the Chief Engineer, Police Engineering Branch, Nagaland, Kohima (respondent No. 3) in favour of the appellant for construction of permanent Headquarter for 15th NAP(IR) Mahila Ba, at Mpetsa (Construction of approach roads, Firing Range, Play Ground and Providing water supply system at Mpetsa) Gr-‘A’, with a further direction to the State respondents to allot the work in question to the best tenderer out of the rest of the tenderers. 2. The work order in question in favour of respondent No.5/appellant was issued pursuant to a tender notice dated 04.10.2012 issued by the respondent No.3 inviting sealed tenders from Class-1 registered contractors of Nagaland PWD and fixing 1300 hours on 06.11.2012 as the time and date up to which tenders would be received in respect of two items of works including the work in question. It was also indicated that tenders would be opened at 1330 hours on 06.11.2012. The estimated cost for the work in question was projected at Rs.5,27,49,500.00 and time for completion was indicated as 18 months. The tender notice contained certain terms and conditions and Clause -13 of the tender notice required the tenderers to produce the latest Income Tax Clearance Certificate. It was provided that tenders which were not accompanied with earnest money would summarily be rejected. Further stipulation in the tender notice was that any failure on the part of the contractors to comply with the tender conditions would entail summary rejection of the tender. 3. The pleaded case of the writ petitioners, three in number, in the writ petition is that they submitted their tenders along with four others including the respondent No.5/appellant. After the tenders were opened, same were scrutinized by the Tender Committee in presence of some of the tenderers including the petitioners. Respondent No.5 was not present and finding that the respondent No.5 did not enclose the Income Tax Clearance Certificate, its tender was disqualified and at the same time, tenders of the petitioners were found to be valid. After the tenders were opened, same were scrutinized by the Tender Committee in presence of some of the tenderers including the petitioners. Respondent No.5 was not present and finding that the respondent No.5 did not enclose the Income Tax Clearance Certificate, its tender was disqualified and at the same time, tenders of the petitioners were found to be valid. It is pleaded that, however, it was found that the work order was issued on 10.12.2012 arbitrarily and illegally in favour of the disqualified tenderer, namely, the respondent No.5. The copy of the work order, however, could be collected by the writ petitioners with lot of difficulties only in the 3rd week of February, 2013 as the same was kept secret. 4. The stand of the State respondents as reflected in the affidavit filed was to the effect that Annexure - B to the writ petition, which the petitioners claimed to be the Comparative Statement, was not the Comparative Statement and the said document is only a copy of the tender opening register and as the respondent No.5 had not submitted the Income Tax Clearance Certificate, in the said tender opening register, an endorsement, namely, “disqualified” was made. Subsequently, the authority came across a letter dated 13.02.2003 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, which provided that no Income Tax Clearance Certificate shall be required to be furnished by any person while filing a tender for the purpose of obtaining commercial contracts as also while submitting tender to Government Departments. The tendering authority sought clarification from the Government with regard to the aforesaid letter dated 13.02.2003 and a clarification was received from the Government to follow the notification and qualify the firm. Accordingly, the Comparative Statement was prepared showing the tender of the respondent No.5 as regular and the same was submitted to the Government for approval. Consequent upon grant of approval by the Government vide letter dated 10.12.2012 for issue of work order to the respondent No.5, the work order was issued. 5. Despite service of notice, respondent No.5 did not enter appearance in the writ proceeding. 6. Consequent upon grant of approval by the Government vide letter dated 10.12.2012 for issue of work order to the respondent No.5, the work order was issued. 5. Despite service of notice, respondent No.5 did not enter appearance in the writ proceeding. 6. The learned Single Judge repelled the contentions of the State respondents that in view of the letter dated 13.02.2003 furnishing of Income Tax Clearance Certificate was no longer necessary by holding that submission of Income Tax Clearance Certificate is obligatory and in fact, a mandatory condition and held the tender of the respondent No. 5 to be not a valid tender. The learned Single Judge in coming to that conclusion laid emphasis on the fact that Government of Nagaland had not issued a Circular in tune with the letter dated 13.02.2003 and in some subsequent tenders also, submission of Income Tax Clearance Certificate was made one of the conditions. 7. The learned Single Judge also took exception to the fact that Comparative Statement was prepared on 29.11.2012 though the tenders were opened long back on 06.11.2013 and held that such delay in preparation of the Comparative Statement militated against the concept of transparency and fairness. Another factor which weighed upon the learned Single Judge was participation of the Deputy Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Home Department in the preparation of Comparative Statement, though he was not a Member of the Tender Committee. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge had held that the decision making process was vitiated. 8. Mr. D.K. Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 5/appellant submits that the respondent No. 5/appellant had enclosed along with its tender the letter dated 13.02.2003 and when it was learnt that on the tender opening date, its tender was shown as “disqualified”, the appellant had informed the authorities that Income Tax Clearance Certificate was not issued because of the said letter dated 13.02.2003. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent authorities having considered the aforesaid letter dated 13.02.2003 in its correct perspective, treated the tender of the appellant to be a regular tender and while doing so, the authorities committed no illegality. He submits that tender of the appellant could not have been rejected as the Income Tax Authorities do not issue Income Tax Clearance Certificates in view of the said letter dated 13.02.2003. 9. He submits that tender of the appellant could not have been rejected as the Income Tax Authorities do not issue Income Tax Clearance Certificates in view of the said letter dated 13.02.2003. 9. Learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid position, the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that Clause – 13 of the Tender Notice is mandatory. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that it is not correct as held by the learned Single Judge that the Comparative Statement was made only on 29.11.2012 and in fact, the Comparative Statement was submitted to the Director General of Police, Nagaland (respondent No. 2) by the respondent No. 3 enclosing the same in his letter dated 16.11.2012. On 26.11.2012, the Deputy Inspector General of Police (MOD/PLG) had forwarded the tender documents along with the Comparative Statement to the Home Commissioner, Nagaland. It is also submitted that the plea that the Deputy Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Home Department had signed the Comparative Statement was taken by the writ petitioners only in the affidavit-in-reply and based on such statement in the affidavit-in-reply, finding was recorded without verification of the original records that he had signed the Comparative Statement. It is submitted by him that the Comparative Statement as forwarded by the Tendering Department did not contain the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Home Department and what was annexed by the writ petitioners was the Comparative Statement after it had reached the Government whereupon the Deputy Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Home Department had put his signature. In the aforesaid premises, learned Senior Counsel submits that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is not sustainable and the same requires to be interfered with. 10. Ms. A. Aier, learned State Counsel appearing for the State respondents endorses the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. 11. Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel for the writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in the appeal, while supporting the impugned order, strenuously urges that the letter dated 13.02.2003 was never enforced in the State of Nagaland and and the State had also not issued any notification for application of the letter dated 13.02.2003. It is also submitted by him that in many tender notices issued subsequent to the instant Tender Notice dated 04.10.2012, condition has been put for submission of Income Tax Clearance Certificate. It is also submitted by him that in many tender notices issued subsequent to the instant Tender Notice dated 04.10.2012, condition has been put for submission of Income Tax Clearance Certificate. He also places reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ASSOCIATION OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES AND ANR., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 171 with special emphasis to paragraph 27 thereof. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 13. The foremost question which requires consideration is whether the tender of the respondent No. 5/writ appellant is an invalid tender, it not having been accompanied by the latest Income Tax Clearance Certificate as required by Clause – 13 of the Tender Notice dated 04.10.2012. 14. There is no dispute that letter dated 13.02.2003 was issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, laying down that contractors will not be required to get Income Tax Clearance Certificate from the Income Tax Department, Government as there will be no need to furnish such certificate while submitting tender to the Government Department and also while submitting tenders to obtain commercial contracts. Materials on record disclose that State respondents had taken the stand that issuance and existence of the letter dated 13.02.2003 was not to their knowledge and the said letter having been brought to their notice, the respondents had taken a conscious decision to treat the tender of the respondent No.5/appellant as a valid tender dispensing with the requirement to submit Income Tax Clearance Certificate. As the Government of India, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs had taken the decision that Income Tax Clearance Certificate is not required to be submitted while submitting tender to the Government Departments as also in submitting tender to obtain commercial contracts, it cannot be construed that a requirement to submit Income Tax Clearance Certificate in a tender document should be treated as a mandatory requirement. If Income Tax Authorities refuse to issue an Income Tax Clearance Certificate for securing a commercial or Government contract on the strength of the letter dated 13.02.2003, intending tenderers cannot be penalized. In the instant case, submission of Mr. If Income Tax Authorities refuse to issue an Income Tax Clearance Certificate for securing a commercial or Government contract on the strength of the letter dated 13.02.2003, intending tenderers cannot be penalized. In the instant case, submission of Mr. Mishra is that an attempt was made to obtain such an Income Tax Clearance Certificate and the request was declined in view of the letter dated 13.02.2003 and therefore, the said letter was enclosed along with the tender documents. We are inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Mishra that in no event, failure to comply Clause-13 will merit rejection of a tender. The letter dated 29.11.2012, which was issued on the subject of “Clarification regarding award of commercial contracts and income tax clearance thereof” issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Works and Housing Department, addressed to the respondent No.3, spells out that the letter dated 13.02.2003 should be implemented for further tender procedures. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that no separate notification has to be issued by the State Government adopting the letter dated 13.02.2003 as the State cannot compel the Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, Government of India to issue Income Tax Clearance Certificate for the purpose of Government contracts, while at the same time it also cannot issue such a certificate. 15. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that respondent authorities have not changed and/or altered the terms and conditions of the tender to benefit a particular tenderer, thus bestowing undue favour by changing the rules of the game after the tender process was initiated. There is no statement in the writ petition that the writ petitioners had submitted Income Tax Clearance Certificate along with their tenders. During the course of argument, based on the averments made in Misc Case No. 3695/2013, submission was advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 5/writ appellant that writ petitioners also did not submit Income Tax Clearance Certificate and that they had submitted exemption certificates as the writ petitioners were exempted from paying income tax in view of Section 10(26) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is now well settled that an authority inviting tender is not bound to give effect to every term indicated in the tender notice and that it is entitled to waive a technical irregularity of little or of no significance. It is now well settled that an authority inviting tender is not bound to give effect to every term indicated in the tender notice and that it is entitled to waive a technical irregularity of little or of no significance. In appropriate cases, as held in PODDAR STEEL CORPORATION Vs. GANESH ENGINEERING WORKS AND ORS, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273 , authority can deviate from and not insist upon ancillary and subsidiary tender conditions. The decision cited by Mr. Khataniar in MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (Supra) to emphasize that no bidder is entitled as a matter of right to insist upon the authority inviting tender to enter into further negotiations unless the terms and conditions of the notice so provided for such negotiations is not applicable in the facts of this case in as much as there was no negotiation by the respondent No. 5/appellant with the State respondents. The respondent No. 5/appellant only highlighted the letter dated 13.02.2003 which was overlooked by the authorities though the same formed part of its tender. 16. From the letter dated 16.11.2012, brought on record by the appellants, which is not disputed by the writ petitioners/respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, it is clear that the Comparative Statement was enclosed along with the said letter issued by the tendering authority, i.e., the respondent No. 3 to the respondent No. 2 in the writ petition, i.e., the Director General of Police, Nagaland. By the said letter, request was made to the Director General of Police, Nagaland to forward the documents including the Comparative Statement for onward submission to the Government for its approval. 17. This document, apparently, was not placed before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the observation of the learned Single Judge that the Comparative Statement was prepared very belatedly on 29.11.2012 does not appear to be correct. 18. The tender of the writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, though lowest, the rates quoted by them were not found to be workable rates as reflected in the Comparative Statement, which was annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. There was no challenge to the same by the aforesaid writ petitioners. The rates quoted by the writ petitioner No. 3 and the respondent No. 5/appellant are same, both having quoted their rates @ as per SOR/2010 NPWD. 1, 2, 3 and 4. There was no challenge to the same by the aforesaid writ petitioners. The rates quoted by the writ petitioner No. 3 and the respondent No. 5/appellant are same, both having quoted their rates @ as per SOR/2010 NPWD. The respondent No. 5/appellant was found to be the most experienced tenderer with adequate machineries and equipment and thus, was recommended for award of work in the said Comparative Statement. These observations were also not under challenge. In view of the above, whether or not the Deputy Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Home Department, signed the Comparative Statement, though not a Member of Tender Committee is not of much relevance. Even otherwise, the Comparative Statement forming part of the enclosures to the letter dated 16.11.2012 does not contain the signature of the Deputy Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Home Department. 19. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2013 of the learned Single Judge is set aside. In the result, the writ petition out of which this appeal arises is dismissed. No costs.