ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the Union of India, for the State and for respondent no.4, The New India Assurance Company Limited. 2. The petitioner essentially seeks a declaration that the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner was arbitrary and further direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to open the financial bid of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, which is a Public Limited Insurance Company, being a Government of India Undertaking involved in general insurance business, applied pursuant to a tender notice issued by the respondent-State of Bihar for implementation of the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (Health Insurance Scheme) announced by the Central Government for the benefit of economically weaker sections of society. A general tender was floated for as many as 25 districts within the State. The petitioner and several other public and private sector Insurance Companies participated in the tender process by filing their applications. 4. In Clause 3.4 (a) (vii) of the tender notice it was provided that the bidder shall submit as part of its Technical Bid the certificate from the Bidder’s Chief Underwriter/ appointed actuary stating that due diligence has been done in calculation of rates as per actuarial calculations in the format set out in Annexure G. It was further provided in the tender notice that one technical bid (common for all the districts) and as many financial bids as the number of districts the bidder may wish to participate (separate financial bid for every district) should be sealed by the bidder in two separate covers meant for Technical and Financial bids duly super-scribed. Since the certificate of the Chief Underwriter/ appointed actuary was required to be filed as part of the technical bid, the petitioner provided the certificate of the Chief Underwriter/ appointed actuary in the format which clearly mentions that the certificate was meant for 25 districts. 5. It is the stand of the petitioner that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assistant Manager of the petitioner who, in the pre-bid meeting held on 26.9.2013, raised specific query regarding submission of Actuarial Certificate and one Mr. Md. 5. It is the stand of the petitioner that there was some confusion in the mind of the Assistant Manager of the petitioner who, in the pre-bid meeting held on 26.9.2013, raised specific query regarding submission of Actuarial Certificate and one Mr. Md. Azim representing respondent no.2 replied to the query by categorically stating that only one certificate is required for all the districts but the name of the district for which the bidding was being done must be mentioned in the Actuarial Certificate and if they were quoting for 25 districts then the names of all 25 districts must be mentioned on the single Actuarial Certificate. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted single composite Actuarial Certificate along with the technical bid. However, when the technical bid was opened, the Technical Bid Committee rejected the technical bid of the petitioner despite the statement on behalf of the petitioner regarding representation made by Md. Azim. The petitioner was then informed that on 27.9.2013 an addendum in reply to the queries raised was uploaded on the website which stated that separate Actuarial Certificate would be required for each of the districts. The last date for submission of the tender documents was 1.10.2013 and it is the specific stand of the petitioner, not denied in the counter affidavit, that parties to the bidding process were not intimated by email as was required in terms of the tender documents nor the said amendment/clarification uploaded seven days prior to the bid due date and the petitioner was unaware of the same and later discovered that it was strangely inconsistent with the express oral representation made by Md. Azim, the representative of respondent no.2. 6. It is also asserted by the petitioner that the petitioner had given a competitive quotation without compromising any parameters and if the petitioner had not been unfairly disqualified at the technical bidding stage then it would have been the winner for at least 14 districts resulting in substantial saving of more than Rs. 14 crores to the State and Central Exchequer without compromising on the quality of service. The petitioner filed representation before the respondent-authorities but to no avail and accordingly it filed this writ petition. 7. 14 crores to the State and Central Exchequer without compromising on the quality of service. The petitioner filed representation before the respondent-authorities but to no avail and accordingly it filed this writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Clause 2.1 of the tender conditions, in case response is made to any request for clarification/modification of the tender documents then response to said query is required to be sent through email to all the bidders and the State Nodal Agency’s written responses would be made available to all Bidders who have downloaded the Tender Documents. It is further provided that in case the State Nodal Agency issues interpretations, clarifications and amendments to all the bidders, the same must be done at least 14 days prior to the due date. It is also submitted that the State Nodal Agency may either on its own or in response to a clarification requested by the bidder in writing, may issue an addendum which shall be in writing and shall be uploaded on the relevant website at least seven days prior to the due date and which shall be binding on the bidders. It is thus, pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in uploading the queries on 27.9.2013 only four days prior to the last date of submission of the bid documents is contrary to the conditions laid down in the tender documents issued on 11.9.2013 and the same could not have been used for disqualifying the petitioner. This would specially be so since a single technical bid had to be filed for multiple districts up to 25 districts and the actuarial certificate was required to be filed with the technical bid and not with the financial bid and would normally lead to the presumption that separate certificate was not required for each separate district. 8. Learned counsel further submits that public interest also requires acceptance of the tender documents of the petitioner in view of the confusion created by the representative of the respondents themselves and the respondents have not complied with the conditions regarding clarification and answers to query, etc. given in the tender documents. 9. 8. Learned counsel further submits that public interest also requires acceptance of the tender documents of the petitioner in view of the confusion created by the representative of the respondents themselves and the respondents have not complied with the conditions regarding clarification and answers to query, etc. given in the tender documents. 9. It is also pleaded by learned counsel that if at all it was considered necessary that separate actuarial certificate should be filed for each district, then even if the same had not been filed so with bid documents, particularly keeping in view the confusion in the matter the petitioner ought to have been permitted to file the separate actuarial certificates instead of straightaway declaring the petitioner as disqualified. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, submits that the order rejecting the technical bid has not been challenged by the petitioner and no relief can be granted to the petitioner on that account. 11. Learned counsel also refers to clause 2.1 (e) of the tender document which provides that verbal clarifications and information given by the State Nodal Agency or any other person for or on its behalf shall not in any way or manner be binding on the State Nodal Agency and thus he submits that it was not open to the petitioner to have acted upon any so called clarification made by its representative Md. Azim in the matter. 12. Learned counsel further submits that in terms of the format of technical bid contained in Annexure-A of the tender document under para-9 thereof the petitioner has irrevocably no right or remedy at any stage at law or howsoever arising to challenge the criteria for evaluation of the technical bid or question any decision taken by the State Nodal Agency in connection with the evaluation of the technical bid, declaration of the eligible bidders or in connection with the bidding process itself or in respect of the contracts for the implementation of the RSBY in 25 districts of the State of Bihar and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondents taken with regard to evaluation of the technical bid and declaration of successful bidders by filing the present writ application. 13. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. 13. I have considered the submissions of learned counsels for the parties. Taking up the last submission of learned counsel for the State first, it indicates the authoritarian mindset of the respondents involved in issuing the tender documents by including such undertaking which any tenderer would be compelled to give if he wants his tender documents to be considered; under the provisions of Section 28 of the Contract Act such clauses are void. It is now well established that no party can be prevented from approaching the Court for redressal of his grievance and such condition ought not to have found place in the tender documents. The said provision to say the least, is void and fit to be ignored and cannot be acted upon. 14. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the State that the petitioner has not challenged the order rejecting the technical bid is concerned, it is clear from the relief in para 1(b) that the petitioner has sought a declaration that the rejection of the technical bid is arbitrary and thus the said stand of learned counsel for the State does not have any substance. 15. However, I am in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the State that in view of the clear provision of Clause 2.1(e) it was not open to the petitioner to have relied upon any verbal clarification and information given by the said representative of the State Nodal Agency with regard to filing of a composite actuarial certificate for 25 districts and in case the petitioner had any doubt or query with regard to the same then query for clarification ought to have been raised before the State Nodal Agency in writing, which admittedly the petitioner had not done. 16. At this stage it would be useful to quote Clauses 2.1 and 2.2 (a) and (b) of the tender documents which are in the following terms. “2.1 Clarifications and Queries. (a) If the Bidder requires any clarification on the Tender Documents, it may notify the State Nodal Agency in writing, provided that all queries or clarification requests should be received on or before the date and time mentioned in the Tender Notice. (b) The State Nodal Agency will endeavour to respond to any request for clarification or modification of the Tender Documents that it receives, no later than the date specified in the Tender Notice. (b) The State Nodal Agency will endeavour to respond to any request for clarification or modification of the Tender Documents that it receives, no later than the date specified in the Tender Notice. The responses to such queries shall be sent by email to all the bidders. The State Nodal Agency’s written responses (including an explanation of the query but not identification of its source) will be made available to all Bidders who have downloaded the Tender Documents. (c) The State Nodal Agency reserves the right not to respond to any query or provide any clarification, in its sole discretion, and nothing in this Clause shall be taken to be or read as compelling or requiring the State Nodal Agency to respond to any query or to provide any clarification. (d) The State Nodal Agency, may on its own motion, if deemed necessary, issue interpretations, clarifications and amendments to all the Bidders. All clarifications, interpretations and amendments issued by State Nodal Agency shall be issued at least 14 days prior to the Bid Due Date. (e) Verbal clarifications and information given by the State Nodal Agency, or any other person for or on its behalf shall not in any way or manner be binding on the State Nodal Agency. 2.2. Amendment of Tender Documents (a) Up until the date that is 7 days prior to the Bid Due Date, the State Nodal Agency may, for any reason, whether at its own initiative, or in response to a clarification requested by a Bidder in writing amend the Tender Documents by issuing an Addendum. The Addendum shall be in writing and shall be uploaded on the relevant website. (b) Each Addendum shall be binding on the Bidders, whether or not the Bidders convey their acceptance of the Addendum. It will be assumed that information contained therein will have been taken into account by the Bidder in its Bid.” 17. It is evident from the aforesaid provisions of the tender document that any request for clarification or modification of the tender documents received from any of the parties has to be responded in writing by the State Nodal Agency which has to be made available to all the bidders who have downloaded the tender documents and sent by email to all the bidders. It is not in dispute that in the present matter no such email has been sent to the petitioner or any of the bidders who were as many as 13 in number and out of whom 9 were found qualified in the technical bid subsequently. The reply to queries which have been brought on the record by the respondents and which is stated to be uploaded on the website of the State Nodal Agency on 27.9.2013 clarifying that there should be separate actuarial certificate for each district was only 4 days prior to due date, whereas it being in the nature of clarification/ interpretation ought to have been issued 14 days prior to the bid date or in the alternative all the bidders who had downloaded the bid documents ought to have been informed about the same, if such thing had to be done at the belated stage on 27.9.2013 by sending email. Even if the best possible view is taken in the matter and the same is treated as an addendum in response to a query requested by the bidders in terms of Clause 2.2 (a) of the tender document, the same ought to have been uploaded on the relevant website at least seven days prior to the due date. 18. Considering that there was a clear direction at the very outset in the tender document that one technical bid common for all the districts and as many financial bids as the number of districts the bidder may wish to participate, were to be filed and further that the actuarial certificate had to be filed along with the technical bid, it cannot be stated that no confusion would arise in the mind of the bidders, as has happened in the present case with respect to the petitioner, as to whether there should be one or more actuarial certificate. In case the tender conditions are not clear, and they are admittedly not clear and specific in that regard, then the benefit of the same ought to have been given to the petitioner who was otherwise, prima facie, fully eligible to participate in the tender process being one of the four general insurance Public Sector Undertakings of the Central Government. The reason given by the respondents for rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner, that common actuarial certificate changes the text of Annexure-G, appears to be arbitrary and not reasonable. 19. The reason given by the respondents for rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner, that common actuarial certificate changes the text of Annexure-G, appears to be arbitrary and not reasonable. 19. This Court is also of the view that public interest demands, in the given facts and circumstances, that the bid of the petitioner should also be considered along with the others, as it is claimed by the petitioner that it has quoted rates which are less than the other bids in as many as 14 districts and would lead to substantial saving of at least Rs. 14 crores to the State Exchequer. 20. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. The rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner is declared as arbitrary and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the financial bids of the petitioner and thereafter award the contract in accordance with law.