JUDGMENT Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. The 3 writ appeals i.e. Writ Appeal No. 113/2014, Writ Appeal No. 118/2014 and Writ Appeal No. 122/2014 arise out of the common judgment and order dated 25.3.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the 3 writ petitions filed by the appellants as writ petitioners. Writ Appeal No. 113/2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 871/2014. Writ Appeal No. 118/2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 873/2014 and Writ Appeal No. 122/2014 arises out of W.P.(C) No. 872/2014. 2. Matter relates to tender for award of contract of collection of toll over bridge on the national highway. Grievance of the appellants pertains to rejection of their technical bids as non-responsive. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 4. Chief Engineer, PWD(NH Works), Assam issued request for proposal (RFP) dated 20.12.2013 for collection of toll on Gangadhar Bridge, Bridge No. 837/1 (Bir Chilarai Dollong) over river Gangadhar on NH-31 under Abhayapuri Construction Division for the period from 21.01.2014 to 20.01.2015. It was a two stage process for selection of the tenderer for award of the contract, technical bid and financial bid. 5. From the documents placed on record, it appears that 29 bidders had submitted their bids and after opening of the technical bids, out of 29 bids, only 6 bids were found to be technically responsive. Accordingly, the bids of 23 bidders were rejected as technically non-responsive. These 23 bidders included the 3 appellants. 6. As per information furnished to Sri Girin Deka (Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 113/2014), he was informed by the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 13.02.2014 that his bid was found to be non-responsive as he had submitted Net Worth & Net Accrual in the name of M/s. Girin Deka & Company and also not in the prescribed format. 7. Md. Rezzek Hussain (Appellant in WA No. 118/2014) was informed that his bid was found to be non-responsive because latest Income Tax return for the year 2013-14 was not submitted and detail Litigation/Arbitration information/history was not reflected in the affidavit filed as per tender requirement. 8. In respect of Sri Prabir Kalita (Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 122/2014), he was informed by the Chief Engineer that his bid was found to be non-responsive because detail Litigation/Arbitration information/history was not reflected in the affidavit and the Valuation Certificate submitted was not certified by Chartered Accountant. 9. 8. In respect of Sri Prabir Kalita (Appellant in Writ Appeal No. 122/2014), he was informed by the Chief Engineer that his bid was found to be non-responsive because detail Litigation/Arbitration information/history was not reflected in the affidavit and the Valuation Certificate submitted was not certified by Chartered Accountant. 9. Aggrieved, the appellants as writ petitioners instituted the aforesaid 3 writ proceedings before this Court assailing rejection of their technical bids as non-responsive. 10. Learned Single Judge after due consideration, dismissed the 3 writ petitions vide the common judgment and order dated 25.3.2014. 11. Hence, these appeals. 12. We have heard Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Singha, learned counsel in Writ Appeal No. 113/2014, Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel in Writ Appeal No. 118/2014 and Mr. P.N. Goswami, learned counsel in Writ Appeal No. 122/2014. We have also heard Mr. I. Choudhury as well as Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, PWD and Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. HK Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 7. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants in their identical arguments have assailed the action of the authority in rejecting the technical bids of the appellants as non-responsive. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the deviation pointed out by the authority for which the technical bids of the appellants were rejected, were minor deviations or no deviation at all. They contend that on the basis of such minor deviations, their tenders could not have been rejected as non-responsive, more so, when they had quoted higher price bids. Referring to the nature of the contract, it is contended that the contract does not require any engineering or technical skills since it is a contract relating to collection of toll. In such a contract, the foremost consideration should be the price offered and minor deviations should be ignored. Mr. Das, learned senior counsel particularly refers to the decision of the Apex Court in Jespar I Slong Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. reported in (2004) 11 SCC 485 to contend that obtaining higher revenue by accepting the highest bid would only be in public interest because the State stands to gain more revenue. Learned senior counsel for the appellants therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in upholding the decision of the authority and in dismissing the writ petitions. reported in (2004) 11 SCC 485 to contend that obtaining higher revenue by accepting the highest bid would only be in public interest because the State stands to gain more revenue. Learned senior counsel for the appellants therefore submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in upholding the decision of the authority and in dismissing the writ petitions. He, therefore, submits that the appeals filed may be allowed and the PWD authorities may be directed to open the price bids of the appellants by treating their bids as technically responsive. 14. Mr. I. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, PWD, on the other hand, submits that PWD has simply gone by the terms of the tender. They have strictly followed the tender requirements and while doing so they found certain deviations in the technical bids not only of the appellants but also of other bidders. Accordingly, their bids were rejected as being technically non-responsive. No fault can be found with the PWD in adhering to the norms of the tender strictly. He further submits that question of appellants offering higher price bids does not arise because they are not eligible bidders. At the time of evaluation of the technical bids, the price bids of the respective tenderers were not opened. He finally submits that the tender process is almost complete and only the formal award of contract is required to be made now. At this stage, any interference may jeopardize the whole process as other bidders whose bids were rejected on similar grounds like the appellants may also stake claim. 15. Mr. B.D. Das, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 7 supports the stand taken by the departmental counsel and submits that the decision of the authorities in rejecting the technical bids of the appellants cannot be termed as arbitrary and unreasonable to warrant judicial interference. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record. 17. Question for consideration in this bunch of appeals is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants thereby upholding the decision of PWD to reject the technical bids of the appellants as non-responsive? 18. In the course of hearing of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, it was found from the record that there are certain additional grounds for which the technical bids of the appellants were rejected. 18. In the course of hearing of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, it was found from the record that there are certain additional grounds for which the technical bids of the appellants were rejected. The said grounds as culled out by the learned Single Judge from the record are as follows:- " W.P.(C) 871/2014 (Girin Deka): (i) Net cash accruals and Net Worth is not in format as per requirement of Clause No. 2.6 and 2.7(IV) of Bid document (Format of Net Cash Accruals and Net worth is given in page No. 28 of Bid document). (ii) Net Cash accrual though submitted in proper format, the amount on 31.03.2013 does not tally with balance sheet (Page-64). In this connection, it is to be stated that Sri Deka has shown Net cash accruals, as on 31.03.2013, at Rs. 2,67,63,416.00, but the balance sheet in Page No. 64 shows: Rs. 2,13,32,503.20 + 58,80,390 = Rs. 2,72,12,893.20, i.e. Depreciation + Net profit transferred to capital Account. Actually it should be Rs. 2,67,63,416.00 by adding depreciation + Net profit. (iii) The bidder has submitted the bid as Sri Girin Deka (individual), but the bidder has submitted the documents of M/s. Girin Deka & Company, which does not permit as per clause No. 2.5.2(ii) of the Bid document. (iv) Pages 38, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 99, 100 are signed but without seal, as required as per Annexure-V of Appendix-I of Bid document. W.P.(C) 872/2014: (Prabir Kalita) (i) Valuation certificate submitted but not certified on the body of valuation certificate by C.A. as per Clause No. 2.7 sub-clause - IV. (ii) Detail information history is not reflected in the affidavit (Litigation/Arbitration) with regards to the Hon'ble High Court W.P.(C) No. 6512/2013 against the Department as per Clause No. 2.7(xi). (iii) Net Cash accrual and Net Worth not submitted as per Clause No. 2.7(iii). W.P.(C) 873/2014: (Rezzaque Hussain): (i) Latest IT return for the year 2013-14 is not submitted as per Clause No. 2.7(vi). (ii) IT return for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 not submitted as per Clause No. 2.7(vi). (iii) Valuation report not certified by Chartered Accountant as per Clause No. 2.7(iv). W.P.(C) 873/2014: (Rezzaque Hussain): (i) Latest IT return for the year 2013-14 is not submitted as per Clause No. 2.7(vi). (ii) IT return for the year 2010-11, 2011-12 not submitted as per Clause No. 2.7(vi). (iii) Valuation report not certified by Chartered Accountant as per Clause No. 2.7(iv). (iv) Detail information history is not reflected in the affidavit (Litigation/Arbitration) with regards to the Hon'ble High Court W.P.(C) No. 2968/2012 against the Department as per Clause No. 2.7(xi). (v) Pages are signed without seal as per Annexure-V of Appendix-I." 19. Learned Single Judge noted that the Technical Bids Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 13.2.2014 took note of the aforesaid discrepancies/deficiencies in the technical bids of the appellants. Thus, when the appellants were communicated by the Chief Engineer about the grounds of rejection of their technical bids, the above grounds were very much available on record. Explanation of the department as to why all the grounds of rejection of tenders were not communicated to the appellants was that since as per the stipulations contained in the tender documents, in case of even one deviation it was sufficient for rejection of the tender irrespective of communication of the other grounds, the immediate grounds were communicated. As a matter of fact, the other grounds as referred to above were also subsequently communicated to the appellants. 20. Ultimately, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions by holding as follows:- "30. In the instant case, the tender conditions have been laid down with me clear stipulation that in case of not meeting with the said conditions, tenders are liable to be rejected. The grounds, on which the petitioners' technical bids have been rejected as non-responsive, cannot be said to be subsidiary or ancillary and not essential. In that view of the matter, both the decisions are of no help to the case of the petitioner. 31. In the third writ petition, the grounds of rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner have been indicated above. If the petitioner did not fulfill the said requisite criteria, this Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the Tender Evaluation Committee so as to return another finding. This being the position, coupled with the reasons assigned above, the pleas raised in the instant writ petition are also not sustainable. 32. If the petitioner did not fulfill the said requisite criteria, this Court, exercising writ jurisdiction, cannot sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the Tender Evaluation Committee so as to return another finding. This being the position, coupled with the reasons assigned above, the pleas raised in the instant writ petition are also not sustainable. 32. In view of the above findings, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and accordingly all the writ petitions are dismissed without, however, any order as to costs. Interim orders operating in the proceeding stand vacated." 21. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. However, we would like to supplement the views of the learned Single Judge by our views as expressed hereunder. 22. Law relating to tenders and contracts is by now well settled. Scope of judicial review in matters relating to tenders and award of contract has been settled following a long line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court over a period of time. It is a settled proposition that decision making process relating to award of contract can be successfully challenged by an aggrieved bidder before the High Courts or the Supreme Court on the ground that the decision making process is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory or vitiated by malice, thus being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Starting from Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 , it has been the consistent view of the Constitutional Courts in India that the State or instrumentalities of the State must act in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. But while the power of judicial review is admittedly available if a case of arbitrariness or unreasonableness or malice is made out, its scope is limited within well defined parameters. 23. In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 , Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but simply reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The terms of invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. The State or its authorities must have freedom to contract. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal but simply reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The terms of invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. The State or its authorities must have freedom to contract. In other words, there must be fair play in the joints. Quashing decisions in matters relating to award of contracts may impose heavy administrative burden and may lead to increased and un-budgeted expenditure. 24. In West Bengal State Electricity Board Vs. Patel Engineering Company Limited and Ors., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 451 , the Apex Court approvingly referred to Tata Cellular (supra) and held that adherence to the terms and conditions of the tender should be strictly complied with which is the best principle to be followed and which is also in the public interest. That was a case where the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the direction of the High Court permitting correction of errors in the bid documents by the bidders, holding the same to be beyond the scope of judicial review. 25. In Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and Ors., reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision is bona fide and is in public interest, Courts will not interfere in exercise of the power of judicial review even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer is made out. It was held as under:- "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 mala fide 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." 26. In Siemens Public Communication Networks Private Limited & Anr. Vs. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226." 26. In Siemens Public Communication Networks Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2008) 16 SCC 215, the Apex Court took note of various decisions regarding scope of judicial review in matters of tender and held that if two views are possible and no mala fide is alleged or shown, there is no scope for interference with the views taken by the authorities. Principles laid down in Jagdish Mandal (supra) were reiterated. 27. The same principles were reiterated in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (2012) 8 SCC 216 . 28. Keeping in mind the legal position as noticed above, we are of the view that the decision making process adopted by PWD while rejecting the technical bids of the appellants as non-responsive for the grounds mentioned and referred to in paragraph 19 above cannot be termed as arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory. There is also no allegation of mala fide against any official of PWD. If the PWD authorities have decided to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of tender, no fault can be found with such an approach. The decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the appellants i.e. case of Jespar I. Slong (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as question of higher price does not come into consideration at the time of evaluation of the technical bids. The price will be a relevant factor only if the bid is found to be technically responsive, which is not the position in the present case. We are also mindful of the fact that any interference at this stage may jeopardize the tender process itself and may ultimately affect collection of revenue by the State. 29. Having regard to the above, we are of the considered view that no case for interference in the decision making process of PWD while rejecting the technical bids of the appellants as non-responsive has been made out. Consequently, we affirm the views taken by the learned Single Judge. All the writ appeals are accordingly dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.