JUDGMENT : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015, whereby petition preferred by the present appellants (Original petitioners) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Factual Matrix of the case: 2. Respondent No. 1 has issued Notice Inviting Tender on 5th August, 2015 for “Out sourcing for Overburden Removal (1050.00 L.CuM) and Coal Extraction (975.00. L.Te) and transportation by deploying surface miner at Ashok OCP, Piperwar Area for a period of 8 years.” 3. This Notice Inviting Tender (Hereinafter referred to as NIT) is at Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. A detailed time table has been given for starting and ending date of bid submission, starting date and last date for seeking clarification online as well as last date of submission of Earnest Money Deposit and Annexure (Hard Copy). Following is also mentioned below the table of the dates: “For detailed NIT and on line submission Visit https:// eps.buyjunction.in” 4. On-line form, thus, was available at the aforesaid web address. The same was to be downloaded. There were certain prescribed formats for:- (i) NIT (ii) Details of working capital (iii) Details of work experience (iv) General terms and conditions (v) New General Terms and Conditions (G.T.C.) for outsourcing contract. There also appears to be various formats, including Joint Venture, Bank Guarantee etc. These appellants filled up on line forms as well as gave hard copies as required under the NIT. 5. The on-line forms were filled up by these appellants on 28th August, 2015 as submitted by the counsel for the appellants. 6. Thereafter, upon scrutiny, it was detected by the respondents that the Bank Guarantees given by these appellants were not in the format which was given in the website, as stated above. On 11th September, 2015 Email was sent by the Respondent No. 3 to these appellants that their bid has been rejected due to the reason that their documents were incomplete. 7. Thereafter, these appellants replied on 15th September, 2015 enquiring about the reason for rejection of the bid, which was replied to on the same day by Respondent No. 3 that as the Bank Guarantee given by these appellants was not in proper format, their bid has been rejected. 7. Thereafter, these appellants replied on 15th September, 2015 enquiring about the reason for rejection of the bid, which was replied to on the same day by Respondent No. 3 that as the Bank Guarantee given by these appellants was not in proper format, their bid has been rejected. Meanwhile, on 14th September, 2015, reverse bid process was opened and it continued on 15th September, 2015 and the Lowest Number 1 was identified by Respondent No. 3. 8. As the bid of these appellants was rejected, they preferred W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015 before this court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7th October, 2015, hence the original petitioners preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellants: 9. It is submitted by counsel for the appellants that NIT is ambiguous and there is no clarity with respect to the format of Bank Guarantee to be given by these appellants. This is the major contention raised by the counsel for the appellants. 10. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there is substantial compliance of the requirement of the NIT regarding Bank Guarantee as these appellants have given a bank guarantee, which is in the format prescribed in the G.T.C. i.e. General Terms and Conditions for “Governing Contractual Transportation & Loading in Areas of Central Coalfields Limited” (Annexure 3 to this Letters Patent Appeal), whereas Respondent No. 3 has rejected the bid of these appellants only on the ground that the Bank Guarantee given by these appellants was not in the prescribed format, which is given in the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) governing “Hiring of Equipment for removal of Overburden Extraction of Coal, transportation and Loading” (Annexure 7 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). 11. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that looking to the format of the Bank Guarantees in two G.T.C.s, there is not much difference at all between the two formats. On the contrary, the clauses of Bank Guarantee given at Annexure 3 are more strict than those of the Bank Guarantee format given at Annexure 7. The format in which the Bank Guarantee is given by these appellants, which is attached with the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) at Annexure 3, as stated herein above, is very strict in nature. On the contrary, the clauses of Bank Guarantee given at Annexure 3 are more strict than those of the Bank Guarantee format given at Annexure 7. The format in which the Bank Guarantee is given by these appellants, which is attached with the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) at Annexure 3, as stated herein above, is very strict in nature. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellants that the conditions mentioned therein, i.e. in the NIT, are not such that they take away the eligibility of these appellants at the slightest mistake committed by these appellants, especially in giving Bank Guarantee as Bank Guarantee format is not an essential condition, but, an ancillary one. Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 273 and has submitted that the format of the Bank Guarantee is not to be seen so minutely by the respondents as this Bank Guarantee format is not essential at all. It is the Performance Bank Guarantee, which is important and it is to be given by the Lowest Number 1, after being found by the respondents from amongst all the bidders, for performance of the contract. Thus, this intermediary type of Bank Guarantee to be given by the appellants-bidders is not an essential condition. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition and hence order dated 7th October, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that looking to the NIT dated 5th August, 2015, which is at Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, especially Clause 12 and 13, they run contrary to the clauses of the General Terms and Conditions (G.T.C.), which are at annexure 7 to the Letters Patent Appeal. 13. Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that looking to the NIT dated 5th August, 2015, which is at Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, especially Clause 12 and 13, they run contrary to the clauses of the General Terms and Conditions (G.T.C.), which are at annexure 7 to the Letters Patent Appeal. These General terms and Conditions at Annexure 7 is heavily relied upon by the respondents and the learned Single Judge. Comparing NIT (Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal) with GTC (Annexure 7 to the Letters Patent Appeal), it appears that there are a lot of ambiguity and contradictions so far as procedure to be followed with respect to the method of submission of bids. The (NIT) (Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal) says that there shall be on-line bidding, whereas as per Clause 11 of the General Terms and Conditions (G.T.C.) at Annexure 7, which are relied upon by the respondents, hard copies have to be submitted and in presence of parties the bidding process will take place. Likewise, there are several contradictions pointed out by the counsel for the appellants. 14. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that once there is ambiguity in the NIT and the GTC which are at Annexure 2 and 7 to the Letters Patent Appeal respectively, bids of these appellants can not be rejected by the respondents on the principle of “Contra Proferentem.” Counsel for the appellants has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmull Jain and Another, AIR 1966 SC 1644 , which has also been followed in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Bank of India vs. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313 and has submitted on the basis of these two decisions that if there is any ambiguity in the NIT at Annexure 2 and General Terms and Conditions at Annexure 7 then the benefit should be given to the appellants because there is no objection raised by the Respondent No. 3 regarding capacity and integrity of these appellants. 15. 15. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that it is the duty of the respondents to allow these appellants a level playing field, especially when such huge contract is to be awarded and in no case bids of the bidders like appellants can be rejected on the ground of mere technicality. 16. Counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (i) Reliance Energy Ltd. and Another vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. And Others, (2007) 8 SCC 1 (ii) Noble Resources Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and Another, (2006) 10 SCC 236 (iii) Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 95 On the basis of these decisions it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that level playing field ought to have been provided to these appellants and merely because more strict bank guarantee has been given by these appellants, which may not be in the format of General Terms and Conditions (GTC) (Annexure 7 to the memo of this Letters Patent appeal), bid of these appellants can not be rejected because format of Bank Guarantee is not at all an essential condition. In fact, it is not a Bank Guarantee for performance of the contract at all. After the Lowest Number 1 is found out, he has to give the Bank Guarantee for performance of the contract. Otherwise, this Bank Guarantee before selection of Lowest Number 1 is nothing but a Bank Guarantee for Earnest Money Deposit amounting to Rs. 1 Crore. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence the order dated 7th October, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 17. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellants that in fact when the web address of NIT, which is at Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal, was opened by these appellants, there were two types of General Terms and Conditions given on the said web address. The first one of these two documents is annexed as Annexure 7 to the Letters Patent Appeal while the second one is at Annexure 3. The first one of these two documents is annexed as Annexure 7 to the Letters Patent Appeal while the second one is at Annexure 3. Appellants have filled up all the required documents correctly, but, so far as Bank Guarantee format is concerned, it was downloaded from the second General Terms and Conditions, which is at Annexure 3 to this Letters Patent Appeal, and there is slight variation in the Bank Guarantee format of the two General Terms and Conditions (GTCs). Nonetheless, all the basic requirements of the Bank Guarantee as mentioned in Clause 3 of the Notice Inviting Tender (Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal) have been fulfilled, i.e. it was an irrevocable Bank Guarantee from a scheduled bank and payable at their local branch, i.e. at Ranchi and lastly, it was valid for minimum 90 days beyond the validity period of the bid. The Bank Guarantee format was not supplied with the (NIT) (Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal) and therefore, it was to be downloaded. Nonetheless, the fact remains that a valid Bank Guarantee with all the aforesaid required specifications was given. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this is not a case where no Bank Guarantee has been given and therefore, bid has been rejected. But, here the Bank Guarantee has been given in a different form, with nothing but a slightest deviation from the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) which are at Annexure 7 to the Letters Patent Appeal. In fact, neither any prejudice has been caused to the respondents nor it has been alleged by the respondents that because of slight variation in the Bank Guarantee format the essential conditions of Notice Inviting Tender has been violated. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondents: 18. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by these appellants. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the respondents: 18. Counsel for the respondents have submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition filed by these appellants. It is further submitted by the counsel for the respondents that looking to the magnitude of the contract to be performed by the bidders, it was mandatory that the bidders fill up the bids with necessary documents and in proper format including the prescribed format of Bank Guarantee. These appellants have admittedly not tendered the Bank Guarantee in prescribed format and hence, their bid has rightly been rejected by the respondents. Looking to the NIT dated 5th August, 2015 at Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal, a detailed time table has been given with respect to starting and last dates of submission of bid. Even starting and last date of seeking clarification have also been mentioned and Annexure have also been specified. Moreover, for detailed NIT and for on-line submission web address has also been given. As per this NIT, on-line forms are to be submitted. Out of several documents as stated in the General Terms and Conditions meant for “Out sourcing for Overburden Removal (1050.00 L.CuM) and Coal Extraction (975.00. L.Te) and transportation by deploying surface miner at Ashok OCP, Piperwar Area for a period of 8 years”, there are various formats including formats for Joint Venture and Bank Guarantee. These appellants have visited the said web address or web site, properly downloaded all the documents except for one, viz. format of Bank Guarantee, which was not properly downloaded. The format of Bank Guarantee is available from the General Terms and Conditions (GTC). Respondents have varieties of GTCs for different types of work contracts. Looking to the NIT for a particular type of work, specific General Terms and Conditions ought to have been followed by these appellants. These appellants have correctly submitted that there are three types of documents, i.e. NIT (Annexure 2 to the L.P.A.) and two G.T.Cs, (at Annexure 3 and Annexure 7 to the L.P.A.) and the GTC at Annexure 7 to the L.P.A. is the right match for the NIT and therefore, it can not be said that these appellants had no knowledge as to what had to be downloaded from the web site in question. Moreover, negligent approach on the part of the appellants in not submitting the Bank Guarantee in proper format has led to the rejection of their bids and therefore it cannot be said that these appellants were denied the “Level Playing Field”. In fact, respondents have given equal treatment to all the bidders. Strict adherence to the prescribed format of Bank Guarantee has been insisted upon by the Central Vigilance Commission. It is insisted by the Central Vigilance Commission that the Bank Guarantee format shall be followed scrupulously. Counsel appearing for the respondents have taken this court to various Annexure to substantiate these arguments and submitted that respondents have followed the directions and guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission in adhering to the format of the Bank Guarantee, as prescribed in the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) at Annexure 7 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, which are meant for the contract in question as detailed in the NIT at Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. 19. It is further submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondents that if every bidder, like the appellants, submit their bid and necessary documents in their own prescribed formats without following the formats prescribed by the respondents, then it will take a lot of time in scrutiny of those documents, it will take a lot of time in getting legal opinion which will ultimately lead to discrimination because nobody's bid can be rejected. Moreover, a lot of time and energy will be consumed by the respondents in scrutinising those documents which are given by different bidders as per their whims and caprice, whereas, if they are complying with the format prescribed by the respondents, easier will be the scrutiny, the rejection will be predictable, there will be equality in the approach of the respondents and lot of time will be saved. There are several benefits of this mechanism, i.e. mechanism of prescribing the formats which are to be complied with by the bidders and normally the court will not interfere in this type of terms and conditions of the NIT for a particular contract because the formats of the documents to be submitted by the bidder is left at the discretion of the respondents who are inviting offers. The court will not re-write the terms of the contract. Otherwise, there will be no end of the violation of the terms and conditions of the contract. Each and every bidder will try to have his own terms and conditions and upon rejection of his bid, approach the court seeking interference in the matter and perhaps, after few years of litigation, the bidder, who was chosen the Lowest Number 1, would not be in a position to accept the contract and therefore, this method of prescribing the terms and conditions of the contract should be left at the discretion of the party inviting tender. 20. Counsel for the respondents have also relied upon following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- (i) International Ltd. vs. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 492 (ii) Air India Ltd. vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617 (iii) W.B. SEB vs. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 451 (iv) Siemens Public Communication Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2008) 16 SCC 215 (v) Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 216 (vi) Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd. (2013) 5 SCC 470 On the basis of the aforesaid decisions it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that Bank Guarantee format is an essential condition of the NIT (Annexure 2 to the Letters patent Appeal) and that of General Terms and Conditions (GTC), which are at Annexure 7 to the memo of the Letters Patent Appeal and it cannot be said that the Bank Guarantee was ancillary in nature. Bank Guarantee, if not given in a proper format, may lead to several litigations. Looking to the magnitude of the work to be done, the bidder, who will be the Lowest Number 1, shall have to perform the work for eight years, as per NIT at Annexure 2. Such bidder can not ignore an essential condition of a proper format of Bank Guarantee, which is given in General Terms and Conditions (GTC) at Annexure 7 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondents that the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) have been formulated by the respondents on the basis of long experience in allotting work through bidding process. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondents that the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) have been formulated by the respondents on the basis of long experience in allotting work through bidding process. There cannot be any free style formatting, otherwise it will end up in open ended litigations and respondents will be compelled to get involved in litigations rather than performance of their part in the contract. Out of total 11 bidders, nine have filled up correctly the tender bid documents in proper format looking to the correct General Terms and Conditions which are applicable to the contract in question as per Annexure 2. Out of these total 11 bidders, bids of two bidders are rejected and both are for defective Bank Guarantee. Thus, respondents have evenly complied with the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) with respect to all the bidders, taking due care that the Bank Guarantee is in proper format as mandated by the Central Vigilance Commission. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. REASONS: 21. Having heard counsel appearing for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015 mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (I) On perusal of the NIT, which is dated 5th August, 2015 (at Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) to be read with the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in the writ petition and also looking to the rejoinder affidavit filed by these appellants in the writ petition, especially paragraph No. 27 of the Rejoinder, following facts emerge:- (a) NIT was published for “Out sourcing for Overburden Removal (1050.00 L.CuM) and Coal Extraction (975.00. L.Te) and transportation by deploying surface miner at Ashok OCP, Piperwar Area for a period of 8 years”. Detailed time Table for filling up the bid and submission dates have been given and it has been mentioned that “For detailed NIT and on line submission Visit https:// eps.buyjunction.in” (b) Certain documents were also to be supplied along with Tender/Bid Form. One of such forms was about the Bank Guarantee. (c) It appears that in the said website as stated hereinabove, there were two General Terms and Conditions. One of such forms was about the Bank Guarantee. (c) It appears that in the said website as stated hereinabove, there were two General Terms and Conditions. One for “Governing Contractual Transportation & Loading in Areas of Central Coalfields Limited” (Hereinafter to be referred to as GTC-I for the sake of brevity)(Annexure 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and another is General Terms and Conditions which are pertaining to “Hiring of Equipment for removal of Overburden Extraction of Coal, transportation and Loading” (Hereinafter to be referred to as GTC-II for the sake of brevity) (Annexure 7 to this Letters Patent Appeal). (d) Certain formats were common in these two General Terms and Conditions, i.e. GTC- I and GTC-I I, like Joint Venture/Consortium format of affidavit as per Annexure 1 to the NIT. Format of affidavit for deployment of fleet and equipment as per Annexure II to NIT. This document is also common in both, i.e. GTC I and GTC II. Thus, aforesaid documents were common in both the G.T.C. s, whereas the format of the Bank Guarantee to be given by the bidders was slightly different in these two General Terms and Conditions, i.e. in G.T.C. I and G.TC. I I. The bidder-appellant had filled up all the forms accordingly except for the form of Bank Guarantee. These appellants have given Bank Guarantee of Rs. 1 Crore in the format of GTC-I. This error has been committed because in the NIT (Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal), looking to Clause No. 9, it appears that several Annexure have been given. Several documents were to be given along with the tender document. Clause 9 of the NIT reads as under: “9. In submission of tender on-line, the bidders will upload: (i) The scanned copy of DD/BC against EMD” (ii) Scanned copy of Affidavit as per Annexure-I. (iii) Scanned copy of Affidavit for deployment of fleet and equipment as per Annexure-II. (iv) Scanned copy of e-mandate form duly filled in as per Annexure-III. (v) Joint Venture/Consortium agreement (as per prescribed format) containing name of partners and lead partner. Power of Attorney to the Lead Partner and share of each partner (in case bidder is a Joint venture/consortium company). (iv) Scanned copy of e-mandate form duly filled in as per Annexure-III. (v) Joint Venture/Consortium agreement (as per prescribed format) containing name of partners and lead partner. Power of Attorney to the Lead Partner and share of each partner (in case bidder is a Joint venture/consortium company). (vi) Contractor's bid and acceptance of bid conditions on the letter head of Bidder as per Annexure-IV.” Further, it appears that in the GTC-I I the format of the Bank Guarantee is different and this bidder has given a Bank Guarantee which is security for the payment of Earnest Money Deposit in the format of G.T.C I. Only on this ground his bid has been rejected, which was challenged in the writ petition and as this writ petition was dismissed this Letters Patent Appeal was preferred. (II) Looking to the pleadings in memo of the writ petition, the reply and rejoinder and also looking to GTC I and GTC II, it appears that offers have been invited by Respondent No. 1 for the work as stated herein above. Out of 11 bidders, bid of two bidders have been rejected. One of which is of these appellants on the ground of slight variation in the Bank Guarantee format supplied by these appellants. Out of left out nine bidders, Lowest Number 1 has been selected and now after the Lowest Number 1 has been identified, he is to be called for further negotiation and further negotiation for lowering of the contract amount is going on and it is yet not finalised between the Respondent No. 1 and the Lowest Number 1. It appears that the contract is very huge for “Out sourcing for Overburden Removal (1050.00 L.CuM) and Coal Extraction (975.00. L.Te) and transportation by deploying surface miner at Ashok OCP, Piperwar Area and that too for a period of eight years. It appears that such a huge contract is to be given by the Respondent No. 1, which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, NIT should be explicitly clear. Several formats have been given in the NIT which are Affidavit as per Annexure-I, Affidavit for deployment of fleet and equipment (Annexure II), e-mandate form( Annexure-III), proforma for contractor's bid and acceptance of bid conditions (Annexure IV) and it appears that for Bank Guarantee no format has been given in the NIT at all. Several formats have been given in the NIT which are Affidavit as per Annexure-I, Affidavit for deployment of fleet and equipment (Annexure II), e-mandate form( Annexure-III), proforma for contractor's bid and acceptance of bid conditions (Annexure IV) and it appears that for Bank Guarantee no format has been given in the NIT at all. In absence of format of Bank Guarantee with the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), these appellants-bidder has given a Bank Guarantee in the format of Bank Guarantee attached with GTC-I, which is at page 138 of this Letters Patent Appeal. Another format of Bank Guarantee, which is provided in GTC-II is at page No. 181 of this Letters Patent Appeal. Looking to Clause No. 3 of the NIT, it appears that Bank Guarantee should have following characteristics: (a) It should be of irrevocable nature. (b) It should be from any scheduled bank. (c) It should be payable at the local branch of the issuing bank i.e. in the present case, at Ranchi. (d) Its validity should be minimum 90 days beyond the validity of the bid. (e) It shall be acceptable only when value of Earnest Money Deposit exceeds Rs. 5 Lakhs. Thus, on perusal of Clause No. 3 of the NIT (Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal), wherein essentials of the Bank guarantee has been mentioned, it appears that all these essentials have been complied with by this bidder, i.e. Bank Guarantee given by this bidder was irrevocable, it was from a scheduled Bank operative at its local branch at Ranchi. It was for a minimum period of 90 days beyond the validity of the bid, but, it was in the format given in the GTC I (Annexure 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), whereas the Respondent No. 1 has insisted that there may be fulfillment of all the aforesaid conditions, but, since it was not in the form of GTC I I (Annexure 7 to this Letters Patent Appeal), the bid of the appellants has been rejected. We have perused the terms and conditions of NIT and GTC II in detail as learned counsel for the respondents have repeatedly taken this court to these documents. We have read and re-read these documents and looking to Clause No. 3 of NIT and also looking to several formats which have been given in the two General Terms and Conditions, i.e. GTCs viz. We have read and re-read these documents and looking to Clause No. 3 of NIT and also looking to several formats which have been given in the two General Terms and Conditions, i.e. GTCs viz. GTC I and GTC II, though format of Bank Guarantee given by the bidder is in GTC I format and not in GTC II format (as pointed out in paragraph 28 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner in the writ petition), otherwise, it fulfills all the essential conditions of the Bank Guarantee as per Clause 3 of the NIT. It is irrevocable in nature, it is from a scheduled bank, it is operative at the local branch at Ranchi and it is valid for a minimum period of 90 days beyond the validity of the bid. Moreover, it appears that this is not a Bank Guarantee for performance of the contract. It is only towards the payment of Earnest Money deposit amounting to Rs. 1 Crore, whereas contract is for Rs. 1,992 Crore. After the contract is given to a particular bidder there is a provision to take Bank Guarantee again, which is known as Performance Bank Guarantee. The Bank Guarantee in question is only a Bank guarantee at the initial stage about which too much has been argued out. We are of the opinion that this is not an essential condition at all. Formats of the Bank Guarantee in GTC I and GTC II, both have been given by Respondent No. 1, but for different types of contracts. It is not a case that this appellant-bidder has given a Bank Guarantee in a format which is totally alien to the Respondent No. 1. The language of the Bank Guarantees formats in GTC I and GTC II both are drafted by Respondent No. 1 and two formats are slightly different, but, essential conditions as required in the NIT are common, i.e. the Bank Guarantee is irrevocable, it should be issued by a scheduled bank. It should be payable at Ranchi and it should be valid for 90 days beyond the validity period of contract. Thus, all the conditions have been fulfilled except for the correct format and apart from that it is only towards Earnest Money Deposit and not a Performance Bank Guarantee. It should be payable at Ranchi and it should be valid for 90 days beyond the validity period of contract. Thus, all the conditions have been fulfilled except for the correct format and apart from that it is only towards Earnest Money Deposit and not a Performance Bank Guarantee. After the Lowest Number 1 has been chosen by the Respondent No. 1 the said bidder has to give a Performance Bank Guarantee, which is for the performance of the main contract and fulfillment of several other conditions, whereas the present Bank Guarantee is only for the Earnest Money Deposit. Therefore, in the present case format of the Bank Guarantee is not an essential condition at all looking to the conditions at NIT (Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal) to be read with GTC I and GTC II Bank Guarantee formats. Even otherwise also, the format of Bank Guarantee of GTC I is more strict than the Bank Guarantee format of GTC II and this bidder-appellant has given a Bank Guarantee fulfilling all the criteria mentioned in Condition No. 3 of the NIT (Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal), but only in the format provided in GTC I. One of the essential conditions of Bank Guarantee in two formats is payment of the amount on demand and without any demure. The Bank Guarantee given by this appellant fulfills this clause also because this clause is also there in the Bank Guarantee Format provided in GTC I. It ought to be kept in mind by the respondents that when such huge contract is to be given, then bids cannot be rejected on such trivial technicalities. More competition is required whenever contract of such magnitude is to be given. It is expected of the Respondent No. 1 that more number of bidders should be allowed to participate. Their bids cannot be rejected because few insignificant lines of Bank Guarantee format provided in GTC II is not in the GTC I. Too much mechanical approach should be avoided by the respondents. It is expected of the Respondent No. 1 that more number of bidders should be allowed to participate. Their bids cannot be rejected because few insignificant lines of Bank Guarantee format provided in GTC II is not in the GTC I. Too much mechanical approach should be avoided by the respondents. The major conditions with respect to Bank Guarantee have been mentioned in Clause 3 of the NIT and those have been fulfilled by these appellants, i.e. these appellants have given an irrevocable Bank Guarantee from a scheduled bank payable at Ranchi with a validity of minimum for 90 days beyond the validity period of the bid and in our opinion it is sufficient, especially when it is only for Earnest Money Deposit. The procedure followed by the respondents with respect to awarding of contract through bidding process has been thus vitiated by the arbitrary action of the respondents because difference of few lines in the Bank Guarantee formats causes no prejudice to Respondent No. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, during the course of his argument, submitted that had these appellants been allowed to participate in the bidding process, they would have quoted much lesser than what has been quoted by the Lowest Number 1 and since they were not allowed to participate he has to prefer the writ petition. (III) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the decision rendered in Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 95 in para 17, 18 and 19 as under: “17. So far as Clause (j) of the detailed notice inviting Etender No. 01/KMDA/MAT/CE/2013-2014 dated 10.5.2013 emanating from the office of the Chief Engineer is concerned, it seems to us that contrary to the conclusion in the impugned judgment, the clause is not an essential element or ingredient or concomitant of the subject NIT. In the course of hearing, the income tax return has been filed by the appellant Company and scrutinised by us. For Assessment Year 2011-2012, the gross income of the appellant Company was Rs. 15,34,05,627, although, for the succeeding Assessment Year 2012-2013, the income tax was nil, but substantial tax had been deposited. 18. In the course of hearing, the income tax return has been filed by the appellant Company and scrutinised by us. For Assessment Year 2011-2012, the gross income of the appellant Company was Rs. 15,34,05,627, although, for the succeeding Assessment Year 2012-2013, the income tax was nil, but substantial tax had been deposited. 18. We think that the income tax return would have assumed the character of an essential term if one of the qualifications was either the gross income or the net income on which tax was attracted. In many cases this is a salutary stipulation, since it is indicative of the commercial standing and reliability of the tendering entity. This feature being absent, we think that the filing of the latest income tax return was a collateral term, and accordingly the Tendering Authority ought to have brought this discrepancy to the notice of the appellant Company and if even thereafter no rectification had been carried out, the position may have been appreciably different. It has been asserted on behalf of the appellant Company, and not denied by the learned counsel for the respondent Authority, that the financial bid of the appellant Company is substantially lower than that of the others, and, therefore, pecuniarily preferable. 19. In this analysis, we find that the appeal is well founded and is allowed. The impugned judgment is accordingly set aside. The disqualification of the appellant Company on the ground of it having failed to submit its latest income tax return along with its bid is not sufficient reason for disregarding its offer/bid. The respondents are directed, therefore, to proceed further in the matter on this predication. The parties shall bear their respective costs.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in view of the aforesaid decision, each and every format of the NIT is not an essential condition. In the present case, the essential conditions with respect to Bank Guarantee for Earnest Money Deposit, has already been stated at Clause 3 of the NIT. Looking to this Clause No. 3 and formats of Bank Guarantee in GTC I and GTC II, it appears that conditions in Clause 3 are essentials of Bank Guarantee whereas, the formats are collateral in nature. Thus, it appears that all the essential conditions have been fulfilled by these appellants with respect to the Bank Guarantee. Looking to this Clause No. 3 and formats of Bank Guarantee in GTC I and GTC II, it appears that conditions in Clause 3 are essentials of Bank Guarantee whereas, the formats are collateral in nature. Thus, it appears that all the essential conditions have been fulfilled by these appellants with respect to the Bank Guarantee. There is one more pecularity attached with the Bank Guarantee, i.e. “Payable when demanded and without any demure” which is common in the format of Bank Guarantee in GTC I and GTC II, which was also complied by these appellants and hence, their bid should not have been rejected by Respondent No. 1. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, especially in para no. 8 of the judgment, while deciding the writ petition, hence, judgment and order passed in the writ petition deserves to be quashed and set aside. (IV) It is contented by counsel for Respondent No. 1 that Central Vigilance Commission has given an instruction that Bank Guarantee format should be scrupulously followed and hence tender of these appellants has been rejected because it was not in the proper format, i.e. in the format given in GTC II. We are not accepting this contention mainly for the following reasons: (a) The present dispute is of a Bank Guarantee towards Earnest Money Deposit and not towards Performance Bank Guarantee. The Performance Bank Guarantee is to be given by the Lowest Number 1, whereas Earnest Money Deposit Bank Guarantee is to be given by all the bidders. (b) At Clause No. 3 of NIT (Annexure 2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), essentials of the Bank Guarantee has been given and the relevant part of the clause No. 3 of NIT reads as under: “EMD can also be deposited in the form of irrevocable Bank Guarantee (BG) from any scheduled Bank in the format given in the bid document. Bank guarantee issued by outstation bank shall be operative at their local branch i.e. at Ranchi. The validity of such BG should be minimum 90 days beyond the validity of the bid. BG shall be acceptable only when value of Earnest money (EMD) exceeds Rs. Bank guarantee issued by outstation bank shall be operative at their local branch i.e. at Ranchi. The validity of such BG should be minimum 90 days beyond the validity of the bid. BG shall be acceptable only when value of Earnest money (EMD) exceeds Rs. 5.00 Lakhs.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid clause of NIT to be read with GTC I format of Bank Guarantee and GTC II format of Bank Guarantee the essential condition are irrevocable Bank Guarantee of scheduled Bank payable at local branch at Ranchi and it should have a validity of minimum 90 days beyond the validity period of the bid and it must be paid when demanded and without any demure. All these conditions have been fulfilled except few lines in the Bank Guarantee format given in GTC II. (c) Following are the guidelines given by the Central Vigilance Commission vide Circular dated 31st December, 2007:- “4. Therefore, all organizations are advised to evolve the procedure for acceptance of BGs, which is compatible with the guidelines of Banks/Reserve Bank of India. The steps to be ensured should include: (i) Copy of proper prescribed format on which BGs are accepted from the contractors should be enclosed with the tender document and it should be verified verbatim on receipt with original document. (ii) It should be insisted upon the contractors, suppliers etc. that BG s to be submitted by them should be sent to the organization directly by the issuing bank under Registered Post (A.D.) (iii) In exceptional cases, where the BG s are received through the contractors, suppliers etc., the issuing branch should be requested to immediately send by Registered Post (A.D.) an unstamped duplicate copy of the guarantee directly to the organization with a covering letter to compare with the original BGs and confirm that it is in order. (iv) As an additional measure of abundant precaution, all BGs should be independently verified by the organizations. (v) In the organization/unit, on officer should be specifically designated with responsibility for verification, timely renewal and timely encashment of BGs. 5. Keeping above in view, the organizations may frame their own detailed guidelines to ensure that BGs are genuine and encashable. (iv) As an additional measure of abundant precaution, all BGs should be independently verified by the organizations. (v) In the organization/unit, on officer should be specifically designated with responsibility for verification, timely renewal and timely encashment of BGs. 5. Keeping above in view, the organizations may frame their own detailed guidelines to ensure that BGs are genuine and encashable. ” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, it appears that the guidelines were given by the Central Vigilance Commission to the effect that Bank Guarantee should be enclosed with the tender document which is not given in the facts of the present case. The Bank guarantee format h as not been given with the NIT, which is at Annexure 2 to the Letters Patent Appeal, which was must as per circular dated 31st December, 2007, which is heavily relied upon by the counsel for Respondent No. 1. Thus guideline given by Central Vigilance Commission in Clause 4 (2) has not been followed by the respondent Central Coal Fields Ltd. (d) It appears that certain formats which have been given in GTC II have been given in the Notice Inviting Tender, whereas certain things have been left open and as there was two types of GTCs i.e. GTC I and GTC II. The Bank Guarantee was given in the GTC I format but all the essential conditions of Bank Guarantee as per Clause 3 of the NIT have been fulfilled including the “amount payable on demand without any demure” clause also. (e) All confusion have been created by Respondent No. 1 because of inaccurate NIT. Some formats have been given, which are in the form of Annexures to the NIT and though Bank Guarantee format has not been given but the essentials of the Bank Guarantee has been given (in Clause 3 of NIT). Moreover, looking to the guidelines given by the Central Vigilance Commission dated 31st December, 2007, it appears that they are general guidelines. If the Condition No. 4(i) had been fulfilled by Respondent No. 1 there would not have been any occasion for the confusion which resulted in filing of Bank Guarantee in wrong format. All these confusion is due to the inaccurate NIT issued by the respondents and now the respondents are looking for correct format of Bank Guarantee instead of concentrating on essentials of the Bank guarantee as per the terms of Clause 3 of their NIT. All these confusion is due to the inaccurate NIT issued by the respondents and now the respondents are looking for correct format of Bank Guarantee instead of concentrating on essentials of the Bank guarantee as per the terms of Clause 3 of their NIT. Upon conjoint reading of Clause No. 3 of the NIT, Bank Guarantee formats in GTC I and in GTC II it appears that the Bank Guarantee is for only Earnest Money Deposit and not for the performance of the contract. It appears that the format of the Bank Guarantee is not an important condition at all in case of the Bank Guarantee for Earnest Money Deposit. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge especially in paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015 and hence the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2015, passed in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015 deserves to be quashed and set aside. (V) It has been held by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 273 in paragraph Nos. 6, 7, and 8 as under: “6. It is true that in submitting its tender accompanied by a cheque of the Union Bank of India and not of the State Bank clause 6 of the tender notice was not obeyed literally, but the question is as to whether the said noncompliance deprived the Diesel Locomotive Works of the authority to accept the bid. As a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. This aspect was examined by this Court in C.J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka a case dealing with tenders. In the other cases it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases. This aspect was examined by this Court in C.J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka a case dealing with tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation as the present one, the observations in the judgment support our view. The High Court has, in the impugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India but has failed to appreciate that the reported case belonged to the first category where the strict compliance of the condition could be insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice which was an essential condition could be insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice which was an essential condition of eligibility, bestowed a favour on one of the bidders, which amounted to illegal discrimination. The judgment indicates that the court closely examined the nature of the condition which had been relaxed and its impact before answering the question whether it could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the tender in question. This part of the judgment demonstrates the difference between the two categories of the conditions discussed above. However it remains to be seen as to which of the two clauses, the present case belongs. 7. The nature of payment by a certified cheque was considered by this Court in Sita Ram Jhunjhunwala vs. Bombay Bullion Association Ltd. Several objections were taken there in support of the plea that the necessary condition in regard to payment was not satisfied and in that context this Court quoted the observations from the judgment in an English decision (vide Spargo case) that it is a general rule of law that in every case where a transaction resolves itself into paying money by A to B and then handing it back again by B to A, if the parties meet together and agree to set one demand against the other, they need not go through the form and ceremony of handing the money backwards and forwards. This Court applied the observations to a transaction requiring payment by one to another. This Court applied the observations to a transaction requiring payment by one to another. The High Court's decisions in B.D. Yadav case and T.V. Subhadra Amma case are also illustrations where literal compliance of every term of the tender Notice was not insisted upon. 8. In the present case the certified cheque of the Union Bank of India drawn on its own branch must be treated as sufficient for the purpose of achieving the object of the condition and the Tender Committee took the abundant caution by a further verification from the bank. In this situation it is not correct to hold that the Diesel Locomotive Works had no authority to waive the technical literal compliance of clause 6, specially when it was in its interest not to reject the said bid which was the highest. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and dismiss the writ petition of respondent 1 filed before the High Court. The appeal is accordingly allowed with costs throughout.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision, if there is substantial compliance of the terms of the tender, as it is in the present case, i.e. compliance of the essential conditions of the Bank Guarantee as given in the Clause 3 of the NIT, then there is no need for the respondents to reject the bid of these appellants merely on the ground that the Bank Guarantee is not in proper format and it was also not in the public interest to reject the bid of these appellants mechanically because more competition is always helpful whenever such a huge contract is to be given. Bigger the contract amount and longer the period, more should be the number of bidders. Attitude on the part of the respondents, as far as possible, should be of inclusion and not exclusion of the bidders so that there may be healthy competition before the Lowest Number 1 is chosen. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Attitude on the part of the respondents, as far as possible, should be of inclusion and not exclusion of the bidders so that there may be healthy competition before the Lowest Number 1 is chosen. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. (VI) Looking to Clause 12 and 13 of the NIT, it appears that on-line documents were to be sent and physically the documents were also to be given in hard copies which were to be verified as per procedure given in Clause 12 and 13 of the NIT, whereas GTC II, which is heavily relied upon by Respondent No. 1 gives another type of procedure to be followed. Thus, there is a discrepancy between even these two documents viz. NIT and GTC II so far as procedure to be followed is concerned. Similarly, in NIT no format of Bank Guarantee has been given, whereas in GTC II the Bank Guarantee Format for Earnest Money Deposit is given. There is also difference in formats given in NIT Annexure and GTC II with respect to e-payment details. This type of confusion can be avoided by clear drafting of NIT. Few documents are given and few are to be taken from GTCI I. In such type of confusion the benefit should have been given to the appellants and they should have been allowed to participate in the auction process instead of rejection of their bid only for the violation of an ancillary condition i.e. format of the Bank Guarantee. (VII) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmull Jain and Another, AIR 1966 SC 1644 in para 11 as under: “(11) A contract of insurance is a species of commercial transaction and there is a well-established commercial practice to send cover notes even prior to the completion of a proper proposal or while the proposal is being considered or a policy is in preparation for delivery. A cover note is a temporary and limited agreement. It may be self-contained or it may incorporate by reference the terms and conditions of the future policy. When the cover note incorporates the policy in this manner, it does not have to recite the terms and conditions, but merely to refer to a particular standard policy. A cover note is a temporary and limited agreement. It may be self-contained or it may incorporate by reference the terms and conditions of the future policy. When the cover note incorporates the policy in this manner, it does not have to recite the terms and conditions, but merely to refer to a particular standard policy. If the proposal is for a standard policy and the cover note refers to it, the assured is taken to have accepted the terms of that policy. The reference to the policy and its terms and conditions may be expressed in the proposal or the cover note or even in the letter of acceptance including the cover note. The incorporation of the terms and conditions of the policy may also arise from a combination of references in two or more documents passing between the parties. Documents like the proposal, cover note and the policy are commercial documents and to interpret them commercial habits and practice cannot altogether be ignored. During the time the cover note operates, the relations of the parties are governed by its terms and conditions, if any, but more usually by the terms and conditions of the policy bargained for and to be issued. When this happens the terms of the policy are incipient but after the period of temporary cover, the relations are governed only by the terms and conditions of the policy unless insurance is declined in the meantime. Delay in issuing the policy makes no difference. The relations even then are governed by the future policy if the cover notes give sufficient indication that it would be so. In other respects there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract except that in a contract of insurance there is a requirement of uberima fides, i.e., good faith on the part of the assured and the contract is likely to be construed contra proferentem that is against the company in case of ambiguity or doubt. A contract is formed when there is an unqualified acceptance of the proposal. Acceptance may be expressed in writing or it may even be implied if the insurer accepts the premium and retains it. In the case of the assured, a positive act on his part by which he recognises or seeks to enforce the policy amounts to an affirmation of it. Acceptance may be expressed in writing or it may even be implied if the insurer accepts the premium and retains it. In the case of the assured, a positive act on his part by which he recognises or seeks to enforce the policy amounts to an affirmation of it. This position was clearly recognised by the assured himself, because he wrote, close upon the expiry of the time of the cover notes, that either a policy should be issued to him before that period had expired or the cover note extended in time. In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. Looking at the proposal, the letter of acceptance and cover notes, it is clear that a contract of insurance under the standard policy for fire and extended to cover flood, cyclone etc. had come into being.” (Emphasis supplied) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bank of India vs. K. Mohandas, (2009) 5 SCC 313 in paragraph No. 32 as under: “32. The fundamental position is that it is the banks who were responsible for formulation of the terms in the contractual Scheme that the optees of voluntary retirement under that Scheme will be eligible to pension under the Pension Regulations, 1995, and, therefore, they bear the risk of lack of clarity, if any. It is a well-known principle of construction of a contract that if the terms applied by one party are unclear, an interpretation against that party is preferred (verba Chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem). ” (Emphasis supplied) Thus, in view of both the aforesaid decisions, when there is no Bank Guarantee format given with the NIT (though other formats are given) and also when essential conditions of the Bank Guarantee (as per Clause 3 of NIT) has already been fulfilled by these appellants, the benefit should have been given to these appellants and their bid ought not to have been rejected by the respondents on the aforesaid principle of contra proferentem. (VIII) It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Noble Resources Ltd. vs. State of Orissa and Another, (2006) 10 SCC 236 in para 14 and 15 as under: “14. Respondent 2 is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its conduct in all fields including a contract is expected to be fair and reasonable. It was not supposed to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically. 15. It is trite that if an action on the part of the State is violative of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a writ petition would be maintainable even in the contractual field. A distinction indisputably must be made between a matter which is at the thresh hold of a contract and a breach of contract; whereas in the former the court's scrutiny would be more intrusive, in the latter the court may not ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review, unless it is found to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. While exercising contractual powers also the government bodies may be subjected to judicial review in order to prevent arbitrariness or favouritism on their part. Indisputably, inherent limitations exist, but it would not be correct to opine that under no circumstances a writ will lie only because it involves a contractual matter.” (Emphasis supplied) (IX) IT has been held by this Court in M/s. Anik Industries Ltd. Kolkata vs. Jharkhand State Housing Board, Ranchi, 2011 (1) JCR 126 (Jhr), Para No. 9.3 and 9.4 as under: “9.3 The State in under obligation for agumentation of revenue and nothing else. The State is under an obligation to secure the best market price available so that larger revenue comes to the coffers of the State administration. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji T.M. Hassan Rawther vs. Kerala Financial Corporation, J.T. 1987 (4) SC 368 in paragraph No. 14 as under: “14. The public property owned by the State or by any instrumentality of the State should be generally sold by public auction or by inviting tenders. This Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. This Court has been insisting upon that rule, not only to get the highest price for the property but also to ensure fairness in the activities of the State and public authorities. They should undoubtedly act fairly. Their transactions should be without aversion or affection. Nothing should be suggestive of discrimination. Nothing should be done by them which given an impression of bias favouritism or nepotism. Ordinarily these factors would be absent if the matter is brought to pubic auction or sale by tenders. That. ......the Court repeatedly stated and reiterated that the State owned properties are required to be disposed of publicly. But that it is not the only rule. As O. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed “that though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariably rule.” There may be situations necessitating departure from the rule, but then such instances must be justified by compulsions and not by compromise. It must be justified by compelling reasons and not by just convenience. (Emphasis supplied) 9.4 Thus, looking to the nature of the contract, in question, it appears that larger public interest is involved. Number of residential as well as commercial units are to be given to the Jharkhand State Housing Board, which will be utilized ultimately by the public at large and, therefore, respondent No. 1 being an instrumentality of the State engaged uin performing a public duty, cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily and unfairly, so as to cause harm and injury, flowing from its unreasonable conduct, to the appellant. In such a situation, the Court is not powerless and Court can issue suitable directions to set right, the arbitrary action of the respondent-Housing Board. It has been held at paragraph No. 23 of a decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ABL International vs. Export Credit Guarantee, (2004) 3 SCC 553 as under: “23. It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State of an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is clear from the above observations of this Court, once the State of an instrumentality of the State is a party of the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the above-said requirement of Article 14, then we have no hesitation in holding that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent. In this context, we may note that though the first respondent is a company registered under the Companies Act, it is wholly owned by the Government of India. The total subscribed share capital of this Company is 2,50,000/- shares out of which 2,49,998 shares are held by the President of India while one share each is held by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Officer on Special Duty. Ministry of Commerce and industry respectively. The objects enumerated in the memorandum of association of the first respondent at para 10 read: “To undertake such functions as may be entrusted to it by the government from time to time, including grant of credits and cuarantees in foreign currency for the purpose of facilitating the import of raw materials and semi finished goods for manufacture or processing goods for export.” “To act a agent of the Government, or with the sanction of the Government on its own account, to give the guarantees, undertake such responsibilities and discharge such functions as are considered by the Government as necessary in national interest.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid two decisions if the respondents-instrumentality of Government, if they have acted arbitrarily, this court can interfere even in a contract matter and writ petition is maintainable even in the contractual field. (X) In the facts of the present case the bid of these appellants has been rejected as few words in their Bank Guarantee for Earnest Money Deposit is not tallying with the words given in the format of Bank Guarantee given in the GTC II, otherwise rest of the essentials of the Bank Guarantee as per Clause 3 of the NIT has been fulfilled by these appellants-bidder. The approach of the respondents in rejecting the bid of these appellants is not fair and is not in the public interest at all. Slight variation in the language of the Bank Guarantee will not take away the essential characteristics of the Bank Guarantee if other conditions of the Bank Guarantee have been fulfilled. In the present case, hardly 11 bidders have participated and bid of these appellants have been rejected on the ground that the Bank Guarantee for Earnest Money Deposit is not in the correct format. When contract of such a huge amount and for such a long duration, i.e. eight years, was to be awarded, a healthy competition should have been preferred by the respondents instead of rejecting the bids of these appellants on technical grounds. It is rightly submitted by the counsel for the appellants that there is no format of the Bank Guarantee in the NIT and even otherwise also there is substantial compliance by these appellants because a Bank Guarantee has already been given with all the essentials of the Bank Guarantee as required by the respondents. This substantial compliance as per Clause 3 of NIT has not been properly appreciated by the respondents before rejection of bid of these appellants. (XI) It has been contended by counsel for the respondents that in case of highly technical bids, the bidders should fill up the bids along with necessary documents carefully and if there is slightest deviation the bid can be rejected. Counsel appearing for the respondent have relied upon the decision, as stated herein above, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.B. SEB vs. Patel Engg. Co. Ltd. (2001) 2 SCC 451 , Para 24. We can not accept this contention because it appears that in the said case there was a major deviation, whereas in the present case it cannot be said that there is too much deviation from the condition prescribed by the Respondent No. 1 with respect to Bank Guarantee. This fact makes the present case different from the aforesaid case cited by the respondents. Here Bank Guarantee fulfilling all the essential conditions has been given by these appellants. All the essentials of the Bank Guarantee, as stated in condition No. 3 of the NIT, have been fulfilled and there is difference in only few lines or words in the format of the Bank Guarantee. Here Bank Guarantee fulfilling all the essential conditions has been given by these appellants. All the essentials of the Bank Guarantee, as stated in condition No. 3 of the NIT, have been fulfilled and there is difference in only few lines or words in the format of the Bank Guarantee. Otherwise, there is no other allegation levelled by the respondents that these appellants are not capable or their integrity is doubtful. Moreover, the Bank Guarantee in the facts of the present case is only for the “Earnest Money Deposit” and not for the “performance of the contract.” We are at the threshold of a contract and these appellants are not allowed to participate in the auction process. As it appears the auction process lacks a healthy competition. This auction is also called Reverse Bidding or Reverse Auction. Thus, it appears that looking to the stage of auction and also taking into consideration too much technicality followed by the respondents and also looking to the public interest and taking into consideration the huge amount of contract and its long duration, i.e. 8 years and also looking to the slight change in the words of the bank guarantee, it appears that it is not an essential condition at all of the NIT and these facts of the present case makes the present case different from the cases upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel for Respondent No. 1. There is arbitrariness on the part of the respondents leading to discrimination. The guidelines given by the Central Vigilance Commission was not followed, in its true spirit and letter. These guidelines are given in Circular dated 31-12-2007. Condition No. 4(i) is not observed by Respondent No. 1. The respondents are now searching for proper format of Bank Guarantee as mandated by the circular dated 31st December, 2007 of the Central Vigilance Commission, whereas 4(i) of the same circular of the Central Vigilance Commission (Annexure 12/1 to the Letters Patent Appeal) has been ignored. Had there been a clear unambiguous and unequivocal NIT, both these litigations, i.e. the writ and the Letters Patent Appeal could have been avoided. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge as it appears from Paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 7th October, 2015 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4559 of 2015. Had there been a clear unambiguous and unequivocal NIT, both these litigations, i.e. the writ and the Letters Patent Appeal could have been avoided. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned Single Judge as it appears from Paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 7th October, 2015 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4559 of 2015. (XII) Counsel appearing for the respondents have also relied upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd. (2013) 5 SCC 470 and on the basis of the aforesaid decisions it has been contended that the court will not interfere in the contractual matter and there is no legal right vested in the appellants to get contract from the respondents. This contention is also not accepted by this court mainly for the reason that whenever any bid is rejected by the State-Public Sector Undertaking for violation of ancillary condition the court has all power jurisdiction and authority to interfere. Arbitrary rejection of the bid vitiates auction process. In the facts of the present case the NIT is itself defective. There is a lot of discrepancy between the NIT, especially at Clause 12 and 13 and GTC II. There is a difference in formats also, as stated hereinabove. The whole confusion has arisen due to vagueness in the NIT. Moreover, basic necessity and essential conditions which are stated at Clause 3 of the NIT have already been fulfilled by these appellants. Moreover, formats of Bank Guarantee in both GTC I and GTC II have been provided by the respondents. Bank Guarantee of GTC I appears to be more strict than Bank Guarantee of GTC II and these appellants have given a Bank Guarantee in the Bank Guarantee format of GTC I. Moreover, this Bank Guarantee is only for the Earnest Money Deposit which is at Rs. 1 Crore. Otherwise, if the Lowest Number 1 is selected out of total 11 bidders (Including these appellants), a Performance Bank Guarantee would have to be given. Therefore, keeping in mind the totality of these circumstances, none of the judgments, as cited by Respondent No. 1, is helpful to the respondents looking to the peculiar facts of the present case. 1 Crore. Otherwise, if the Lowest Number 1 is selected out of total 11 bidders (Including these appellants), a Performance Bank Guarantee would have to be given. Therefore, keeping in mind the totality of these circumstances, none of the judgments, as cited by Respondent No. 1, is helpful to the respondents looking to the peculiar facts of the present case. These aspects of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015. 22. As a cumulative effect of the facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we, hereby, quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 7th October, 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 4559 of 2015. We further quash and set aside the auction process and therefore, we also quash and set aside the communications dated 11th September, 2015 and 15th September, 2015 with respect to rejection of the bid of these appellants (which are at Annexure 5 and at Annexure 6 respectively to the Letters Patent Appeal) and these appellants will be permitted to participate in the reverse bidding process. 23. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.