JUDGMENT : C.V. Sirpurkar, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against action of the District Committee for District Singrauli, constituted under the Excise Policy of the State of Madhya Pradesh for arrangement of execution of shops for sale of country and foreign liquor; whereby, the District Committee on 20.02.2015, had referred the bids received in respect of Single Group no. F-2 Waidhan, to the State Government for final decision. 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this writ petition may briefly be summarized thus: Aforesaid Committee was constituted under clause 2 of policy for the year 2015-16 promulgated on 21st of January, 2015 by Commercial tax Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh. The terms and conditions for tender process were set forth in clause 16 of the policy. As per clause 16.7 of the policy, the tenders were to be submitted in two parts: first part consisting of technical bid and second, the financial bid. Both the parts were to be placed in separate envelopes. The bidder was required to mention his name and name of liquor shop/single group for which the bid was being made, upon both the envelopes. The envelopes containing part I and part II of the bids were then to be placed in a larger envelope. The bidder was required to mention the name of the district for whose liquor shop/single group the bid was being placed upon this larger envelope. As per clause 16.14 of the policy, the bids received for all liquor shops/single group were to be placed in descending order and then the envelopes containing technical bids were to be opened, liquor shop/single group wise. After scrutinizing the eligibility of the bidder to take part in the tender process on the basis of technical bid, the financial bid was to be opened. As per clause 16.20 of the policy, the highest bid in respect of a particular liquor shop/single group if it was higher than the offset price, was to be accepted by the District committee and the decision taken in this regard by the District Committee was to be final. Clause 16.18 of the policy provided that the financial bids were not to be rejected on the basis of clerical or inconsequential errors. The Committee was entitled to get doubts, if any, in this regard cleared by the concerned Collector or Excise Commissioner. Clause 16.18 of the policy provided that the financial bids were not to be rejected on the basis of clerical or inconsequential errors. The Committee was entitled to get doubts, if any, in this regard cleared by the concerned Collector or Excise Commissioner. It was further provided in clause 16.19 that after completion of the tender process, no written or oral, conditional or unconditional offer made by a bidder, was to be admitted on record or considered. 3. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted its bid in a large envelope mentioning its name i.e. M/S Maxima Traders Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, the name of district i.e. Singrauli and name of the single group i.e. F-2 Waidhan. This envelope contained two smaller envelopes containing the financial and technical bids as per rules. On 20th of February, 2015 from 2:00 p.m. onwards the tenders of the district Singrauli were opened by the District Committee in presence of bidders in the office of Collector of district Singrauli. It was found that for group F-2 Waidhan, four bidders had submitted their bids. After examining the technical bids and ensuring that all four bidders were eligible for submitting financial bids, the financial bids were opened. On evaluation of financial bids, the bid of the petitioner at Rs. 10.11 crores was found to be highest; therefore, it was declared successful bidder by the District Committee in respect of group F-2 Waidhan. The demand draft submitted by the petitioner by way of earnest money and security deposit, was retained by the District Committee and demand drafts of remaining bidders, were returned to them. Thus, the tender process for the single group F-2 Waidhan, District Singrauli, stood concluded in favour of the petitioner. 4. It has further been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that when the petitioner was declared as successful bidder, none of the other bidders present raised any objection in this regard and thereafter the Committee proceeded to open the bids received for other shops/single groups. When the bids for another group namely F-10 Bargawan, was being opened, a large envelope submitted by respondent No. 5 was found. Overruling serious objections of the petitioner in this regard, the Committee decided to open this large envelope. It contained smaller envelopes with technical and financial bids of the respondent No. 5 for group F-2 Waidhan. When the bids for another group namely F-10 Bargawan, was being opened, a large envelope submitted by respondent No. 5 was found. Overruling serious objections of the petitioner in this regard, the Committee decided to open this large envelope. It contained smaller envelopes with technical and financial bids of the respondent No. 5 for group F-2 Waidhan. On opening the financial bid received from respondent No. 5, it was found that he had submitted a bid of Rs.11.17 crores. The respondent No. 5 submitted before the Committee that inadvertently the name of group F-10 Bargawan was written in place of group F-2 Waidhan; whereon, the District Committee directed that the matter be referred to State Government for taking a final decision and this fact was accordingly recorded in minutes of the meeting. 5. It has further been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the clause 16.19 of the policy categorically ordains that after completion of the process, no further written or oral, conditional or unconditional offer from any bidder shall either be considered or be placed on record. The process of finalization of bids stood concluded no sooner the successful bidder for group F-2 Waidhan was identified. In aforesaid circumstances, the envelope submitted by respondent No. 5, which materialized at the time when bids for liquor shops Bargawan were being opened, could neither be taken on record nor considered. Consequently, the action of the District Committee, referring the matter for final decision to the State Government was arbitrary and illegal. 6. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have stated in their written reply that tender proceedings in respect of 14 groups including Waidhan and Bargawan for district Singrauli, were conducted on 20th of February, 2015. In all 87 tenders were received. All tenders were kept in a sealed tender box. The box was opened in presence of the bidders and/or their representatives. At the time of opening the bids in respect of group F-2 Waidhan, the envelope of respondent No. 5 was not opened because though, he had mentioned the name of district Singrauli correctly, in addition thereto, he had mentioned the name of group as F-10 Bargawan. When the bid of respondent No. 5 was not taken note of while considering the bids in respect of Waidhan group he pointed out that under misconception, he mentioned the name of group F-10 Bargawan, on the larger envelope. When the bid of respondent No. 5 was not taken note of while considering the bids in respect of Waidhan group he pointed out that under misconception, he mentioned the name of group F-10 Bargawan, on the larger envelope. On the request of respondent No. 5, the larger envelope of respondent No. 5 was placed before the District Committee. After ensuring that the technical bid was in order, the financial bid was opened and it was found to be the highest for group F-2 Waidhan; therefore, the Committee decided to refer the matter to the State Government/Excise Commissioner for final decision. As such, the bid submitted by respondent No. 5 for group F-2 Waidhan was not opened after completion of the tender proceedings as alleged by the petitioner but during the continuation of the proceedings. Hence, there was nothing arbitrary or illegal in the procedure adopted by the Committee. 7. No written reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has merely submitted during the arguments that in case the Court is not inclined to allow the bid of the respondent No. 5 to be considered, it should ensure that his earnest money and security is returned. 8. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 that as per clause 16.18 of the policy, the bids are not to be rejected on account of the minor irregularities or curable defects. As per learned Additional Advocate for the State, mentioning of name of group i.e. F-10 Bargawan instead of group F-2 Waidhan on the larger envelope, did not breach any essential term or condition of the tender and was therefore, a curable defect. The bid of respondent No. 5 which was Rs. 1.06 crores higher than the bid of the petitioner, could not be rejected on the basis of such trivial defect. In these circumstances, in the interest of the public exchequer, the district committee was justified in referring the matter for final decision to the State Government. 9. It is true that the Apex Court has held in the case of C.J. C.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488 and Poddar Steel Corpn. In these circumstances, in the interest of the public exchequer, the district committee was justified in referring the matter for final decision to the State Government. 9. It is true that the Apex Court has held in the case of C.J. C.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488 and Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engineering Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273 that 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. 10. However, in our view, the main question in this writ petition before the Court is not whether the conditions regarding writing of correct name of the district and liquor shop/single group on the larger envelope was essential or merely ancillary/subsidiary. The main question to be considered is whether the bid made by respondent No. 5 was taken note of after the conclusion of the tender proceedings with regard to group F-2 Waidhan and was therefore, in violation of the condition as mentioned in clause 16.19 of the Policy ? In this regard, it is pertinent to take note of clause 16.19 of the policy dated 21st of January, 2015 which reads as hereunder: 11. In support of their contentions, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed the minutes of meeting of the District Committee, dated 20th of February, 2015. The second paragraph of the minutes is relevant for our purpose, which reads as hereunder: 12. From aforesaid minutes, it is clear that bids were submitted for 30 country liquor shops and 17 foreign liquor shops comprised in 16 single groups located in district Singrauli. For aforesaid 16 single groups, 87 tenders were submitted. All 87 tenders were arranged single group wise, in descending order of their bids. Thus, it is obvious that the tender proceedings which took place on 20th of February, 2015 were not a single proceeding but were in fact a series of 16 separate proceedings which were taken one after the other. All 87 tenders were arranged single group wise, in descending order of their bids. Thus, it is obvious that the tender proceedings which took place on 20th of February, 2015 were not a single proceeding but were in fact a series of 16 separate proceedings which were taken one after the other. As per the minutes, four bids were received for single group F- 2 Waidhan. Petitioner M/s. Maxima Traders Bhopal Pvt. Limited was identified as highest bidder for its offer of Rs.10.11 crores; however, when the bids in respect of single group F-10 Bargawan were being processed, Shri Sunil Khare, respondent No. 5, contended that on the large envelope submitted by him, he had inadvertently written the name of single group F-10 Bargawan in place of single group F-2 Waidhan,. Thereafter, the Committee permitted opening of aforesaid larger envelope. Inside that envelopes, two smaller envelopes were found; whereon, group F-2 Waidhan was written. Since, technical bid was found to be in order, the part II of the bid namely financial bid, was allowed to be opened. As it contained an offer of 11.17 crores, which was more than the bid submitted by the petitioner by Rs.1.06 crores, the matter was referred to the State Government for final decision. 13. A careful reading of paragraph No. 2 of the minutes reveals that so far as single group F-2 Waidhan was concerned, the tender proceedings stood concluded as soon as the four envelopes containing bids in respect of group F-2 Waidhan were opened and the highest bidder amongst them namely M/s. Maxima Traders Bhopal Pvt. Limited was identified. Had respondent No. 5 brought the fact that he had also submitted bid for single group Waidhan, when he found that there were only four bidders for Waidhan in which his name did not figure, it could have been a different matter. However, it appears from the proceedings as recorded in the minutes that the respondent No. 5 did not raise any objection till the highest bidder for single group Waidhan was identified. He raised such objection when the Committee was proceeding in respect of the tenders received for single group F-10 Bargawan. It is noteworthy that single group F-2 Waidhan was placed at serial No. 2; whereas, single group F-10 Bargawan was placed at serial No. 8. He raised such objection when the Committee was proceeding in respect of the tenders received for single group F-10 Bargawan. It is noteworthy that single group F-2 Waidhan was placed at serial No. 2; whereas, single group F-10 Bargawan was placed at serial No. 8. Thus, it is clear that though respondent No. 5 may have raised the objection during the course of the meeting when tender process for other single groups might have been continuing but he had not raised any objection before identification of highest bidder with regard to single group F-2 Waidhan. The tender process with regard to single group F-2 Waidhan stood culminated with identification of the petitioner as the highest bidder. As such, the objection taken by the respondent No. 5 when bids filed in respect of single group F-10 Bargawan were being processed, was not sustainable. 14. In aforesaid view of the matter, taking on record of the bid of the respondent No. 5 by the District Committee was clearly in violation of clause 16.19 of the policy. There can be no doubt that term contained in clause 16.19 of the policy goes to the very heart of the tender process. Such condition is incorporated in order to ensure transparency and eliminate any trace of arbitrariness or subjectivity in any tender process. The Court cannot remain a mute spectator of violation of such an essential condition of the tender process. In our opinion, the Court is entitled to and must intervene in such a scenario. 15. It is true that if the decision of the District Committee to consider the bid submitted by respondent No. 5 is allowed to stand, the public exchequer would stand to gain an additional 1.06 crores; however, a procedure which tends to introduce an element of arbitrariness and subjectivity into entire tender process, cannot be countenanced on the argument that it may potentially benefit the exchequer to considerable extent. The decision of members of District Committee might have been prompted by aforesaid consideration but this Court cannot allow itself to be swayed by such consideration, for the reasons aforesaid 16. In the result, this writ petition succeeds. The decision of members of District Committee might have been prompted by aforesaid consideration but this Court cannot allow itself to be swayed by such consideration, for the reasons aforesaid 16. In the result, this writ petition succeeds. The decision of the district committee dated 20th of February, 2015, so far as it relates to considering and taking on record the bid submitted by the respondent No. 5 for single group F-2 Waidhan and referring it to State Government for final decision, is quashed. Consequently, the petitioner is declared to be successful bidder for retail liquor shop group F-2 Waidhan, Singrauli.