JUDGMENT : I.P. Mukerji, J. The supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners is taken on record. 2. In or about March 2015, the Kolkata Port Trust invited tenders for shore handling operation at berth Nos. 2 and 8 of the Haldia Dock Complex. The work contemplated in the tender included supply, operation and maintenance of different cargo handling equipments. 3. Offers could be made in ones individual capacity or by a consortium. 4. The plaintiff and another enterprise by the name of Snigdha Logistics, the respondent 6, formed a consortium, which along with, inter alia, the respondent no. 5, participated in the tender process. 5. There is no dispute that the petitioners bid of Rs. 54.30 per metric ton was the lowest. 6. The respondent no. 5 with a bid of Rs. 63.36 per metric ton was declared as the successful bidder. 7. The material events occurred between 14th May, 2015 and 20th May, 2015. 8. On 14th May, 2015 late in the evening at 7:57 P.M. the petitioners received an e-mail from the Kolkata Port Trust pointing out the alleged "deficiencies" in the tender submitted by the petitioners. 9. Mr. Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Kolkata Port Trust relied only upon the alleged "deficiencies" mentioned against serial numbers 5, 8 and 9, in an attachment to the email. These are as follows:- "5. Certified Copy of provident Fund Registration Certificate a/c Snighdha Logistics has not been submitted. 8. Regarding Snigdha Logistics not being covered under ESI Act, the affidavit submitted is not affirmed before a 1st Class Magistrate. 9. Although Snigdha Logistics is declared to be not covered under ESI Act, the additional document indemnifying KoPT against all damages and accidents of his labour, on a Non-judicial Stamp Paper as per format given in Appendix-XX is not submitted." 10. No time to furnish the documents was stipulated in this email. 11. The Senior Deputy Manager (Sh & CH) Haldia Dock Complex gave the petitioners time up to 20th May, 2015 to make good the above alleged deficiencies by his e-mail dated 18th May, 2015 sent at 4.41 p.m. 12. By their e-mail of 19th May, 2015 the petitioners pleaded with the said officer for time till 22nd May, 2015. 13. The allegation about the alleged deficiency had their basis in para 2.1.3 (II)(e) and more particularly, (e)-(iii) and (e)-(vii) of the tender conditions. By their e-mail of 19th May, 2015 the petitioners pleaded with the said officer for time till 22nd May, 2015. 13. The allegation about the alleged deficiency had their basis in para 2.1.3 (II)(e) and more particularly, (e)-(iii) and (e)-(vii) of the tender conditions. They are inserted herein below:- "(II)-(e)-(iii) - Certified copy of Provident Fund Registration Certificate (for each member in case of a Consortium) OR an Affidavit (by lead member in case of a Consortium) affirmed before a First Class Judicial Magistrate as per the Format given in Appendix-XVIII (in case the Bidder is not covered under Provident Fund Act or exempted from it) (II)-(e)-(vii) - Certified copy of Employees State Insurance (ESI) Registration Certificate (for each member in case of a Consortium) OR an Affidavit affirmed (by lead member in case of a Consortium) before a First Class Judicial Magistrate as per the Format given in Appendix-XIX (in case the Bidder is not covered under ESI Act or exempted from it)." 14. To simplify matters, it was like this. If a tenderer was a consortium of two members, each of the members had to furnish the Provident Fund Registration Certificate and the ESI Registration Certificate. If any member was not so registered the bid was to be accompanied by an affidavit affirmed before a First Class Judicial Magistrate in accordance with a prescribed format in respect of both Provident Fund and ESI. Furtherance, it appears that under the tender conditions, a similarly affirmed affidavit had to be furnished undertaking to indemnify the Kolkata Port Trust against accident claims, damages etc. 15. Mr. Ahin Chowdhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioners took me very extensively, through the exchange of e5 mails and other documents that took place between 14th May and 20th May, 2015. He submitted that the documents as required by the Kolkata Port Trust were duly scanned and sent to them by the petitioners on 20th May, 2015 at 2:52 P.M. with their undertaking to submit the originals latter in the evening. 16. Furthermore, he showed me a letter of the writ petitioners dated 20th May, 2015 at page 167 where they were notifying the Senior Deputy Manager that any remaining document would be submitted the following morning. 17. Mr. Chowdhury said that these physical copies were sent in the evening of 20th May, 2015 when the Deputy Manager had left his office. Furthermore, he showed me a letter of the writ petitioners dated 20th May, 2015 at page 167 where they were notifying the Senior Deputy Manager that any remaining document would be submitted the following morning. 17. Mr. Chowdhury said that these physical copies were sent in the evening of 20th May, 2015 when the Deputy Manager had left his office. He apparently instructed the employee present in the office not to accept them. 18. On the other hand, Mr. Datta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Kolkata Port Trust has taken me through some documents submitted by the petitioners to show that the same were not in order. He confined himself to the alleged "deficiencies" pointed out against serial nos. 5, 8, 9 of the attachment to the e-mail dated 14th May, 2015, as stated above. He also showed me some correspondence exchanged between the petitioners and the Kolkata Port Trust to argue that the formers stand has been contradictory. On one occasion the petitioners had claimed that they were registered under the Employees State Insurance Act (see page 238 of the petition) but on another occasion had undertaken to furnish an affidavit, indemnity bond etc. undertaking to indemnify the Port against all claims arising out of accidents to workers and damage claims on the ground that they were not so registered (see page 270 of the petition). 19. At the technical bid stage, five tenderers had participated. But at the financial bid stage only two, including the respondent no. 5 but excluding the writ petitioners, had been considered, Mr. Datta added. 20. Now I come to my findings:- 21. It is an admitted position that from 2012 the work for which tenders were invited was being carried out by licensees under the Kolkata Port Trust. 22. According to the terms and conditions of the subject tender, these licensees, which included the writ petitioner firm, were considered as technically eligible to participate in the tender, subject to fulfilling the other conditions of the tender including financial capability. 23. Therefore, being a licensed contractor was taken as an essential condition for eligibility and the other conditions to be fulfilled can be taken to be compulsory but ancillary. 24. The work of shore handling operation along with the attending work is of great public utility. 23. Therefore, being a licensed contractor was taken as an essential condition for eligibility and the other conditions to be fulfilled can be taken to be compulsory but ancillary. 24. The work of shore handling operation along with the attending work is of great public utility. The court should generally be slow to interfere with the acceptance of tender and issuance of work order in this kind of work because very serious public interest is involved. The interest of the public is likely to be affected by an injunction, if the discretion is not exercised properly by the Court. 25. But in my opinion, this has been a tender process, which raises a considerable amount of suspicion in the mind of this court. 26. When there was no time stipulation in the tender document for consideration of the financial bid, granting only four or five clear days time to the petitioners to rectify the alleged defects as pointed out in the e-mail on 14th May, 2015, was unreasonable. Setting conditions on the petitioners which have almost impossible for them to fulfil amounted to indication of a mindset of an administrator to exclude them from consideration. The situation was aggravated when only two days time from 20th May, 2015 was not granted by the said officer of the Port to the petitioners to rectify the defects. The tender was opened on 21st May, 2015. This kind of undue haste, is against all notions of fair play, in my opinion. 27. If the petitioners had "deficiencies" in their tender, adequate time should have been given to them to rectify. If adequate time was granted and thereafter, the petitioners tender had been rejected or the petitioners were found to be ineligible, the Port Trust would have been on much firmer ground. 28. The above action of the fourth respondent smacks of arbitrariness and absence of fair play particularly when the petitioners offer was Rs. 54.30 per metric tonne against Rs. 63.36 of the respondent no. 5. 29. Nevertheless, I am not minded to hold up awarding of a contract in this kind of a public utility operation by keeping the writ application indefinitely pending. In my opinion, all the relevant papers are before the court. On these papers, the writ has been extensively argued by both the parties. 30. Affidavits were not invited. 5. 29. Nevertheless, I am not minded to hold up awarding of a contract in this kind of a public utility operation by keeping the writ application indefinitely pending. In my opinion, all the relevant papers are before the court. On these papers, the writ has been extensively argued by both the parties. 30. Affidavits were not invited. The allegations contained in the petition are deemed not to have been admitted. 31. The acceptance of tender in favour of the respondent no. 5 is set aside. 32. The tender process is thrown wide open. The petitioners are granted ten days time from the date of issuance of a copy of the order to rectify whatever deficiency may still be outstanding. If the deficiencies relate to insufficient documents only, a similar opportunity may be given to all disappointed tenderers. The respondents have to dispose of the issue of qualification of the tenderers at the technical bid stage by a reasoned order within a further period of ten days and fix a date, not later than two weeks from the decision regarding the technical bid of the tenderers;, for the financial bid. There should be a fresh financial bid. This is so because the financial bid has become open and in the interest of justice there should be an opportunity of fresh financial bids. No financial bids should be invited if the other tenderers are disqualified at the technical stage. The existing award of the contract in favour of the respondent no. 5 be affirmed in that event. 33. The tender process should be concluded within two months from the date of communication of this order. 34. I direct the Chairman of Kolkata Port Trust to ensure that the said Senior Deputy Manager (Sh & CH) handling the tender is not assigned the task of processing the tender, pursuant to this order. 35. This writ application is accordingly disposed of.