ORDER : S.K. Gangele, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the award of contract in favor of respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 3 invited tenders for providing Security services Shyam Shah Medical College and other medical institutions including medical hostels for the year 2014-2015. The petitioner applied for issuance of tender form. He submitted a bank draft of Rs. 5000/- for the aforesaid purpose. He submitted his technical bid along with other persons. The tender of respondent No. 4 was accepted by the respondent No. 2. A letter was issued for execution of the contract. Petitioner raised objections in regard to grant of contract and acceptance of tender to respondent No. 4. 2. As per the petitioner, he quoted total amount of Rs. 4,84,839.86/ in the tender document including the remuneration which is to be paid to the semi skilled workers as per the rates fixed by the Labour Commissioner, Indore including the EPF, ESI and Service Tax. The respondent No. 4 quoted the rate of Rs. 4,29,910.62/- excluding EPF, ESI and service tax. As per the petitioner, the rates quoted by him was lowest. However, the work was awarded to respondent No. 4 which is illegal and arbitrary. 3. The respondent No. 4 quoted the rate of Rs. 4,29,910.62/- excluding EPF, ESI and service tax. As per the petitioner, the rates quoted by him was lowest. However, the work was awarded to respondent No. 4 which is illegal and arbitrary. 3. The respondent No. 1 and 3 in reply pleaded that in pursuance to the tender notice, four persons submitted their tenders and the amount quoted by them were as under :- "fpfdRlky; dh lqj{kk O;oLFkk gsrq izkIr fufonkvksa dh izkbl fcM dk rqyukRed fooj.k" dza- lqj{kk ,tsalh dk uke lqijokbZtj@lqj{kkxkMZ U;wuer dysDVj nj bZ0ih0,Q0 13-61% bZ0,l0vkbZ0 4-75% lfoZl VsDl 12-36% ;ksx izfr@lqijokbZtj@xkMZ dqy;ksx fjekdZ 1 dkeFkhu flD;ksfjVh lfoZl bUnkSj LqijokbZtj lqj{kkxkMZ 6125-00 5845-00 833-61 795-50 290-93 277-63 7249-54 6918-00 21748-62 408162-00 429910-62 1- Je fu;eksa ds vuqlkj lfoZl VsDl 'kkfey ugha gS tcfd gksuk pkfg;sA 2- lqj{kk xkMZ ds osru dh x.kuk vdq'ky nj ls dh xbZ tcfd fufonk 'krZ vuqlkj v/kZdq'ky nj ls djuh FkhA 2 uwj ,lksfl;sVl jhok LqijokbZtj lqj{kkxkMZ 6125-00 5975-00 833-61 813-19 290-93 283-81 757-05 738-51 8006-59 7810-51 24019-77 460820-09 484839-86 3 vfer flD;ksfjVh ,.M ,ykbZM lfoZlsl jhok LqijokbZtj lqj{kkxkMZ 6125-00 5975-00 6125-00 5975-00 bZ0ih0,Q0bZ0,0l0vkbZ0 lfoZl VSDl ;ksx%and 18375-00 352525-00 50479-00 17618-00 45843-00 484840-00 4 ckt flD;ksfjVh lfoZl Hkksiky lqj{kkxkMZ lqijokbZtj 6125-00 5975-00 833-61 813-20 50-00 (we policy) 50-00 (we policy) and and 7008-61 (7009-00) 6838-20 (6838-00) lfoZl VSDl- 20814-00 413531-00 434345-00 53685-00 488030-00 =qfViw.kZ x.kuk =qfViw.kZ x.kuk Je fu;eksa ,oa fufonk 'krksZa ds vuqlkj fu/kkfjZr bZ0,l0vkbZ0 jkf'k x.kuk esa 'kkfey ugha dh xbZ gSA lfoZl VsDl dh x.kuk ewy osatst ij u dj VsDl lfgr dqy jkf'k ij dh xbZ gSA 4. The tender quoted by respondent No. 4 was lowest, hence it was accepted and the respondent No. 2 was directed to execute the agreement. The respondent No. 4 had already commenced its work in pursuance to the tender. There is no illegality or irregularity in acceptance of the tender of respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 4 in its reply pleaded the same facts that the amount quoted by the respondent No. 4 was lowest hence he was awarded the work. 5. Petitioner filed a copy of the tender form (Annexure P/3) in which the terms and conditions for submitting the tender have been mentioned. The respondent No. 4 in its reply pleaded the same facts that the amount quoted by the respondent No. 4 was lowest hence he was awarded the work. 5. Petitioner filed a copy of the tender form (Annexure P/3) in which the terms and conditions for submitting the tender have been mentioned. The condition No. 24 of the tender form reads as under :- "24 fufonkdkj dks fefuee ostst ,DV ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vius deZpkfj;ksa dks Hkqxrku dysDVj jhok }kjk ?kksf"kr vdq'ky nj ij djuk gksxkA mudk osru@etnwjh lh/ks cSad [kkrs ds ek/;e ls Hkqxrku fd;k tkosxk ,oa osru ls dVkSrh izfrekg tek djkus ds fy;s fufonkdkj mRrjnk;h gksxk ,oa bZ0ih0,Q0] bZ0,l0vkbZ0 ,oa lfoZl VSDl Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad esa tekdj pkyku dh Nk;kizfr ns;d ds lkFk izLrqr djus ij gh vkxkeh ns;d dk Hkqxrku fd;k tkosxkA" It is clearly mentioned in the tender condition that after acceptance of the work, minimum wages have to be paid as per the rate fixed by the Collector and EPF, ESI and Service Tax have also to be paid to the workers and the firm has to employ at least 62 employees and if it comes to the knowledge of the Medical Superintendent that the employees were paid less than minimum wages then he would take appropriate action against the firm. 6. As per condition No. 55, if any wrong information be submitted by the firm then his tender has to be rejected. Along with the petition, the petitioner also filed the report of internal valuation of the tenderers done by the Committee. As per the aforesaid internal valuation, the respondent No. 4, did not mention the amount which the respondents shall pay towards EPF, ESI and Service Tax to the workers. The petitioner has also filed the copy of the schedule by which the rate of wages have been fixed by the Commissioner, Indore in accordance with the aforesaid schedule. The wage of semi skilled worker is Rs. 123/- and for skilled worker Rs. 128/- per day and a person has to pay other benefits also to the workers. Even if this rate be taken into consideration then the salary towards 62 workers comes to Rs. 3,70,900/- and thereafter EPF, ESI and Service tax which has been quoted by the petitioner, comes to Rs. 1,13,939.86/-. This amount is in excess to the amount quoted by the respondent No. 4. Even if this rate be taken into consideration then the salary towards 62 workers comes to Rs. 3,70,900/- and thereafter EPF, ESI and Service tax which has been quoted by the petitioner, comes to Rs. 1,13,939.86/-. This amount is in excess to the amount quoted by the respondent No. 4. It means that the respondent No. 4 has not included the amount which has to be paid to the workers towards EPF, ESI and Service Tax in his bid. Subsequently, respondent No. 4 was also directed to file the affidavit that he shall pay the wages to the security guards and supervisors not less than the wages fixed by the Collector and he shall follow the Labour Rules in regard to payment of wages to the employees. 7. The screening Committee in its proceedings made a remark against respondent No. 4 that he did not include the amount of service tax. As per the terms and conditions of the tender it has to be calculated at the rate payable to semi skilled worker. In spite that respondent No. 4 calculated the amount of wage of security guard on the basis of wage payable to unskilled worker. 8. In the present case, from the terms and conditions of the tender document, it is clear that the tenderer has to pay the wages to the security guards and supervisors in accordance with the rate fixed for semi skilled labourers by the Commissioner and he would also pay the employees EPF, ESI and Service Tax. The petitioner, in his objection raised before the authority in regard to rates submitted by respondent No. 4 towards the security guards mentioned the fact that the Commissioner fixed the rate of semi skilled workers of Rs. 5975/- per month. Hence the total wages which have to be paid to the semi skilled workers comes to Rs. 4,84,839.86/- including the amount of EPF, ESI and Service Tax. In such circumstances, respondent No. 4 did not quote the correct amount in accordance with the terms and conditions. From the valuation report, it is clear that respondent No. 4 quoted an amount of Rs. 4,29,910.62/- which is to be spent on security service. Respondent No. 4 did not quote the amount of EPF, ESI and Service tax which has to be paid by the contractor. From the valuation report, it is clear that respondent No. 4 quoted an amount of Rs. 4,29,910.62/- which is to be spent on security service. Respondent No. 4 did not quote the amount of EPF, ESI and Service tax which has to be paid by the contractor. The tenderer did not quote that what was the minimum wages of semi skilled labor fixed by the Commissioner. 9. In my opinion, it was obligatory on the part of the tenderer to quote the amount of minimum wages which have to be paid by the contractor to 62 workers as per the rate fixed by the Commissioner and the amount of EPF, ESI and Service Tax in order to comply the terms and conditions of the contract. 9A. The Supreme court in the matter of B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and others- (2006) 11 SCC 548 has held that if there are essential conditions of tender document, the same must be adhered too. The Supreme Court has laid down the following principles which would be considered by the court at the time of considering the legality and validity of decision in regard to award of contract :- "66. We are also not shutting our eyes towards the new principles of judicial review which are being developed; but the law as it stands now having regard to the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions may be summarised as under : (i) If there are essential conditions, the same must be adhered to; (ii) If there is no power of general relaxation, ordinarily the same shall not be exercised and the principle of strict compliance would be applied where it is possible for all the parties to comply with all such conditions fully; (iii) If, however, a deviation is made in relation to all the parties in regard to any of such conditions, ordinarily again a power of relaxation may be held to be existing. (iv) The parties who have taken the benefit of such relaxation should not ordinarily be allowed to take a different stand in relation to compliance of another part of tender contract, particularly when he was also not in a position to comply with all the conditions of tender fully, unless the court otherwise finds relaxation of a condition which being essential in nature could not be relaxed and thus the same was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction.... (v) When a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all the tenderers on their own merits and if it is ultimately found that successful bidders had in fact substantially complied with the purport and object for which essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with. (vi) The contractors cannot form a cartel. If despite the same, their bids are considered and they are given an offer to match with the rates quoted by the lowest tenderer, public interest would be given priority. (vii) Where a decision has been taken purely on public interest, the Court ordinarily should exercise judicial restraint." 10. The Supreme Court further in the matter of Mahabir Auto Stores v. Indian Oil Corporation- (1990) 3 SCC 752 in regard to application of reasonableness and Article 14 has held as under : "20. It is well settled that every action of the State or an instrumentality of the State in exercise of its executive power, must be informed by reason. In appropriate cases, actions uninformed by reason may be questioned as arbitrary in proceedings under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the observations of this Court in M/s Radha Krishna Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., [1977] 3 SCC 457. It appears to us, at the outset, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-company IOC is an organ of the State or an instrumentality of the State as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution. The State acts in its executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to those exercises of power. Therefore, the action of State organ under Article 14 can be checked. The State acts in its executive power under Article 298 of the Constitution in entering or not entering in contracts with individual parties. Article 14 of the Constitution would be applicable to those exercises of power. Therefore, the action of State organ under Article 14 can be checked. See M/s Radha Krishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar, (supra) at p. 462, but Article 14 of the Constitution cannot and has not been construed as a charter for judicial review of State action after the contract has been entered into, to call upon the State to account for its actions in its manifold activities by stating reasons for such actions. In a situation of this nature certain activities of the respondent company which constituted State under Article 12 of the Constitution may be in certain circumstances subject to Article 14 of the Constitution in entering or not entering into contracts and must be reasonable and taken only upon lawful and relevant consideration, it depends upon facts and circumstances of a particular transaction whether heating is necessary and reasons have to be stated. In case any right conferred on the citizens which is sought to be interfered, such action is subject to Article 14 of the Constitution, and must be reasonable and can be taken only upon lawful and relevant grounds of public interest. Where there is arbitrariness in State action of this type of entering or not entering into contracts, Article 14 springs up and judicial review strikes such an action down. Every action of the State executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, in such monopoly or semi-monopoly dealings, it should meet the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. If a Governmental action even in the matters of entering or not entering into contracts, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, the same would be unreasonable. In this connection reference may be made to E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., [1974] 4 SCC 3; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr., [1976] 1 SCC 248; Ajay Hasia and Ors. In this connection reference may be made to E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., [1974] 4 SCC 3; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr., [1976] 1 SCC 248; Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., [1981] 1 SCC 722; R.D. Shetry v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., [1979] 3 SCC 1 and also Dwarkadas Marlaria and sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, [1989] 3 SCC 293. It appears to us that rule of reason and rule against arbitrariness and discrimination, rules of fair play and natural justice are part of the rule of law applicable in situation or action by State instrumentality in dealing with citizens in a situation like the present one. Even though the rights of the citizens are in the nature of contractual rights, the manner, the method and motive of a decision of entering or not entering into a contract, are subject to judicial review on the touchstone of relevance and reasonableness, fair play, natural justice, equality and non-discrimination in the type of the transactions and nature of the dealing as in the present case...." 11. This judgment has been quoted with approval of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kulja Industries Ltd. v. Chief General Manager, Western Telecom Project Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and others- (2014) 14 SCC 731 . The Supreme Court further held that arbitrariness and discrimination in every matter is subject to judicial review before the writ court. After considering the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court on this point, the Supreme court held as under :- "19. Even the second facet of the scrutiny which the blacklisting order must suffer is no longer res integra. The decisions of this Court in Radha krishna Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 457 ; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 3 ; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248 ; Ajay Hasia and Ors. The decisions of this Court in Radha krishna Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. (1977) 3 SCC 457 ; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. (1974) 4 SCC 3 ; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248 ; Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., (1981) 1 SCC 722 ; R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India and Ors., (1979) 3 SCC 489 and Dwarkadas Marfatia and sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay (1989) 3 SCC 751 have ruled against arbitrariness and discrimination in every matter that is subject to judicial review before a Writ Court exercising powers under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution." 12. In the present case, the mandatory terms and conditions of the contract in accordance with the tender document was that the contractor has to pay the workers rates of wages of unskilled workers which is fixed by the Collector along with EPF, ESI and Service Tax, hence it was obligatory on the part of the Committee to verify the fact that whether the rates quoted by the contractors are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the tender document. The Committee has considered the aforesaid aspect. However, finally these facts have been ignored by the Committee who had taken a decision to award the contract in favour of the respondent No. 4. From the rates quoted by respondent No. 4 it is clear that respondent No. 4 has violated the terms and conditions of the tender document in fixing the rate of wages which have to be paid to the security guards. Hence the decision of the authority to award the contract in favour of respondent No. 4 is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. In such circumstances, the court can strike down the act in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with the following directions :- 1. That the award of contract in favour of respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed. 2. It is further held that the respondents shall be liable to get payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract upto the work which it has performed. 3. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with the following directions :- 1. That the award of contract in favour of respondent No. 4 is hereby quashed. 2. It is further held that the respondents shall be liable to get payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract upto the work which it has performed. 3. The respondent No. 1,2 and 3 shall evaluate the tender document afresh after considering the observations made by this Court herein above and award the contract accordingly to a person accordingly. 4. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upto that period, respondent No. 4 shall be permitted to continue execution of work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract awarded to him. There shall be no order as to the costs. C.C. as per rules. Order accordingly.