JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. 1. These four writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment because the issue involved in all the four petitions relating to fulfillment of conditions of tender is common and similar. 2. The Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited floated tenders as “Dwar Praday Parivahan Karya (D.P.T.)” basically for transportation of food-grains. These tenders were to be submitted through Internet. In all the four cases, the dispute relates to the deposit of earnest money. The grievance of the Petitioners is that as per Clause 4 of the conditions of the tender document, every tenderer was required to submit documents in support of his tender and all these documents were required to be self attested and were also to be notarized by a public Notary. The opening part of Clause 4 of the tender conditions provides that the person submitting the tender was required to submit a photo copy of the documents mentioned therein. These documents should have been self attested and notarised by a public Notary and thereafter had to be uploaded onto the website. The opening part of Clause 4 of the tender conditions provides that the person submitting the tender was required to submit a photo copy of the documents mentioned therein. These documents should have been self attested and notarised by a public Notary and thereafter had to be uploaded onto the website. Reliance has been placed on Clause 4 of the tender conditions, which runs thus:- ^^4- VsDuhdy chM ds lkFk vfuok;Zr% layXu fd, tkus okys nLrkost@lgi= %& fufonkdkj dks VsDuhdy chM ds lkFk fuEufyf[kr nLrkostksa dh Nk;kizfr] Lo;a gLrk{kj djus ds mijkar] uksVjh ls lR;kfir gks] psd fyLV vuqlkj viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gksxk] buesa ls fdlh Hkh nLrkost ds vHkko esa fufonk vLohdkj dj nh tkosxhA 4-1 Js.kh & , ds ifjogu dk;Z gsrq 04 ¼pkj½] Js.kh&ch ds ifjogu dk;Z gsrq 03 ¼rhu½] ,oa Js.kh & lh ds ifjogu dk;Z gsrq 02 ¼nks½ Hkkjh eky okgu ¼Vªd½ ¼,p-th-Ogh-½ dh {ks=h; ifjogu vf/kdkjh }kjk ¼lwpuk] fnukad ls fufonk fnukad rd dh vof/k dk½ tkjh okgu dh fooj.k (Vehicle Particular's) dh lR;kfir izfr ftlesa fQVusl] VSDl ,oa chek dh oS|rk mYysf[kr gksA fufonkdkj dsoy 02 gh cl fMiks ls lacaf/kr fodkl[kaM dh nj izLrqr djsxk] 02 ls vf/kd cl fMiks dh nj izLrqr djus ij fufonk fujLr dh tk ldrh gSA 4-2 bade VsDl fjVuZ ¼uohure½ rFkk iSu dkMZ dh lR;kfir izfrA 4-3 QeZ dk iath;u izek.k i=A Hkkxhnkjh QeZ gksus dh fLFkfr esa Hkkxhnkjh foys[k] daiuh gksus ij eseksjs.Me vkWQ ,lksfl;s'ku ,.M vkfVZdYl ¼izekf.kr lR; izfrfyfi½A 4-4 QeZ@daiuh dh vksj ls fufonk esa gLrk{kj djus okys O;fDr dk vf/kdkj i=@eq[R;kjukek ¼uksVjh }kjk lR;kfir½A 4-5 }kj iznk; ifjogu dk dk;Z cl fMiks ls lacaf/kr laHkkx ds gh fuoklh fufonkdkj dks fn;k tkuk gSA vr% fufonk ds lkFk fuoklh izek.k i= gsrq ftyk iz'kklu }kjk izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k izek.k i= ¼Lo;a ds uke ls½ fufonk nLrkost ds lkFk layXu djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 4-6 fufonkdj@QeZ jkbZl feyj ugha gksus ,oa vuqcaf/kr vof/k rd dksbZ jkbZl fey yht@LokfeRo esa ugha ysus rFkk bl fuxe] ,QlhvkbZ] lhMCY;wlh] ,lMCY;wlh ,oa ekdZQsM laLFkk esa ¼fiNys 03 o"kksZa½ Cysd fyLVsM@izfrcaf/kr ugha gksus dk 'kiFk i= ¼uksVjh ls izekf.kr ewy izfr½ izLrqr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 4-7 fu/kkZfjr vekur jkf'k R.T.G.S. ds ek/;e ls vkWu ykbZu tek djkus ds izek.k ds :i esa bZ&fjflIV Ldsu dj viyksM djuk gksxkA 4-8 ifjf'k"V ukS ,oa nl esa rduhdh ,oa QkbZusaf'k;y chM laca/kh ?kks"k.kk i=A 4-9 fufonk nLrkost dh izfr ftlds leLr i`"Bksa ij fufonkdkj ds Lo&izekf.kr gLrk{kj ,oa lhy lfgrA fufonkdkj ds gLrk{kj o lhy ,y-vkj-Vh- ¼}kj iznk;½ o"kZ 2016&2017** 3. Clause 4 of the tender conditions, quoted above, clearly stipulates that in absence of any of the documents mentioned therein, the tender submitted by any tenderer shall be rejected. 4. A number of documents were required to be submitted, but, we are concerned with Clause 4.7 of the tender conditions, which provides that the requisite security amount shall be transferred by RTGS (Real Time Gross Settlement) online payment and in proof of the payment, the E-Receipt generated from the said payment shall have to be scanned and uploaded on the website. It is not disputed that the private Respondents to whom the contract has been awarded had not uploaded the scanned copy of E-Receipt. What they have uploaded was a photo copy of the receipt which shows that the amount had been deposited in the bank account of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited transferred through online RTGS payment. 5. Shri Raj Kamal Singh and Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Petitioners have strenuously contended that the opening part of Clause 4 of the tender conditions clearly lays down that in case tender conditions are not complied with, the tender will be rejected. They further submitted that these tender conditions are essential and non-compliance of any of the conditions makes the tender informal and invalid and such a tender could not be taken into consideration for award of a contract. 6. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the Respondents/Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited that though what was uploaded on the website was not an E-Receipt, but the document uploaded on the website was a photo copy of the banker's receipt which bears the seal of the banker and since the RTGS online payment is a Real Time Gross Settlement, the payment had been deposited in the bank account of Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. 7. There can be no doubt, if we go by the strict letter and spirit of the conditions of the tender document, that the condition in question had not been complied with because the tender conditions stipulate uploading of the E-Receipt generated from online RTGS payment. The question, however, is whether this non-compliance is of such a nature that the party which floated the tender could not waive such a condition? The question, however, is whether this non-compliance is of such a nature that the party which floated the tender could not waive such a condition? The Apex Court, in a number of decisions, the lead decision being G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488 , has consistently held that the conditions and stipulations in tenders have two types of consequences. One consequence is that the party issuing the tender has a right to strictly enforce the conditions. The second consequence is that deviation, if any, which does not result in arbitrariness or discrimination, can be condoned. Every violation of a tender condition does not go to the root of the tender. If the spirit of the tender is adhered to merely because the condition of the tender was violated is not a ground for the Courts to interfere in the administrative decisions. 8. The law in this regard is well settled that in contractual matters, the State should also be given some leeway or play in the joints as held in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 . In the instant case, the initial part of Clause 4 of the tender conditions, on which great reliance has been placed, runs thus:- ^^4- VsDuhdy chM ds lkFk vfuok;Zr% layXu fd, tkus okys nLrkost@lgi= %& fufonkdkj dks VsDuhdy chM ds lkFk fuEufyf[kr nLrkostks dh Nk;kizfr] Lo;a gLrk{kj djus ds mijkar] uksVjh ls lR;kfir gks] psd fyLV vuqlkj viyksM djuk vfuok;Z gksxk] buesa ls fdlh Hkh nLrkost ds vHkko esa fufonk vLohdkj dj nh tkosxhA** 9. This only means that in absence of any document, the tender will be rejected. Therefore, if there is no document with regard to proof of online RTGS payment, the tender will be liable to be rejected. However, if the document is slightly improper and is not attested or is not in the form strictly provided in the relevant condition of the tender document, which is non-essential, then such non-compliance can be waived by the party issuing the tender. The judgment in G.J. Fernandez case (supra) has been followed by the Apex Court in Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal v. Union of India, (2002) 6 SCC 315 . 10. The judgment in G.J. Fernandez case (supra) has been followed by the Apex Court in Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal v. Union of India, (2002) 6 SCC 315 . 10. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have relied upon the observations made in the judgment of Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal case (supra) to urge that non-compliance of the term of the tender would mean that the tender must be rejected. We may refer to the observation made in paragraph 6 of the judgment in Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal case (supra), which reads as follows:- “6. It is settled law that when an essential condition of tender is not complied with, it is open to the person inviting tender to reject the same. Whether a condition is essential or collateral could be ascertained by reference to the consequence of non-compliance thereto. If non-fulfillment of the requirement results in rejection of the tender, then it would be an essential part of the tender otherwise it is only a collateral term. This legal position has been well explained in G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 488 .” 11. The Apex Court clearly laid down that non-compliance of only essential conditions of the tender would make the tender liable for rejection and if the condition violated is not essential but is collateral, the tender shall be accepted. 12. As far as the present case is concerned, the essential condition is that there must be a document to show that the security amount is deposited in the bank account of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. There are two irregularities/defects in the document/receipt showing deposit of the security amount. Firstly, it is not an E-Receipt and secondly, it is not notarised by a public Notary. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the view that these two conditions cannot be said to be essential for the following reasons:- (1) In today's day and age, where E-Receipts are issued and payments of security deposit are made through RTGS, this Court can take a judicial note of the fact that even the beneficiary in whose bank account the payment of security deposit is made through online RTGS payment is immediately conveyed the message of the deposit of the amount. If the amount is not deposited, obviously the tender cannot be considered. If the amount is not deposited, obviously the tender cannot be considered. (2) The purpose of bringing-in the method/mode of payment through online RTGS is to avoid production of fake or false Demand Drafts or even Cheques which could later be dishonoured. Online RTGS payment is virtually as good as a cash deposit. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the condition of self-attestation and notarization by a public Notary is so essential that noncompliance thereof would make the tender informal and subject to rejection. 14. In this behalf, we make a reference to the judgment in Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works, AIR 1991 SC 1579 , where the Apex Court held thus:- “........ As a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive 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 a appropriate cases.” 15. Recently, the Apex Court in Om Prakash Sharma v. Ramesh Chand Prashar, AIR 2016 SC 2570 held that the requirement of furnishing annual financial turnover was not an inevitable condition of the contract in the facts and circumstances of the case and was not a mandatory condition which would make the bid liable for rejection. 16. Applying the same principles, we are clearly of the view that the intention of Clause 4 especially Clause 4.7 of the tender conditions is that the security amount is deposited. 16. Applying the same principles, we are clearly of the view that the intention of Clause 4 especially Clause 4.7 of the tender conditions is that the security amount is deposited. The submission of Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Petitioners in this regard is that even now the Respondents/Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited has not stated that the amount in question has been deposited in its bank account or not, and on the date when the bid was submitted, there was no proof that the security amount had been deposited in the bank account of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. We are not impressed with the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners because: (1) Online RTGS payment is still a new form of payment and some people are not very familiar with the same. Sometimes, RTGS payment is not directly done through the Internet, but is done through a bank. In the present case, the RTGS payment has been done through a bank, i.e., the security amount has been deposited in the bank account of the beneficiary/the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited. An E-Receipt will normally not be available with a tenderer making payment of the security deposit in a bank for transfer of the same to the bank account of the beneficiary through RTGS because the bank will only give him a banker's receipt and an E-Receipt will only be available with a tenderer if he directly makes/transfers the payment of the security deposit through online RTGS payment. (2) The second reason is that online RTGS payment, by its very nature, is a system where within a few hours within the same banking day if transactions are done at a particular time the money is transferred to the beneficiary's bank account. This avoids any monetary transaction or paper work and since this system is only developing at this stage, even if there be any delay in transfer, it is not attributable to the person who submitted the tender, but to the bank with which the amount was deposited and the same would not make the tender informal or invalid. This avoids any monetary transaction or paper work and since this system is only developing at this stage, even if there be any delay in transfer, it is not attributable to the person who submitted the tender, but to the bank with which the amount was deposited and the same would not make the tender informal or invalid. (3) The bank in this case acts as an agent of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and if as per the tender conditions the amount is deposited, noncompliance regarding attestation of the receipt of deposit is not such a serious violation so as to render the tender invalid. 17. In view of the above discussions, we find no merit in the writ petitions. All the four writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed.