JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, J. The opposite party Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) floated a tender on 25.02.2016 for “Road Transportation of Bulk Pol Products (MS/HSD/SKO/ BRANDED FUELS) EX BPCL location at Paradeep in the State of Odisha”. In response to the same, petitioner no.1 M/s. Jadumani Transport submitted the bid application along with the necessary documents of tank-lorries, etc. Upon having received its bid evaluation status through internet, petitioner no.1 came to know that on 23.05.2016 its technical bid had been rejected. There were five reasons given for rejection of the technical bid of petitioner no.1-M/s. Jadumani Transport, which shall be dealt with later on. Challenging the said order dated 23.05.2016 this writ petition has been filed. 2. We have heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. J. Patnaik along with advocate-on-record Mr. B.M. Sarangi appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Senior Advocate Dr. A.K. Mohapatra along with advocate-on-record Mr. Srinivas Patnaik appearing for the opposite party and perused the records. Since pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, with their consent this writ petition is disposed of at this stage. 3. Before delving into the merits of the case, the basic principles of law laid down by the apex Court are to be taken into consideration for just decision in the case at hand. In Raunaq International Ltd. V. IVR Construction Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 393 , the Supreme Court at page 398 held as follows: “Where the decision-making process has been structured and the tender conditions set out the requirements, the court is entitled to examine whether these requirements have been considered. However, if any relaxation is granted for bona fide reasons, the tender conditions permit such relaxation and the decision is arrived at for legitimate reasons after a fair consideration of all offers, the court should hesitate to intervene.” The above decision clearly shows that the State or its instrumentalities have to deal with its power with regard to the award of contract in accordance with the principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the apex Court time and again that the power of judicial review can be exercised in the matter of decision making process and not in the decision itself. It is well settled principle of law laid down by the apex Court time and again that the power of judicial review can be exercised in the matter of decision making process and not in the decision itself. If the decision is taken without there being any material on record or on the basis of irrelevant or extraneous consideration, it attracts the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and this Court is empowered to nullify such a decision. Therefore, the principle of judicial review would apply to the exercise of contractual powers in order to prevent arbitrariness and favoritism. The scope of the judicial review is limited to see whether the selection of a particular tenderer is arbitrary or whether the selection has been made with mala fide intention. The Court is also entitled to dissect the process of decision making to satisfy itself whether any arbitrariness or discrimination has crept in the above process. 4. Petitioner no.1 M/s. Jadumani Transport is a partnership firm with petitioner no.2 Archana Muduli and petitioner no.3 Bishnupriya Behura as its partners. On perusal of the impugned order (Annexure-1), it is clear that the technical bid of petitioner no.1 was rejected for the following reasons: “(1) As per rejection criteria K.h of NIT. (2) As per Attachment (1) of clause 14. (3) As per Attachment (2). (4) As per Attachment (5) of clause 15(c). (5) As per Attachment (8) of Clause-3 & 5.” The details of the above mentioned reasons, for which the tender of petitioner no.1 has been rejected, are delineated herein below: (1) K. h of NIT K. REJECTION CRITERIA: Tenders will be rejected in the event of the bidders not complying with any of the following tender guidelines. a. to g. xx xx xx h. Tenders not meeting any of the Tender Terms and conditions or incomplete in any respect or with any additions, deletions or modifications are liable to summarily rejected without any further communication to the tenderer and decision of BPCL in this regard shall be final and binding. (2) Clause 14 of Attachment-1-. We confirm that neither tenderer nor any TANK LORRY offered are involved in any litigation, which would render the performance of any obligation imposed in case, the contract is awarded to us. (3) Attachment-2. Age of tank-lorry offered should not exceed 14 years during the contractual period. (2) Clause 14 of Attachment-1-. We confirm that neither tenderer nor any TANK LORRY offered are involved in any litigation, which would render the performance of any obligation imposed in case, the contract is awarded to us. (3) Attachment-2. Age of tank-lorry offered should not exceed 14 years during the contractual period. The tank-lorries attaining the age of 14 years shall be removed from the contract and replacement with another Tank- lorries having age less than 14 years will be the responsibility of the concerned tenderer. (4) Clause 15(c) of Attachment-5- If road permits or statutory licenses/permissions granted to Carrier/it’s tank-lorries by transport or any statutory authorities is cancelled or revoked. (5) Clause-3 & 5 of Attachment-8- (3) That the subject tank-lorries are not involved in any litigation other than routine cases of road accident or any violation of Motor Vehicles Act. (5) We further confirm that the details as furnished by us have been verified and found correct. We undertake to place the tank-lorries at the disposal of BPCL in case the contract is awarded in our favour. If any information is found to be incorrect, the contract if awarded to us shall be liable to be cancelled and we shall be liable to pay to BPCL such damages/losses/claims as BPCL may put to due to termination of the contract. We also undertake that, should there be any action against BPCL resulting in damages of whatsoever nature to BPCL on account of award of contract in our favour on the basis of the misrepresentations, we shall keep BPCL completely indemnified against all the claims/losses/damages/litigations/court action etc.” 5. In the Counter affidavit, the stand taken by the opposite party-BPCL is that the rejection of the technical bid of petitioner no.1 tenderer was, because its vehicles were involved in a criminal case, the details of which have been given vide Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit. It is submitted that the other grounds, on which the tender has been cancelled, have been given up by the opposite party-Corporation in the counter affidavit, as well as during course of arguments by the learned counsel for the opposite party. 6. It is not disputed that another tender was filed by one M/s. Kanchan Transport, of which Archana Muduli was the sole proprietor. The tender in question is the one filed by M/s. Jadumani Transport, of which Archana Muduli and Bishnupriya Behura are partners. 6. It is not disputed that another tender was filed by one M/s. Kanchan Transport, of which Archana Muduli was the sole proprietor. The tender in question is the one filed by M/s. Jadumani Transport, of which Archana Muduli and Bishnupriya Behura are partners. In the submission of Dr. A.K. Mohapatra, learned Senior Counsel for the opposite party-Corporation, the five vehicles of Archana Muduli were involved in a criminal case. The details of the vehicles offered by M/s. Kanchan Transport have been given along with the counter affidavit as Annexure-B/1 and further details of the vehicles offered by petitioner no.1 M/s. Jadumani Transport have been given as Annexure-D/1 to the counter affidavit. On perusal of the First Information Report, in which five vehicles of Archana Muduli have been shown to be involved, it is seen that all those vehicles have been offered by M/s. Kanchan Transport, of which Archana Muduli is the sole proprietor. None of the vehicles offered by petitioner no.1-M/s. Jadumani Transport was involved in the said criminal case. Such position is not disputed and is borne out from the record. 7. The sole ground for rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner no.1, as has been argued by learned counsel for the opposite party-Corporation, is that the vehicles offered by petitioner no.1 were involved in criminal case, of which no disclosure was made by petitioner no.1. 8. What is now to be considered is that whether the vehicles which were offered by M/s. Kanchan Transport, of which Archana Muduli was the sole proprietor and which vehicles were involved in the criminal case, could be considered for rejection of the technical bid of petitioner no.1 M/s. Jadumani Transport, when vehicles offered by petitioner no.1 were different from those offered by M/s Kanchan Transport and no such vehicle offered by petitioner no.1 was involved in any criminal case. 9. A proprietorship or a partnership firm is distinct from its proprietor or its partner. The proprietorship firm and partnership firm are separate legal entities, different from its proprietor or partner, which is the settled legal position. The vehicles, which may be in the name of Archana Muduli, but were offered by M/s. Kanchana Transport and were involved in any criminal case, could be considered only while considering the matter or tender filed by M/s. Kanchan Transport. The vehicles, which may be in the name of Archana Muduli, but were offered by M/s. Kanchana Transport and were involved in any criminal case, could be considered only while considering the matter or tender filed by M/s. Kanchan Transport. M/s. Jadumani Transport, which is a separate legal entity, had offered certain vehicles, which were owned by its partners as well as some other persons, were admittedly not involved in any criminal case. The matter of tender and its technical bid of petitioner no.1 has to be considered on the basis of the documents filed by petitioner no.1, as tenderer, and not on the basis of the offer made by some other firm, of which the partner of petitioner no.1 firm may also be associated with. 10. In the present case, the position is absolutely clear that the offer of vehicles made by petitioner no.1-tenderer were the vehicles, which were neither involved in any criminal case nor any false information was furnished by the tenderer. It is also not the case of the opposite party-Corporation that any other terms of the tender document had been violated by petitioner no.1, on which ground the technical bid of the petitioner no.1 could be rejected. Although five grounds have been taken in the order rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner no.1, in the counter affidavit the opposite party-Corporation has not raised any objection with regard to any of the other four grounds except that certain vehicles of petitioner no.1 are involved in criminal case. We have already discussed in detail hereinabove that none of the vehicles offered by petitioner no.1 were involved in any criminal case. As such, the grounds for rejection of the technical bid of petitioner no.1 cannot be justified in law. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 23.05.2016, whereby the technical bid of petitioner no.1 has been rejected, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The order dated 23.05.2016 is quashed. The tender filed by petitioner no.1 shall be considered by the opposite party-Corporation in accordance with law along with the other tenderers.