JUDGMENT : SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J. 1. Both the writ petitions were taken up for analogous hearing since they involved a common tender floated by the respondents-Railways in connection with the parcel loading of 23 tonnes capacity in respect of a particular train being the Shalimar-LTT Express. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Appearing for the writ petitioner in WP 7633(W) of 2015 (hereinafter referred to for short as the writ petitioner no.1 or WP-I only), Sri Arabinda Chatterjee, Ld. Senior Counsel submits that WP-I complied with the essential qualifying criteria of the tender in issue. Such essential qualifying criteria were:- (i) Registration in Category A in Kharagpur Division or Train Terminating Division or Head Quarters (if Head Quarters is situated in train terminating division); (ii) Audited balance sheet of annual turnover of business during the last financial year. 3. Sri Chatterjee submits that having qualified in the essential criteria as above, WP-I applied for the tender by depositing the Earnest Money (for short EMD) by way of a Demand Draft (DD). Sri Chatterjee draws the attention of this Court to the Instructions to Tenderers and particularly Clause 1 thereof defining the eligibility conditions. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that the eligibility condition No.1 clearly stipulates that the tender applications without the appropriate registration certificate and audited balance sheet shall be summarily rejected. 4. Drawing the attention of this Court to Clause 2 of the tender condition, Sri Chatterjee submits that in the event the registration of an applicant to the tender falls within the contractual period of any contract, such applicant or, the lease holder of the parcel van (for short VPH) shall be required to renew the registration prior to its expiry. 5. Next, Sri Chatterjee submits that the DD submitted on behalf of WP-I was valid for a period of 90 days and, the tender opening date was fixed prior to the said period of 90 days, i.e. on 8th July, 2014. 5. Next, Sri Chatterjee submits that the DD submitted on behalf of WP-I was valid for a period of 90 days and, the tender opening date was fixed prior to the said period of 90 days, i.e. on 8th July, 2014. However, for administrative reasons the tender could not be opened within the period of 90 days and, on expiry of the period of 90 days from the last date of the opening of the tender i.e. 8th July, 2014, by a communication dated 8th October, 2014 WP-I was instructed by the Railways to extend the validity of its DD dated 4th July, 2014 for a further period of 3 months. 6. By reply dated 3rd November, 2014 WP-I wrote to the Railways that the issuing bank refused to extend the validity of the DD under its norms and, therefore the DD is being returned without extending its validity. However, WP-I extended the validity of the tender for a period of 3 months. 7. Sri Chatterjee further argues that in response to a Right to Information Act (for short the RTI Act), 2005 query, WP-I was informed by the Railways that in respect of the tender originally floated it was the third highest bidder. However, since WP-I did not extend the validity period of its DD, which was forwarded by way of the EMD, WP-I was illegally declared to have failed the eligibility criterion connected to deposit of a valid EMD and, hence dropped from the zone of consideration. 8. Being aggrieved at such a finding arrived at by the Railways, WP-I filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being WP 4219(W) of 2015 which was finally decided by an Hon’ble Single Bench vide order dated 17th February, 2015. The Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to, inter alia, hold as follows:- “Having the heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that admittedly the petitioner fulfilled the criteria of depositing the earnest money at the time of filing his tender documents for participating in the tender process under reference. It is also not in dispute that due to inconvenience of the respondent authority the above application could not be considered within the time schedule. It is also not in dispute that due to inconvenience of the respondent authority the above application could not be considered within the time schedule. Consequent thereupon the petitioner was requested to extend the period of validity of the demand draft by which the earnest money had been deposited. 4 Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I find that validity of the demand draft under reference was not extended on the ground of expiry of such validity at that point of time. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner took steps for renewal of the above demand draft immediately on receipt of the communication dated October 10, 2014. But it was not permissible to extend the validity of the above demand draft at the material point of time without any fault and/or laches of the petitioner. After considering the materials on record as also after considering the relevant records produced by the learned Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6, I find that the impugned recommendation was not made by the tender committee taking into consideration the above representation of the petitioner which was relevant with regard to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria regarding depositing the earnest money. After considering the relevant documents produced by the respondents before this Court, I find that the respondent No.2 arrived at a final decision of cancellation of the tender process under reference. In view of the above, the decision making process of the respondent authority cannot be sustained in law on the ground of non-consideration of the fact which was relevant for arriving at a decision. 5 In view of the above, the respondent authority is directed to consider the above representation of the petitioner dated February 3, 2015 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative as also to communicate such decision to the petitioner within a week thereafter. Needless to point out that in the event the respondent authority arrives at a decision in favour of the petitioner then there will be no bar and/or impediment for the respondent authority to proceed further in the matter ignoring the impugned recommendation of the tender committee and canceling the decision of the respondent No.2 dated January 9, 2015. Needless to point out that in the event the respondent authority arrives at a decision in favour of the petitioner then there will be no bar and/or impediment for the respondent authority to proceed further in the matter ignoring the impugned recommendation of the tender committee and canceling the decision of the respondent No.2 dated January 9, 2015. The respondent authority is restrained form proceeding further on the basis of the impugned recommendation as also the impugned decision before expiry of the periods mentioned hereinabove for consideration of the representation of the petitioner as also the communication of the same to the petitioner. It is made clear that save and except the point of law discussed hereinabove, this Court has not arrived at a decision with regard to claim of the petitioner on merit and all points are kept open for consideration of the respondent authority. This writ application is, thus, disposed of.” 9. Pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 17th February, 2015 (supra), the Railways-respondents by Speaking Order dated 18th March, 2015, which is impugned in this writ petition, communicated the following:- “2.1 Since, due to procedure in vogue, tender could not be finalized up to 07.10.2014, Kharagpur Division informed all the bidders on 08.10.2014 to extend the validity of their offers and renew their DDs. The same was fulfilled by four of the parties which were Highest, 2nd Highest, 4th Highest and 5th Highest bidders. But Shri Ratnesh Shrivastava proprietor of M/s. Interactive Solutions failed to renew his DD although gave extension of validity of his offer to the Railways. It is pertinent to mention here that his DD no. 535303 dated 04.07.2014 had expired on 03.10.2014, as such before expiry of offer on 07.10.2014 Shri Ratnesh Shrivastava, Proprietor of M/s. Interactive Solutions should have taken positive action for extension of validity of his DD, but he failed to do so in time. Even after communication on 08.10.2014 he failed to submit renewed DD as per tender conditions. In view of the above, it is decided that the said tenderer i.e. Ratnesh Shrivastava has failed to comply with the tender conditions in respect of validity of DD in time despite communication to the effect and hence does not qualify as eligible bidder in the subject Tender. In view of the above, it is decided that the said tenderer i.e. Ratnesh Shrivastava has failed to comply with the tender conditions in respect of validity of DD in time despite communication to the effect and hence does not qualify as eligible bidder in the subject Tender. The undersigned therefore, upholds the Railways decision regarding disqualification of Shri Ratnesh Shrivastava as a Tenderer in the subject Tender without any prejudice.” 10. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court In Re: Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors. reported in 1991 (3) SCC 273 , Sri Chatterjee submits that the impugned decision of the Respondents-Railways is clearly not sustainable on the ground that it is not the case of the Railways that WP-I did not fulfill the essential tender criteria. The inability of WP-I to extend the validity of the DD bore a proximate nexus to the applicable banking norms. Furthermore, the communication from the Railways requiring renewal of the DD reached WP-I post the last date for finalization of the tender as also the last date of expiry of the DD. 11. Sri Chatterjee points out that the DD dated 4th of July, 2014 expired on 3rd October, 2014 and, the tender was required to be finalized by and within 7th October, 2014. WP-I was called upon to renew the DD on 8th October, 2014, i.e. both after expiry of the last date of validity of the DD as also the last date for finalization of the original tender. Sri Chatterjee submits that WP-I cannot be therefore burdened with any laches committed by the Railways in finalizing the tender and, at the same time, stood bound by the norms of its bank. 12. Submitting that the order impugned dated 18th March, 2015 fails to take cognizance of the above facts, Sri Chatterjee points out that the RTI reply obtained by WP-I makes it evident that since the highest tenderers (H1 and H2 respectively) did not have a valid registration certificate on the date of the tender, WP-I, who fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria, ought to have been awarded the tender. 13. Appearing for the writ petitioner in WP 8068(W) of 2015 (hereinafter referred to for short as the writ petitioner no. II or simply WP-II), Sri Ashok Banerjee, Ld. 13. Appearing for the writ petitioner in WP 8068(W) of 2015 (hereinafter referred to for short as the writ petitioner no. II or simply WP-II), Sri Ashok Banerjee, Ld. Senior Counsel argues that WP-II is a registered lease holder under Respondents-South Eastern Railways and the initial period of registration for 5 years expired on 2nd January, 2012. The tender impugned in this writ petition was in respect of Train No. 18309-18303 Shalimar LTT Express (supra) and notice of the tender was issued on 2nd June, 2014. 14. Sri Banerjee submits that WP-II being interested in applying for the tender in issue, contemporaneously applied for renewal of his registration on 25th June, 2014. WP-II submitted its tender on 7th July, 2014 and the opening date of such tender was 8th July, 2014. Sri Banerjee next submits that WP-II was found to be the highest bidder in respect of the tender in issue and, on 8th October, 2014 was directed by the Railways to extend the validity of the tender for 90 days as well as extend the validity of the DD submitted by WP-II towards EMD since such tender could not be finalized due to administrative reasons. 15. Strictly acting according to the instructions communicated by the Railways, WP-II revalidated both the DD and also extended the validity of its tender. Finding that in spite of being the highest bidder no work order was issued in favour of WP-II, recourse was taken under the RTI Act and pursuant to the RTI reply received by WP-II by letter of the Railways dated 21st January, 2015 it transpired that the Tender Committee (for short TC) inter alia, decided that since the registration of WP-II had expired as far back as on 2nd January, 2012 and no steps were taken by WP-II to renew such registration prior to the publication of the tender in issue, WP-II was found to be ineligible to hold the tender. 16. 16. Being aggrieved, WP-II filed a writ application being WP 3810(W) of 2015 and, by order dated 17th February, 2015 an Hon’ble Single Bench was pleased to, inter alia hold as follows:- “In view of the above, the respondent authority is directed to consider the above representation of the petitioner dated January 28, 2015 within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative as also to communicate such decision to the petitioner within a week thereafter. In the event the respondent authority arrives at a decision in favour of the petitioner then there will be no bar and/or impediment for the respondent authority to proceed further in the matter ignoring the impugned recommendation of the tender committee and canceling decision of the respondent No.2 dated January 9, 2015. The respondent authority is restrained form proceeding further on the basis of the impugned recommendation as also the impugned decision before expiry of the periods mentioned hereinabove for consideration of the representation of the petitioner as also the communication of the same to the petitioner. 4. It is made clear that save and except the point of law discussed hereinabove, this Court has not considered the claim of the petitioner on merit and all points are kept open for consideration of the respondent authority. This writ application is, thus, disposed of.” 17. Pursuant to the order dated 17th February, 2015 (supra) the Railway Authority by its Speaking Order dated 18th March, 2015, impugned in this writ petition held as follows:- “3. Though the Eligibility of the tenderer had been clearly mentioned in Para 1. Of Instructions to Tenderers in Kharagpur Division Tender No. COM/G27/Parcel-Lease/VPH/14-II, Md. Nasiruddin submitted his tender without valid registration certificate. So it was clear that Md. Nasiruddin was not holding valid lease holder registration certificate on the date of submission of tender i.e. 07.07.2014. As such the Tender Committee had correctly arrived at conclusion that he failed to meet the eligibility criteria and thus was considered ineligible. 4. As far as the instance of South Central Railway is concerned SC Rly. had clearly mentioned in their tender documents that any bidder who is not registered can submit his bid subject by submitting a Demand Draft of Rs.50, 000/-. 4. As far as the instance of South Central Railway is concerned SC Rly. had clearly mentioned in their tender documents that any bidder who is not registered can submit his bid subject by submitting a Demand Draft of Rs.50, 000/-. The same however cannot be applicable here as the tender condition clearly stipulates the bidder should be registered leaseholder at the time of bidding for lease of VPU.” 18. Challenging the impugned order dated 18th March, 2015, Sri Banerjee submits that during the period when the tender in issue was under renewal by WP-II along with the DD as per the request of the Railways, WP-II was granted the Certificate of Registration on 22nd January, 2015. Sri Banerjee points out that the petitioner had applied for renewal of registration prior to submitting the tender and, from a communication dated 3rd July, 2014 by a competent officer of the Railways, the application for renewal of WP-II was recommended. WP-II thereafter submitted its tender offer on 7th July, 2014. 19. Therefore, Sri Banerjee strongly argues that the Railways took contemporaneous steps to renew the registration of WP-II along with the processing of the tender in issue. By taking such contemporaneous steps the Railways did not intend to exclude WP-II from the zone of consideration of the tender and, admittedly WP-II was the highest bidder. 20. Sri Banerjee therefore argues that the impugned decision of the Railways dated 18th March, 2015 is a post facto exercise and, WP-II could not be excluded on the basis of a technicality when, during the subsistence of the extended tender offer the certificate of WP-II was approved by the Railways on 22nd January, 2015. 21. Appearing for the respondents-Railways, Sri Saptarshi Roy, Ld. Counsel submits that with respect to WP-I it is evident that submitting of DD is a major tender condition. Arguing that there is no arbitrariness qua WP-I, Sri Roy submits that in the matter of extension of the DD WP-I was treated at par with other tenderers. Since WP-I did not renew the DD although, other participants to the tender did, WP-I forfeited its right to remain within the zone of consideration. 22. In connection with WP-II Sri Roy submits that it is a sine qua non for participation in the Railway tender that the applicant should be a registered lease holder under the Railways. Since WP-I did not renew the DD although, other participants to the tender did, WP-I forfeited its right to remain within the zone of consideration. 22. In connection with WP-II Sri Roy submits that it is a sine qua non for participation in the Railway tender that the applicant should be a registered lease holder under the Railways. Such registration is also embodied in Railway Circular No. 6/14 besides being made mandatory in the Tender Notice read with its Instructions. 23. Sri Roy argues that admittedly at the time of the Tender Notice WP-II was not a registered lease holder either at Kharagpur Division or, at the Train Terminating Division/Headquarters. Therefore, Sri Roy points out that WP-II having failed to meet an essential condition of tender forfeited its right to be considered. 24. Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record this Court arrives at the following conclusions:- (A) Taking up the issue of WP-I first this Court respectfully notices the views of the Hon’ble Apex Court In Re: Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works & Ors. reported in 1991 (3) SCC 273 at Paragraph 6. Paragraph 6 reads as follows:- “6. It is true that in submitting its tender accompanied by a cheque of the Union Bank of India and not of the State Bank the clause no. 6 of the tender notice was not obeyed literally, but the question is as to whether the said noncompliance deprived the Diesel Locomotive Works of the authority to accept the bid. 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 appropriate cases. 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. This aspect was examined by this Court in GJ Fernandez v. State of Karnataka a case dealing with tenders. Although not in an entirely identical situation as the present one, the observations in the judgment support our view. The High Court has, in the impugned decision, relied upon Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors. but has failed to appreciate that the reported case belonged to the first category where the strict compliance of the condition could be insisted upon. The authority in that case, by not insisting upon the requirement in the tender notice which was an essential condition of eligibility, bestowed a favour on one of the bidders, which amounted to illegal discrimination. The judgment indicates that the Court closely examined the nature of the condition which had been relaxed and its impact before answering the question whether it could have validly condoned the shortcoming in the tender in question. This part of the judgment demonstrates the difference between the two categories of the conditions discussed above. However it remains to be seen as to which of the two clauses, the present case belongs.” (B) Having regard to the above noted observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court In Re: Poddar Steel Corporation (supra), this Court finds prima facie merit in the submissions advanced by Sri Chatterjee to the extent that WP-I did not fail to comply with the essential qualifying criteria of the tender in issue. This Court further finds prima facie substance in the argument of Sri Chatterjee that WP-I should not be allowed to suffer due to the fact that the Respondent-Railways could not finalize the tender up to 7th of October, 2014, although the tender opening date was fixed on 8th July, 2014. The Railways have admitted in the Speaking Order dated 18th March, 2015 addressed to WP-I that “due to procedure in vogue”, the tender could not be finalized up to 7th October, 2014 and, on the next date, i.e. 8th October, 2014 all the tenderers were informed to extend the validity of their offers as well as renew their DDs. The Railways have admitted in the Speaking Order dated 18th March, 2015 addressed to WP-I that “due to procedure in vogue”, the tender could not be finalized up to 7th October, 2014 and, on the next date, i.e. 8th October, 2014 all the tenderers were informed to extend the validity of their offers as well as renew their DDs. Without doubt such Speaking Order delights with its stamp of generic diplomatic drafting. (C) This Court therefore prima facie finds that since the DD of WP-I dated 4th July, 2014 expired on 3rd October, 2014 and, the communication of the Railways was on 8th October, 2014, i.e. five days thereafter, due to reasons beyond its control arising out of the banking procedure, WP-I could not renew its DD. The DD, being part of a non-essential tender condition as advertised, it was open to the Railways to negotiate the matter with WP-I instead of concluding that WP-I failed to file a valid DD within time. Furthermore, the Railways while issuing the Speaking Order dated 8th March, 2015 ought to have been more vigilant about the true purport, scope and intent of the order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 17th February, 2015 which, concluded that the decision making process of the Railways connected to the deposit of the DD by WP-I is legally flawed for the reasons enunciated in the said solemn order. (D) This Court is further required to notice that having regard to the findings of the TC dated 20th November, 2014 it stands to reason that since the highest and second highest tenderers, being H1 and H2 respectively failed to meet an essential eligibility condition of registration, the rate quoted by WP-I, i.e. the third highest tenderer (H3), became the highest. Apropo the findings of the TC dated 20th November, 2014 requires to be set out in full:- “8. ANALYSIS OF OFFERS BY TENDERERS: (a) Tender Committee noted that highest rate (H1) has been offered by M/s. Nasiruddin but his registration had expired long back on 02.1.2012. The tenderer did not take any step to renew the registration for long time and only after publication of tender did he apply to KGP Division on the date of giving his offer, he was not a registered lease holder either of KGP Division or of train terminating Division/HQ. The tenderer did not take any step to renew the registration for long time and only after publication of tender did he apply to KGP Division on the date of giving his offer, he was not a registered lease holder either of KGP Division or of train terminating Division/HQ. As tenderer has failed to meet the eligibility criteria, the offer of M/s. Nasiruddin is not considered. (b) The second highest rate (H2) has been offered by M/s. Shiv Shankalp Enterprises but his registration had expired on 17.4.2014. Thus on the date of giving his offer he was not registered as lease holder any where (either in KGP Division or destination Division or Headquarters). Thus M/s. Shiv Sankalp Enterprise does not meet eligibility criterion and this offer is not considered. (c) M/s. Interactive Solution has quoted third highest rate (H3) and meets eligibility criterion of being a registered lease holder. He extended validity of offer for 3 (three) months but did not extend his DD, deposited as EMD. Thus M/s. Interactive Solution also failed to meet eligibility criterion of requisite EMD and hence has not been considered. (d) M/s. Shankar Goods Carrier has offered 4th highest rate (H4) and this company has met all the eligibility criterion but his offer is far less than bids given by M/s. Nasiruddin (H1) or Ms. Shiv Shankalp Enterprises (H2) or M/s. Interactive Solution (H3). (e) M/s. Xtra Freight Forwarder (H5) and M/s. Meera Associates (H7) refused to extend their validity of offer as well as EMD and thus their offers are not valid bids and not considered. (f) The sixth highest offer M/s. Gati Kintetisu Express Pvt. Ltd. is a registered lease holder but they also refused to extend the validity of offer and so they too have not been considered. The Tender Committee observed that out of seven bidders, 6 (six) bidders are not eligible and only eligible party M/s. Shankar Goods Carrier (H4) (fourth highest) is eligible. In such a situation Tender Committee felt that it is not proper to award to H4 because even the offer of H3 (M/s. Interactive Solution) is 63 lakhs higher than H4 (M/s. Shankar Goods Carrier). It was further noted that although H1, H2 and H3 have been disqualified on technical grounds but their offer in the range of 37.42 to 34.88 Crores. It was further noted that although H1, H2 and H3 have been disqualified on technical grounds but their offer in the range of 37.42 to 34.88 Crores. Thus this tender has high potential of earning much more than valid offer of 34.02 Crores as quoted by valid tenderer M/s. Shankar Goods Carrier which is 3.398 cores less than the disqualified H-1 rate. In such a circumstance it will be prudent to discharge the tender and try to get new rates for VP leasing of train No. 18029/18030. 9.0 RECOMMENDATION: The tender Committee is of the opinion that tender should be discharged and new tender should be called for after finalizing the issue of pending registration of KGP Division for which Railway Board guideline is already available. CCM is the competent authority to accept/reject/modify the recommendation of the Tender Committee.” (E) Next, taking up the issue of WP-II this Court notices that being a registered leaseholder is an essential qualifying criterion of the tender as advertised on 2nd July, 2014. The terms of such registration under Kharagpur Division or, alternatively, the Train Terminating Division/Headquarters is clearly spelt out in the tender advertisement. (F) Admittedly, on facts the registration of WP-II expired on 2nd January, 2012 and, WP-II applied for registration on 25th June, 2014, i.e. after issue of the tender notice dated 2nd June, 2014. The Railways appear to have recommended the registration of WP-II for renewal on 3rd July, 2014 and WP-II submitted the tender on 7th July, 2014. However, the registration certificate was ultimately issued in favour of WP-II on 22nd January, 2015, i.e. much after the first phase of the tendering process as per advertisement was over. (G) Accordingly, this Court finds that the eligibility of WP-II to participate in the tender as advertised viewed against the date the tender was announced on 2nd June, 2014, WP-II did not fulfill the essential criterion of registration. In this connection it is relevant to reproduce the tender notice in Verbatim:- “Tender Notice for leasing of VPH of 23 tonnes capacity 1. Tender Notice No. .Com/G27/Parcel-Lease/VPH/14-II 2. Tender title Leasing of VPH through open Tender 3. Tender value As per the reserve price & frequency of the train. 4. Earnest money Rs. 4,00,000/- for each 23 tonnes VPH 5. Tender document cost Rs. 2,247/- for each Tender form for VPH. 6. Tender type Open and one packet system 7. Tender Notice No. .Com/G27/Parcel-Lease/VPH/14-II 2. Tender title Leasing of VPH through open Tender 3. Tender value As per the reserve price & frequency of the train. 4. Earnest money Rs. 4,00,000/- for each 23 tonnes VPH 5. Tender document cost Rs. 2,247/- for each Tender form for VPH. 6. Tender type Open and one packet system 7. Location Kharagpur division 8. Announcement date 02.06.2014 9. Last date of submission Tender 07.07.2014 up to 13.00hrs. 10. Opening date of Tender 08.07.2014 at 11.00hrs. 11. Qualifying criteria (i) Registration in category ‘A’ in Kharagapur division or train terminating division or Head quarters (if headquarters is situated in train terminating division). (ii) Audited Balance sheet of annual turnover of business of last financial year Sri. Divl. Comml. Manager Kharagpur” (H) At the same time this Court must also notice the relevant clauses of the Instructions to the Tenderers issued in support of the Tender Notice:- “1. Eligibility – Any person or cargo operator or transporter having Indian citizenship, or any Agency or Company registered in India or manufacturer company of joint venture company registered under companys act is eligible to participate in leasing tenders. But the tenderer must be a registered leaseholder of Kharagpur Division or train terminating division/Head quarters (if headquarters is situated in train terminating division) in category ‘A’ and also the tenderer who is registered in category ‘A’ is required to furnished audited balance sheet of his annual turnover of his business of the last financial year along with the tender. Minimum turnover for the registered leaseholder in category ‘A’ should not be less than rupees 2 crores. Each participant while submitting his tender is required to attach photocopy of his registration certificate and audited balance sheet of the last financial year in support of the above as a proof of his registration. The tender application without appropriate registration certificate and audited balance sheet for the tender floated will be summarily rejected. 2. If expiry of registration falls within the contractual period of any contract, the leaseholder shall be required to renew the registration well before expiry of registration. 3. After registration of leaseholder, whenever there is change in the name of firm or change in address or change in the premises of firm or change in ownership of firm, the leaseholder shall be required to inform the same immediately to the Railway Administration by providing necessary documents. 3. After registration of leaseholder, whenever there is change in the name of firm or change in address or change in the premises of firm or change in ownership of firm, the leaseholder shall be required to inform the same immediately to the Railway Administration by providing necessary documents. If information is not provided to the Railway Administration by the leaseholder within one month period, his registration will be cancelled and registration fee will be forfeited.” (I) Therefore, to the mind of this Court from a combined of the Tender Notice and the Instructions to the Tenderers (supra), it stands to reason that WP-II failed to meet an essential tender condition of eligibility. Admittedly, the registration of WP-II was not renewed on time as spelt out in the Instructions to Tenderers and the essential qualifying criterion requires to be read purposively with the relevant dates of the tender failing which providing dates in the tender notice for compliance by the tenderers carries little meaning. Admittedly, on the last date of submission of tender and, even on the opening date of the tender, WP-II did not hold a valid registration. (J) Therefore, the status of WP-II must be read by this Court in the light of the decision In Re: Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) and, there is no legal infirmity in the order impugned of the Railways dated 18th March, 2015 whereby WP-II was found to be an unregistered bidder. Furthermore, this Court notices that by its order dated 17th February, 2015 in the first writ application of WP-II being WP 3810 (W) of 2015, the Hon’ble Single Bench simplicitor directed the Railways to consider the representation of WP-II and to pass a reasoned order. This Court further holds that the two orders dated 17th February, 2015 in the respective first writ petitions of WP-I and WP-II, require to be distinguished on the true scope of their respective solemn directions upon the Railways. (K) Next, this Court is required to address itself to the extent of judicial review qua Government contracts. It is by now well settled through several authorities that judicial review shall lie only in the following instances:- (i) to ensure a level playing field; (ii) to quash a decision taken with mala fide motive; (iii) to protect public interest; (iv) to check arbitrariness in the decision making process. It is by now well settled through several authorities that judicial review shall lie only in the following instances:- (i) to ensure a level playing field; (ii) to quash a decision taken with mala fide motive; (iii) to protect public interest; (iv) to check arbitrariness in the decision making process. Inspiration can be drawn in support of the above noted legal propositions from the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (8) SCC 1 in the matter of Reliance Energy Ltd. & Anr. vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors., 2009 (6) SCC 171 in the matter of Meerut Development Authority vs. Association of Management Studies & Anr. and 2012 (8) SCC 216 in the matter of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.. (L) Applying the ratio of the above noted judicial authorities this Court is now required to analyze the conclusions of the TC dated 20th November, 2014 (supra). The TC had observed that the offer of the 4th highest tenderer (H4) was lower by Rs. 63 lakhs to WP-I (H3). The TC had further noticed that the offer of WP-II (H1), (H2) and WP-I (H3) stood in the range of Rs. 37.42 to 34.88 crores. Therefore, the TC came to the view that the valid tenderer, H4 had quoted Rs. 3.39 crores less than the highest disqualified tenderer, i.e. WP-II. In the above circumstances the TC decided to discharge the tender and call for a fresh tender. (M) This Court finds no reason to fault the TC in deciding to maximize the revenue earning of the Railways by floating a fresh tender. This Court finds that a public authority is entitled to obtain the full value of its resources and, for doing so can, for good and sufficient reasons, accept a bid or, refuse a bid. With reference to the above noted discussion useful reference may be had to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court In Re: Meerut Development Authority reported in 2009 (6) SCC 171 (supra) at Paragraphs 29, 48, 49, 50, 59 and 67 which read as follows:- “29. With reference to the above noted discussion useful reference may be had to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court In Re: Meerut Development Authority reported in 2009 (6) SCC 171 (supra) at Paragraphs 29, 48, 49, 50, 59 and 67 which read as follows:- “29. The Authority has the right not to accept the highest bid and even to prefer a tender other than the highest bidder, if there exist good and sufficient reasons, such as, the highest bid not representing the market price but there cannot be any doubt that the Authority's action in accepting or refusing the bid must be free from arbitrariness or favoritism. 48. The claim of AMS, in our considered opinion came to an end on 17.9.2001 when it had intimated the MDA to delete its offer in respect of the disputed plot on the ground that the cost of that land as stipulated is not a viable one. This was followed by its letter dated 3.1.2002, once again stating that it was injustice to fix Rs. 690/- per sq. meter for the disputed land while adjoining plots were allotted for Rs. 500/- per sq. meter and Rs. 560/- per sq. meter respectively. There were no further negotiations and any response from MDA to the said letter dated 3.1.2002. 49. The letter dated 4.3.2002 from AMS to MDA indicating the acceptance of Rs. 690/- per sq. meter only after one Harpal Singh Chowdhary on behalf of the Officer's Class Housing Society had mentioned a higher price of Rs. 775/- per sq. meter in his representation. There is nothing on record to suggest that impugned decision has been taken only for making higher financial gain and profit. But what is wrong even if any such effort was made by MDA to augment its financial resources. 50. We are, however, of the opinion that the effort, if any, made by MDA to augment its financial resources and revenue itself cannot be said to be unreasonable decision. It is well said that the struggle to get for the State the full value of its resources is particularly pronounced in the sale of State owned natural assets to the private sector. It is well said that the struggle to get for the State the full value of its resources is particularly pronounced in the sale of State owned natural assets to the private sector. Whenever the Government or the authorities get less than the full value of the asset, the country is being cheated; there is a simple transfer of wealth from the citizens as a whole to whoever gets the assets ‘at a discount'. Most of the times the wealth of a State goes to the individuals within the country rather than to multi- national corporations; still, wealth slips away that ought to belong to the nation as a whole. 59. The disputed land in the Master Plan is reserved for ‘Residential' purpose. The residential category of use is a category in contrast with industrial, agricultural, commercial, recreational, green belt, or institutional category in use. It does not mean exclusive use for housing on every inch of the land. The expression residential use in the Master Plan means that the land can be used for housing, various other kinds of uses such as institutional, commercial etc. At any rate this argument need not detain us any further since a categorical statement is made during the course of the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the MDA that the land shall still be made available for educational use and as well as residential. The MDA had earlier relaxed the use and made it for ‘educational' purpose though it is earmarked for residential use in the Master Plan. There is nothing unreasonable in changing the land use and earmarking it again for ‘Residential' use. 67. The expression ‘public interest' if it is employed in a given statute is to be understood and interpreted in the light of the entire scheme, purpose and object of the enactment but in the absence of the same it cannot be pressed into service to confer any right upon a person who otherwise does not possess any such right in law. In what manner this Court has to arrive at any conclusion that MDA's decision in calling for fresh tender from the interested persons for making the land available for residential use is not in public interest? In what manner this Court has to arrive at any conclusion that MDA's decision in calling for fresh tender from the interested persons for making the land available for residential use is not in public interest? Repeated attempts were made before us to say that providing the land in question for educational use will be more appropriate and sub-serve public interest than making it available for residential use. Public interest floats in a vast, deep-ocean of ideas, and "imagined experiences". It would seem to us wise for the courts not to venture into this unchartered minefield. We are not exercising our will. We cannot impose our own values on society. Any such effort would mean to make value judgments.” In the backdrop of the above discussion this Court therefore concludes as follows: (a) That the methodology adopted by the Railways to negate the eligibility of WP-I on technical grounds citing “procedure in vogue” to cover up its delay in finalizing the tender is far from convincing and, the Railways instead of playing along with unregistered bidders could have exercised the option of renegotiating a non-essential term of the contract. Such action of the Railways requires to be visited with deterrent costs assessed at Rs. 2,00,000/- payable in favour of WP-I; (b) However, balancing the claim of WP-I with the right of the Railways to maximize its revenue earning from the tender in issue, this Court holds that following the observations In Re: Meerut Development Authority (supra), the fresh exercise intended by the TC to call a tender cannot be thwarted and, such fresh tender can be called after payment of the costs in favour of WP-I as directed above. It is made clear that all eligible tenderers will be entitled to participate in the fresh tender in accordance with law; (c) In respect of WP-II the Railways cannot be faulted for not waiving an essential tender condition. WP 7633(W) of 2015 stands accordingly disposed of. WP 8068(W) of 2015 stands dismissed. 24. Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.