JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, PWD, appearing for all the respondents. 2. Guwahati is selected as one of the venues for hosting Under-17 FIFA World Cup - 2017. The football matches are to be played at Indira Gandhi Athletic Stadium (IGAS), Sarusajai Sports Complex (SSC), Sarusajai. The event will take place in the month of October, 2017. This international event requires facilities to be provided to the teams as well as spectators by way of a particular standard, set by FIFA. 3. To improve the venue to FIFA standard, in continuation of an earlier Press Notice dated 24.08.2016, another Press Notice was issued on 08.09.2016 inviting tenders encompassing different aspects. The present writ petition is filed in connection with an item called ‘Spectators Bucket Chair at Gallery’, which is listed at Group-D of the Press Notice. 4. The case projected by the writ petitioner is that the petitioner participated in the aforesaid tender process along with others. After opening of technical bids, 3(three) tenderers including the petitioner were short-listed for opening of financial bids. Though not required under the Bidding Document, such short-listed tenderers were asked to produce one sample bucket chair before opening the financial bids. The respondents rejected two out of three sample bucket chairs including the chair produced by the petitioner and approved a particular type of chair of ‘Swagat’ brand. On 06.12.2016, the respondents opened the financial bids of the short-listed tenderers and the petitioner emerged as the lowest tenderer. By a letter dated 12.12.2016, the petitioner committed to supply chair of ‘Swagat’ brand at the rate quoted by him. While the petitioner was expecting award of supply order in his favour, a Press Notice dated 18.12.2016 was issued inviting fresh tenders for the Group-D work. 5. Challenging the said Press Notice dated 18.12.2016, approach is made by the petitioner to this Court contending that the respondent authorities had, on irrelevant and extraneous consideration, and without any justification, aborted the earlier tender process and, therefore, the respondents be directed to award the contract on the basis of the Press Notice dated 08.09.2016. 6. An affidavit was filed by the respondent No.2, in which it is averred that a Committee was constituted with (i) The Director, Sports Authority of India, Dr. 6. An affidavit was filed by the respondent No.2, in which it is averred that a Committee was constituted with (i) The Director, Sports Authority of India, Dr. Subhash Basumatary, (ii) The Director of Sports & Youth Welfare, (iii) The Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), (iv) The Secretary (Sports), Sports Authority of Assam cum Nodal Officer, FIFA World Cup U 17-2017, (v) The Additional Chief Engineer, PWD (Building) (vi) The Superintending Engineer, PWD (Building) for evaluation of technical demonstration of samples of the 3(three) technically qualified bidders and they were directed to produce their respective samples before the Committee on 28.11.2016. It is pleaded that cancellation of Press Notice dated 08.09.2016 and subsequent Press Notice dated 18.12.2016 was uploaded in the official website one after the other. 7. In Paragraph 3(D), (E) and (F) of the said affidavit filed on 10.01.2017, it is averred as follows:- “D. That on 28.11.2016, the three technically qualified bidders including the petitioner herein produced their respective samples before the said committee. The sample produced by the petitioner was found to be extremely brittle and upon application of little amount of pressure, the chair broke into two pieces. As such, the said sample was out rightly rejected. The sample produced by Shri Surajit Baruah was of one ‘Supreme’ brand which was found to be very light in weight and the same has not been fixed anywhere so far and consequently the same was found to be untested. The sample produced by the third technically qualified bidder, i.e. M/s U.D. Scientific was of ‘Swagat’ which was found to be of heavier and tougher material having the required strength and was made of a single piece sheet with matte finish moulded with U.V. resistant material. The chair is further provided with eleven ribs at the back and bottom for extra strength. E. That in view of the above, although the petitioner had quoted the lowest bid, acceptance of the product of the petitioner would certainly fall short of improving the venue to FIFA standards thereby defeating the very purpose for which the tenders were invited. The same would also have been clearly opposed to public interest besides jeopardizing the very possibility of holding such a prestigious event. As such, in the humble submission of the answering respondent, for valid, cogent and bonafide reasons it was decided to cancel the earlier tender process and invite fresh tender. The same would also have been clearly opposed to public interest besides jeopardizing the very possibility of holding such a prestigious event. As such, in the humble submission of the answering respondent, for valid, cogent and bonafide reasons it was decided to cancel the earlier tender process and invite fresh tender. The authorities have evidently acted with fairness and maintaining the highest degree of transparency and no prejudice could said to have been caused to the petitioner. F. That having decided to cancel the earlier tender process, and in view of the past experience, this time it has been decided to incorporate stringent stipulations in the tender itself with a requirement of satisfactory demonstration of samples proposed to be installed, during technical evaluation itself. Accordingly, Sub-Clauses (d) to (h) have been added in Clause 4.5(A) as specific conditions of technical eligibility and conditions.” 8. In Paragraph-20 of the said affidavit, it is stated as follows:- “20. That the statements made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition are incorrect, baseless and misconceived hence, the same are categorically denied by the answering respondent. As has been conclusively demonstrated hereinabove, the product sought to be supplied and installed by the petitioner was of extremely inferior quality wholly incapable of matching the FIFA standards. It was perhaps on account of such reasons the petitioner emerged as the lowest tenderer. It was on account of the experience gathered in the earlier tender process that the authorities have decided to declare/notify/announce clearly in the tender documents pursuant to the fresh NIT dated 18.12.2016 with regard to satisfactory demonstration of the product proposed to be supplied/installed. The very purpose behind the tender process itself being improvement of venue to FIFA standards, there cannot be any scope for an iota of compromise on the quality of chairs proposed to be installed. The event itself being an international event of highest standards, it is a matter of immense prestige for the State and hence no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner on account of the decision to cancel the earlier tender process and invite fresh tenders. In the further humble submission of the answering respondent, it is no longer res-integra that price cannot be the sole criteria when it comes to selecting a tenderer.” 9. In the further humble submission of the answering respondent, it is no longer res-integra that price cannot be the sole criteria when it comes to selecting a tenderer.” 9. The petitioner had filed a reply affidavit stating that nowhere in the Bidding Documents ‘FIFA standards’ had been spelt out and in Clause 4.5A(d) also, requirements had not been clearly indicated. 10. By an additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.2, it is averred that the chair of the brand ‘Swagat’ was tested by driving a Mahindra Bolero vehicle over the chair and it withstood the impact. The demonstration was video-graphed. Therefore, in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 18.12.2016, ‘Swagat’ brand had been made the yardstick of strength and quality. Accordingly, it is mentioned that the chair has to be of ‘Swagat’ or any other product of equivalent quality and strength. 11. Mr. Dubey has submitted that the petitioner having emerged the lowest valid tenderer, respondents acted illegally in issuing the subsequent NIT dated 18.12.2016. It is also submitted by him that constitution of the Committee was not envisaged under the Press Notice dated 08.09.2016 and the Committee required the tenderers to produce chair for evaluation at a very short notice. He contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the NIT dated 08.09.2016 should be allowed to be taken to its logical end by cancelling the subsequent Press Notice dated 18.12.2016. 12. Mr. Choudhury has conceded that in the initial Press Notice dated 08.09.2016, technical qualifications were not very specifically mentioned. He has submitted that the earlier Press Notice dated 08.09.2016 was cancelled on good and bonafide grounds keeping in mind that any shortfall in the standards would severely impact the image and prestige of the State. He has also submitted that it is not necessary that only ‘Swagat’ brand will be accepted and any other brand, which is of comparable quality and strength will also be considered. He has also submitted that Sub-clause (g) of Clause 4.5A of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) provides that there will be random sample checking in every thousand pieces of chairs. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 14. On a specific query of the Court, Mr. Dubey had stated that the petitioner had submitted tender for supplying chairs of brand ‘Olympia’. 15. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 14. On a specific query of the Court, Mr. Dubey had stated that the petitioner had submitted tender for supplying chairs of brand ‘Olympia’. 15. The present NIT requires supplying and installation of stadium seats (Bucket seat) of size 405mm X 435mm X 380mm in one piece of Poly propylene having density not less than 0.90gm/cm3 with ultraviolet stabilizer having ergonomic design, with adequate numbers of fixation points for extra stability to be fixed directly on concrete (Direct mounted) from Swagat/equivalent reputed Indian manufacturer. 16. In Paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner had stated that the petitioner had to arrange a sample bucket chair locally, which did not match with the quality of the chairs manufactured by the petitioner at its factory. It is not understood why a chair locally obtained should not match the quality of the chair manufactured at its factory. The petitioner did not say that the chair produced by the petitioner before the Committee was of a different make or brand. It will be unrealistic to assume that the petitioner did not even have a single chair which it intended to supply. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, there is no denial of the averment made by the respondent No.2 in his affidavit that the sample produced by the petitioner before the Committee was found to be extremely brittle and upon application of little pressure, the chair had broken into two pieces. This Court will not comment any further on the quality of the chair but there cannot be an iota of doubt that the chair proposed to be supplied by the petitioner would not meet the purpose for which the up gradation work was undertaken. The constitution of the Committee was not envisaged under the NIT dated 08.09.2016. But only because of the constitution of the Committee for the purpose of evaluating the samples, the quality of the chairs proposed to be supplied by the tenderers had come to be revealed. It is this shortcoming, amongst others, which are sought to be addressed in the subsequent NIT. It is specifically provided in Clause 4.5A(d) of the Invitation for Bid (IFB) that during technical evaluation, the bidder/bidders must demonstrate the sample proposed to be installed. It is this shortcoming, amongst others, which are sought to be addressed in the subsequent NIT. It is specifically provided in Clause 4.5A(d) of the Invitation for Bid (IFB) that during technical evaluation, the bidder/bidders must demonstrate the sample proposed to be installed. The bidder/bidders whose sample does not satisfy the requirements is liable to be technically disqualified. The authorities had further sought to safeguard their interest by providing at Clause 4.5A(g) that there would be random sample checking in every one thousand pieces of the bucket chairs by the Technical Committee and the Committee will approve the same before installation. 17. There is no doubt that the power exercised by the Government and its instrumentalities in regard to allotment of contract is subject to judicial review at the instance of an aggrieved party. Submission of a tender in response to a notice inviting tender is only an offer which the State or its agencies on good and sufficient ground may not accept. The tenderers participating in a tender process cannot insist that their tenders should be accepted only because of the fact that his or her tender is the highest or the lowest contingent upon whether the contract is for sale of public property or for execution of works on behalf of the State. The indispensable and essential sine qua non of a tender process initiated for distribution of state largesse or for award of contract is that it should be open, fair and transparent and that all the bidders are given fair, equal and non-discriminatory treatment in the matter of evaluation of tenders. Award of contract essentially being a commercial transaction must be determined on the basis of considerations which are germane and relevant in the contextual setting. Fact that the petitioner had emerged as the lowest tenderer does not confer an indefeasible right upon the petitioner to be awarded with an order of settlement. The tenderer has an enforceable right to the extent that the Court is obliged to consider and examine as to whether the aggrieved party had been treated unfairly or discriminated against to the detriment of public interest. In the said context, price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. 18. The fountainhead of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is fairness in action by the State and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is its soul. In the said context, price need not always be the sole criterion for awarding a contract. 18. The fountainhead of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is fairness in action by the State and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is its soul. Therefore, the State must, at all times, act validly and reasonably for a discernable reason and not for any ulterior purpose. 19. It is no longer res integra that even if some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with caution and circumspection and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely because a legal point is made out. Larger public interest should be the beacon which should guide the Court in coming to the conclusion as to whether the facts and circumstances of a particular case warrant interference or not. 20. From the materials on record, it appears to the Court that for bonafide, just and good reasons, the respondents had taken recourse to inviting a fresh NIT by cancelling the earlier NIT dated 08.09.2016. The Court does not find that the action is actuated by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration. The interest of the State and the event for which the NIT is issued are kept in the forefront and if that be so, such action cannot be labeled and styled as action taken against public interest. By issuing a fresh NIT, a level playing field is laid out for all intending tenderers. 21. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is found to be without any merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed at the motion stage itself. No costs. 22. Before parting with the records, this Court cannot help but express that not enough attention was paid when the original NIT was issued. It goes without saying that it is incumbent on the part of the authorities to ponder what specifications/requirements would be best suited bearing in mind the nature for which the NIT is issued. The respondents will take note of this while issuing NIT in future.