JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Senapati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Customs Act, 1956 having its registered office at G-220, Sitspura Industrial Area, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The petitioner is a manufacturer of supplementary nutrition foods and other food products and micro nutrients along with preparation of food items by execution process. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on behalf of the respondent-authorities issued notice inviting e-Tender Online Tender No. WCD-48/2016-17 (SNP) dated 7.9.2016 for supply of ready to eat food items under the Supplementary Nutrition Programme (SNP) for distribution to various ICDS projects in Arunachal Pradesh, for the financial year 2016-17. 3. The petitioner states that it has duly filled in the e-Tender on the notified date, i.e. on 3.10.2016, which was duly opened and admitted by the respondent-authorities on 4.10.2016 and the bid of the petitioner was numbered as 342. The said tender notice had instructions to the bidders that latest copy of Income-tax Return Statements of bidder/tenderer should be submitted/uploaded by the bidder duly attested by Gazetted Officer/Notary. It was also one of the criteria that certificate issued by the FSSAI authorities for the manufacturer of the product clearly indicating the commodities for which the certificate is issued along with its validity period which should contain the name of the tendered item, failing which quotation is liable to be rejected. 4. The petitioner filed its Income-tax Return for the assessment year 2015-16 as the same was the petitioner's latest copy of Income-tax Return Statement of bidder/tenderer, in terms of the instructions to the bidders. The petitioner, therefore, after the submission of e-Tender on 3.10.2016 filed its Income-tax Return for the assessment year 2016-17 on 8.10.2016, which was permitted vide an extension order by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 9.9.2016 extending due date of filing of Return from 30.9.2016 to 17.10.2016 for the assessment year 2016-17. As required, the petitioner also filed a Test Report dated 17.9.2016 of the NABL Accredited Laboratory being APEX Testing and Research Laboratory for Cereal based Weaning Food, Soya Based Biscuits (Fortified) and Kheer (Ready to Eat). As required, the petitioner also filed a Test Report dated 17.9.2016 of the NABL Accredited Laboratory being APEX Testing and Research Laboratory for Cereal based Weaning Food, Soya Based Biscuits (Fortified) and Kheer (Ready to Eat). The notice inviting e-Tender was under two bid system - Technical Bid and the Financial Bid. 5. The petitioner came to learn from the respondents' tender website on 7.10.2016 that the technical bid filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No. 3 cryptically stating, inter-alia, that the bid of the petitioner has been rejected during technical evaluation by the duly constituted committee for the reason sample not acceptable, ITR not upto date, etc. 6. The petitioner submits that the impugned rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner vide impugned rejection notice dated 7.10.2016 is bad in law and as such liable to be set aside and quashed and a direction to consider the technical bid submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to the notice inviting e-Tender referred hereinabove. 7. Mr. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel submits that the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner is without any reason, inasmuch as, the petitioner had fulfilled all criteria in making the bid for the products in the notice inviting tender and as such the cancellation of the technical bid of the petitioner without any reason assigned thereto, is a clear violation of the principles of natural and administrative justice, fair play and as such the impugned rejection notice dated 7.10.2016 issued by the respondent No. 3 is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is also submitted that the respondent-authorities had not undertaken any such laboratory test as mandated by the tender conditions and on the contrary have perfunctorily rejected the technical bid alleging “sample not acceptable.” It is also submitted by Mr. Sahewalla that the Government of India through its Ministry of Finance had extended the time to file the Income-tax Return for the Assessment year 2016-17 by 17.10.2016 and under such circumstances, the respondent-authorities ought not to have rejected the technical bid on the ground of the petitioner's Income-tax Return were not upto date. It is also admitted that on the date of submission of the bid, i.e., 3.10.2016, the return for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed and as per the submission of Mr. It is also admitted that on the date of submission of the bid, i.e., 3.10.2016, the return for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed and as per the submission of Mr. Sahewalla, the same ought to have construed for all intending purpose as the latest Income-tax Return in terms of the NIT and the contrary finding by the respondent-authorities that ITR was not upto date is erroneous on the face of the record. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner through its Director vide e-mail dated 8.10.2016 explained the position of the petitioner-company to the respondent No. 2 to consider the technical bid of the petitioner. However, as there was no response from the concerned respondents, so the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Mr. Sahewalla referring to Annexure 3 to the Affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents which is the Summary of the technical bid evaluation, submits that in the item of Kheer (RTE), the ground shown for rejection was non-availability of ITR and on the ground that the food sample content is raw rice grain mixed with milk powder. For the item Weaning Food (RTE), the ground shown for rejection was non-availability of upto date ITR and the food sample was not in dry form having heavy moisture. For the item Soya based Biscuits, the ground for rejection of the petitioner was due to non-availability of upto date ITR and the manufacturing licence does not indicate to have Biscuit Manufacturing. 9. Mr. Sahewalla relied upon the decision in Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority, (2013) 10 SCC 95 , wherein the Apex Court held that the Income-tax Return would assume the character of an essential term if one of the qualifications was either the gross income or the net income on which tax was attracted. In many cases, this is a salutary stipulation as it is indicative of the commercial standing and reliability of the tendering entity. The hon'ble Apex Court after observing so, concluded that as the said feature being absent, the filing of the Income-tax Return was a collateral term and accordingly the tendering authority ought to have brought this discrepancy to the notice of the appellant-company and if thereafter no rectification have been carried out, the position might have been appreciably different. 10. Drawing the said ratio, Mr. 10. Drawing the said ratio, Mr. Sahewalla took this court to the NIT covering the instructions to bidders wherefrom he submits that in addition to the conditions for submission of latest copy of Income-tax Return Statement of the bidder, there is another clause, i.e. clause (n) prescribing that the Financial Stability Certificate issued during current financial year, i.e. (1st April 2016) from Financial/Schedule Bank, preferably the Nationalized Bank mentioning the approximate value upto which the tenderer is capable of undertaking the contract and the said Certificate should mention the amount upto which the bidder is capable to do the business, which must be at least equal to or more than 75% of the value of single/multiple tenders is also required to be submitted. For the said reason, Mr. Sahewalla submits that the submission of latest Income-tax Return Certificate is not an essential term, inasmuch as, there is a stipulation to submit Financial Stability Certificate for the assessment of the financial capability of the tenderer. Under such circumstances, the rejection of the technical bid of the respondents is illegal. Moreover, the petitioner had duly submitted the Financial Stability Certificate and the same ought to have considered by the respondent-authorities. 11. With regard to the rejection for the item Kheer (RTE), the respondents rejected the same as the sample content is raw rice grain mixed with milk powder. Mr. Sahewalla submits that if the respondents required the same in the powder form, it ought to have been mentioned in the tender documents specifically. He also submits that immediately after the rejection of the technical bid, the petitioner through the e-mail dated 8.10.2016 informed the respondents that the Kheer cannot be in powder form as it would lose its originality and if required the same could be grinded to get in powder form. Not only that, the respondent-authorities ought to have given due consideration to the submission made, subsequent to the rejection of the bid, inasmuch as, it was not specifically mentioned in the tender document that in which form the same ought to be supplied, so the respondents' action in rejecting the technical bid for the item Kheer is not valid and liable to be set aside. 12. With regard to the rejection for the item Soya Based Biscuits, Mr. Sahewalla submits that the ground shown for rejection that the Manufacturing Licence does not indicate to have biscuit manufacturing, is completely perverse. 12. With regard to the rejection for the item Soya Based Biscuits, Mr. Sahewalla submits that the ground shown for rejection that the Manufacturing Licence does not indicate to have biscuit manufacturing, is completely perverse. Mr. Sahewalla take this court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner wherein the licence issued by the competent authority having its validity till 31.12.2017 clearly refers that it has the licence for manufacturing of biscuits, which is annexed there to the said affidavit-in-reply. 13. Mr. Sahewalla further submits that as apparent from the rejection of the samples, it is absolutely in clear violation to clause 21 of the instructions to the bidders, inasmuch as, the tender selection committee has no authority on its own to reject the sample for the item Weaning Food (RTE), inasmuch as, the same was not tested by the competent authority, rather the samples are to be rejected by the Board of Officers which are not found to be conforming to the requisite specifications by the Government Laboratory/ Public Analyst, as apparent from clause 20. The item Weaning Food (RTE) was rejected on the ground that the same was not dry having heavy moisture. The Tender Selection Committee cannot reject the samples as apparent from the Summary of the Technical Bid Evaluation, as relied by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition. Finally, Mr. Sahewalla submits that the whole process in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner is illegal and as such the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 14. The respondents filed their affidavit-in-opposition thereby bringing to the notice of the court that one of the conditions stipulated in the tender document was submission of latest Income-tax Return Statement which was not complied by the bidder/petitioner. Filing of ITR Statement for the Assessment year 2016-17 after submission of tender has no relevancy in the scrutiny of the bids which took place on 4th and 5th October, 2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner submitted samples but the same were not as per the specifications mentioned in Part-IV Products Specification and Processing/ Manufacturing Instruction. The sample of Weaning Food was not in dry powder form as required. The same had excessive moisture thereby devoid of its self-life. The sample of Kheer was not Ready to Eat form and the same was just raw rice grain with some sugar mixed in it. The sample of Weaning Food was not in dry powder form as required. The same had excessive moisture thereby devoid of its self-life. The sample of Kheer was not Ready to Eat form and the same was just raw rice grain with some sugar mixed in it. It was denied that there was violation of clause 20 of the tender document under the heading Submission of Samples. It was stated that the Tender Selection Committee physically examined the samples submitted by the petitioner for “Weaning Food” and observed that there was dry moisture content in it and further submitted that the taste was also not pleasant for liking of the children. It is also submitted that the petitioner without reserving its right for submission of the latest IRT, participated in the tender process and further stated that, had the petitioner been not clear with regard to the form of Kheer a duty was cast upon the said petitioner to seek for a clarification from the concerned authority before participating in the tender process. Under such circumstances, the petitioner having participated in the tender process, they are estopped in challenging the rejection order. 15. Mr. B.D. Goswami, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh submits that the Income-tax Returns were filed by the other participants for the period as required under the condition prescribed in the tender documents. Not only that, the successful participants were fully aware with respect to the form of Kheer and as such there was no ambiguity in the tender documents with regard to the specifications of the items and the qualifying criteria. Mr. Goswami further submits that the issue in the present petition as apparent from the submissions of the petitioner clearly goes to show that the petitioner alleged that there were perversity in rejecting the samples and non-acceptance of the ITR for the period 2015-16. Mr. Goswami relies the decision in Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium), (2016) 8 SCC 622 and submits that the petitioner ought to have sought for a clarification from the authority concerned mentioned in the NIT, if there was any doubt with respect to the form of the items and the samples to be submitted thereon. Further with regard to the ITR, Mr. Further with regard to the ITR, Mr. Goswami submits that duty was cast upon the petitioner, at least to make a representation informing non-availability of the ITR or if there was any ambiguity with the form of items but that was not done and only after submission of the bids and on being rejected, the petitioner has informed the concerned authority under the NIT the drawbacks and accordingly requested for fresh consideration as per their request. This cannot be considered and as such Mr. Goswami submits that the petition is liable to be rejected. 16. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The submission of Mr. Sahewalla that the respondent ought to have considered the ITR for the period 2015-16 submitted by the petitioner, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, there was a duty cast upon the petitioner to inform the concerned authority, at least to make a representation with regard to non-availability of their ITR for the period specified in the NIT. The submission of Mr. Sahewalla that the submission of ITR is not an essential term as there was another condition for submission of Financial Stability Certificate for the current financial year (1st April, 2016) cannot be accepted at this stage. There was no representation on the part of the petitioner to the tendering authority about non-availability of the ITR for 2016-17. The petitioner participated in the tender process and the Tender Selection Committee rejected the bid as the petitioner failed to produce the ITR, as per the requisite criteria. The decision in Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. (supra) relied by Mr. Sahewalla and the ratio laid down therein is of no help to the petitioner because there was no representation on the part of the petitioner to the respondents informing the non-availability of the said ITR. Had there been any representation and even thereafter there was any rejection then the question of the weightage of the said criteria could have been discussed. Similar is the situation with regard to the form of the samples. Because had there been any ambiguity so far the petitioner is concerned with regard to its form of the items it ought to have been got clarified by the petitioner before the participation in the tender process. Similar is the situation with regard to the form of the samples. Because had there been any ambiguity so far the petitioner is concerned with regard to its form of the items it ought to have been got clarified by the petitioner before the participation in the tender process. From the point of view of the tender committee (respondents), the act of participation by the petitioner in the tender process is sufficient to conclude that the petitioner has participated in the tender process knowing fully well with regard to the criteria set to be successful in the technical bid. No fault can be attributed in the decision making process of the tender committee. 17. The submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the samples were rejected by the Tender Selection Committee more specifically the one for weaning food perfunctorily without any laboratory test cannot be accepted in view of the submission made by the learned Addl. Advocate General, AP that as mandated in the NIT, representatives of the concerned bidders are required to be present at the time of opening the bid. The representatives of the petitioner were very much present and in their presence the samples were rejected by the concerned/competent authority as per stipulation of the NIT which was accepted by the representatives of the petitioner as submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General and under such circumstances the same cannot be agitated before this Court. Considered the submission of both the learned counsels. Mr. Sahewalla never disputed to the said submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General which goes to show that the samples of the said item was duly rejected and that too as per the terms of the NIT inasmuch as the intent of the authority under the NIT was to conduct the tender process in clarity and that too in presence of the representatives of the bidders, which can be clearly inferred from the stipulation of the NIT. Non-raising of any objection before the tender committee instantly after opening of the bid can very well be presumed that the tender process and its opening are as per the stipulation so made in the NIT. Non-raising of any objection before the tender committee instantly after opening of the bid can very well be presumed that the tender process and its opening are as per the stipulation so made in the NIT. The court under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot enter into it as this court cannot enter into the decision arrived by the tender committee as this court is not a court to interfere the requirements and/or the specifications required by the department. 18. With regard to the submissions of Mr. Sahewalla that there was perversity in rejecting the item Soya Biscuits, however, can be held to be so, inasmuch as, the licence (Annexure XIII) of the affidavit-in-reply clearly shows that the petitioner had the licence for manufacture of biscuits. However, the other criteria with regard to the ITR cannot be waived and as such as submitted by Mr. Goswami even on such situation, the petitioner's technical bid must be rejected for the said non-fulfillment of the criteria in submitting the ITR. Finally, it is held that there was no illegality in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier is accordingly stands vacated.