JUDGMENT : TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, J. 1. The instant appeal has been preferred challenging an order dated 10th February, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.1399 (W) of 2017. As the parties have agreed to advance their arguments on the basis of the records which were placed before the learned Single Judge, the appeal is taken up for final hearing without calling for affidavits. 2. The West Bengal State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the said Board) invited e-tenders for infrastructure development by renovation of agricultural firms and research station at different places in the district of Burdwan. The D.M.P. Nirman Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the firm) participated in eight tenders out of which five were cancelled and in the remaining three tenders the firm was found non responsive/disqualified. Aggrieved thereby, the firm preferred the writ petition in which initially an interim order was passed on 20th January, 2017 directing that none of the respondents will take any steps in terms of the work orders in any manner whatsoever. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard and dismissed by the order dated 10th February, 2017. 3. Mr. Mitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the firm submits that in terms of the check list annexed to the notice inviting e-tender, the firm uploaded all the documents but surprisingly the Project Engineer of the said Board issued three letters on 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 relating to the respective three tenders stating that the firm had been “found non responsive for non availability of testimonial and document regarding engagement of Civil Engineer”. In the said letters it was also stated that “agencies are allowed to response (if any by online/offline) against evaluation of bid, within 24 hours from the time of issue of Technical Evaluation report”. Immediately thereafter the firm replied to the said letters by submitting three representations on 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 in respect of the three tenders asking the respondent no.4 to review its decision since the firm had already furnished the qualification information. The said representations were, however, not considered and the private respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 were illegally issued work orders in the respective three tenders. 4. Mr. The said representations were, however, not considered and the private respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 were illegally issued work orders in the respective three tenders. 4. Mr. Mitra submits that in the bidding documents, there was no requirement towards submission of testimonial and document regarding engagement of Civil Engineer along with the bid and the firm had duly furnished the qualification information as mentioned in Section 4 of the bidding documents in accordance with the format 1.5 of the said Section but the said Board illegally declared the firm to be non responsive with a mala fide intent to accommodate the respondent nos.5, 6 and 7 whose bid price in the three respective tenders is much higher than that of the firm. The Board had relied on an undisclosed condition of eligibility for rejecting the firm’s bid. Such an action being wholly unreasonable and unfair is opposed to the basic tenets of Article 14. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon a judgment delivered in Golam Mohammad and Etc. -vs.- SUPDT.N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital, reported in AIR 2001 CAL 5 . 5. Drawing the attention of this Court to Section 7 of the bidding documents, Mr. Mitra submits that the firm was asked to attach an organisation chart showing structure of the company with names of key personnel and technical staff with bio-data. Pursuant thereto, the said documents were duly submitted and as such the firm could not have been branded as non responsive. The terms “non responsive” and “disqualified” are distinct and different. The former is attributable to a case where the documents sought for had not been furnished whereas the latter is attributable to a case where the tenderor does not fulfil the eligibility criteria as set out in the notice inviting tender. Thus, without arriving at a finding that the firm was disqualified, its bid was rejected alleging that the firm was non responsive. The private respondents were also found to be non responsive as would be explicit from the letters dated 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 but they were given the respective tenders. Thus, without arriving at a finding that the firm was disqualified, its bid was rejected alleging that the firm was non responsive. The private respondents were also found to be non responsive as would be explicit from the letters dated 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 but they were given the respective tenders. The Board had thus applied a different yardstick in case of the firm and such action is arbitrary and violative of the doctrine of ‘level playing field’ and the claim of the firm cannot be defeated merely on the ground that work orders have already been issued. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in Reliance Energy Limited –vs.- Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 1 . 6. Mr. Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board at the inception submits that by the letters dated 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 the firm was intimated that it had not furnished the testimonials and documents regarding engagement of Civil Engineer. In spite of such intimation the said documents were not furnished, instead the firm took a stand that it was not required to furnish the said testimonials and documents regarding engagement of Civil Engineer inasmuch as there was no reference to such testimonials and documents in the check list. Submission of testimonials and documents regarding engagement of Civil Engineer was mandatory and the eligibility of a tenderor was determinable on the rudiments of the said documents. 7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the “eligibility criteria for participation in tender”, Mr. Gupta submits that in clause 1(i)(b) it was categorically indicated that the prospective bidders in respect of works valued above rupees one crore and below rupees ten crores must have one degree holder Civil Engineer of minimum three years experience. The firm consciously refused to furnish documents in support of such eligibility criteria and as such the eligibility of the tenderor could not be ascertained. The learned Judge upon scrutinizing the tender documents arrived at a categoric finding that “the petitioner admittedly did not provide the necessary documents to substantiate the claim of availability of requisite work force, that is, requisite engineer along with the initial bid”. The learned Judge upon scrutinizing the tender documents arrived at a categoric finding that “the petitioner admittedly did not provide the necessary documents to substantiate the claim of availability of requisite work force, that is, requisite engineer along with the initial bid”. There is no error in such factual finding warranting interference of this Court more so when work orders have already been issued and the work has already commenced. Interference of this Court at this stage would be derogatory to public interest since the work under the respective tenders is for development of infrastructure and renovation of agricultural firms and the consequential delay would have a financial repercussion on the State exchequer. 8. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned advocate appearing for the respondent no.6 submits that the check list in Section 9 is merely illustrative and not an exhaustive one; Drawing the attention of this Court to clause 1(i)(c) of the eligibility criteria, he submits that the prospective bidder was required to have a supervisor having Electrical Supervisor’s Certificate. Though the said document is not categorically referred to in the check list, the same was mandatorily required to be furnished since the eligibility of a tenderor was dependent upon the same. The firm had miserably failed to establish its eligibility by producing the documents to show that it had one degree holder Civil Engineer of minimum three years experience and as such its bid was not accepted and there is no infirmity in such decision warranting interference of this Court. 9. Mr. Kar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.5 submits that the scope of judicial review of a commercial transaction is very limited and in the instant case there is no allegation of any mala fide. The respondent no.5 has already been issued the work order and it has proceeded with the work substantially and any interference at this stage would delay the work towards development of infrastructure and renovation of agricultural firm and would be derogatory to the public interest. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Jagdish Mandal –vs.- State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517. 10. Drawing the attention of this Court to clause 11 of the check list, Mr. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Jagdish Mandal –vs.- State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517. 10. Drawing the attention of this Court to clause 11 of the check list, Mr. Kar submits that the said clause clearly indicates that over and above the documents specifically detailed in the said check list, the tenderor was required to fill up all the tables and forms and to upload all the bidding documents. As such, the argument of Mr. Mitra to the effect that the check list does not provide for submission of the testimonials and documents regarding engagement of a Civil Engineer is fallacious. 11. Adopting the arguments as advanced by Mr. Basu and Mr. Kar, Mr. Chatterjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.7 adds that even an administrative decision, such as a deviation in the terms of notice inviting tender is not arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable, mala fide or biased, the Courts will not judicially review the decision taken. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Central Coalfields Limited & Anr. –vs.- SLL – SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 . 12. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. Clause 1 of the notice inviting e-tender sets out the “Eligibility criteria for participation in tender” and mandates that the prospective bidder must have one degree holder Civil Engineer of minimum three years experienced for the works valued above Rs.1 crore and below Rs.10 crores. The three tenders involved in the instant case are valued above Rs.1 crore and below Rs.10 crores. Admittedly, the firm did not furnish the testimonials and documents to show that it had a degree holder Civil Engineer. The non submission of such documents was brought to the notice of the firm but without submitting the same, the firm took a stand that it was not required to furnish the said documents and that the demand for such documents was in excess of the conditions stipulated in the notice inviting e-tender, as would be explicit from the letters dated 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 and the demand notice dated 12th January, 2017 issued by firm. Such obstinacy and denial to furnish documents pertaining to eligibility does not call for grant of any further opportunity to the firm to participate afresh upon cancellation of the work orders inasmuch as such directions as prayed for in the instant appeal would tantamount to grant of a premium to a recalcitrant participant in the tender process. A perusal of the letters dated 29th November, 2016, 30th November, 2016 and 2nd December, 2016 would reveal that the private respondents were not found non responsive in respect of any document pertaining to their eligibility and as such the allegation that the firm had been treated differently is not acceptable. 13. The scope of judicial review in award of contracts is very limited. In support of contracts entered into on behalf of the State, the Court is concerned primarily to ascertain as to whether there has been any infirmity in the decision making process. The Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the decision of the authority floating the tender. There is also no allegation of mala fide in the writ petition. It is also well settled that some technical/procedural evaluation would not warrant judicial interference in commercial matters. 14. Applying the above proposition of law to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order impugned does not suffer from any palpable infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The learned Single Judge, upon dealing with all the factual issues arrived at specific findings and we do not find any error in the same. The order stands fortified with cogent reasons. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any manifest injustice warranting interference of this Court. 15. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the appeal and the stay application are dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.