JUDGMENT : Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. 1. The applications being ASTA 16 of 2017 and CAN 4616 of 2017 have been preferred by one Barjora Alert Co-operative Labour Contract & Construction Society Ltd. and by one Aniul Hoque respectively praying for leave to prefer appeal against the order dated 28th April, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No12197 (W) of 2017. The State of West Bengal and others have also preferred an appeal challenging the self same order dated 28th April, 2017. 2. Sahakar Global Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said Company) was declared to be a non-eligible tenderer in a tender process initiated on the basis of a notice inviting electronic bids (hereinafter referred to as the said notice) dated 22nd March, 2017 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Directorate, Western Circle, No.-I. Challenging such decision the said Company and its Chief Tolling Officer preferred the writ petition being W.P. No12197 (W) of 2017. Initially by an order dated 20th April, 2017 the respondents were restrained from opening the financial bid. Thereafter, upon contested hearing, the learned Single Judge arrived at a finding that non-furnishing of the registered power of attorney at the time of submission of the bid is a curable defect and accordingly by the order impugned dated 28th April, 2017 the summary list of technically qualified tenderers was set aside and the authorities issuing the tender were directed to afford an opportunity to the said Company and another non-eligible tenderer to submit the registered power of attorney and the earnest money, which the said authorities had refunded, within a fortnight. The learned Court further directed that in the event the said two criteria are fulfilled by the nonqualified tenderers, the said authorities will consider their tenders, in accordance with law thereafter. 3. Mr. Samrat Sen, learned senior advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in observing that the non-furnishing of the registered power of attorney at the time of submission of the bid was a curable defect. 3. Mr. Samrat Sen, learned senior advocate appearing for the State respondents submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in observing that the non-furnishing of the registered power of attorney at the time of submission of the bid was a curable defect. It would be explicit from Section-A, Clause-3 of the said notice that each contractor participating in the bid was mandatorily required to obtain a Digital Signature Certificate in his own name duly issued to him against the company or the firm of which he happens to be a director or partner and such individual person shall, while uploading any bid for and on behalf of such company or firm invariably upload a copy of the registered power of attorney showing clear authorization in his favour by the respective directors of such company or the partners of such fund. The object and purpose of such requirement was to prevent fraud and to ensure that only persons having appropriate qualification apply. 4. He further contends that the starting date and time and the ending date and time towards submission of bid was scheduled to be 27th March, 2017 at 3:00 p.m. and 14th April, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. respectively. On 14th April, 2017 the person submitting the bid on behalf of the said Company did not have any registered power of attorney and accordingly could not upload the same and as such in the summary list it was indicated that the said Company was a non-eligible tenderer. Though there was no infirmity in such decision, the learned Single Judge erred in law in extending the time as stipulated in the said notice towards submission of the bid which tantamount to grant of leverage to the said Company which could not be availed by the contractors who did not submit their bid for not having a registered power of attorney. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of JSW Infrastructure Limited and Another vs. Kakinada Seaports Limited and Others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 170 and in the case of Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Private Limited vs. Devkishan Computed Private Limited and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 446 . 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Kashikanta Moitra, learned senior advocate appearing for the applicant in ASTA 16 of 2017 submits that the learned Single Judge erred in law in interfering with the tender process and in setting the clock back and in granting a second opportunity to the said Company to submit a registered power of attorney which it did not have at the time of submission of the bid and such direction has prejudiced the applicant, who had already emerged to be successful in the technical bid. Having participated in the tender process and being unsuccessful in the same, the said Company could not have turned back and challenged the tender process and that too after opening of the technical bids on 17th April, 2017. The laches on the part of the said Company was found to be curable but the said point of law could not have been decided by the learned Single Judge in the absence of the applicant, who was a participant in the tender process and as such the writ petition itself was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary party. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204 and in the case of Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Ammal & Ors., reported in (2014) 8 Supreme 133 . 6. Adopting such arguments as advanced by Mr. Moitra, Mr. Kallol Basu, learned advocate appearing for the applicant in CAN 4616 of 2017 submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in re-writing the terms of the notice inviting tender and in granting a further opportunity to the said Company to rectify its laches. The impugned order could not have been passed in the absence of the applicant who was successful in the technical bid. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204 and in the case of Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779 . 7. Mr. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204 and in the case of Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779 . 7. Mr. Mitra, learned senior advocate appearing for the said Company submits that uploading of a registered power of attorney was not a mandatory criterion and in view of the provisions of Section-A, Clause-6(B)(v) a bidder can furnish additional and supporting documents, if any clarification is sought for by the authority issuing the tender and as such there is no infirmity in the finding that non-furnishing of the registered power of attorney at the time of submission of the bid is a curable defect. 8. Drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Clause-6(A-2), Serial (B) (3) of the said notice, Mr. Mitra submits that the requirement to produce the registered power of attorney is mandatory for a partnership firm/private limited company, if any. There is no provision to the effect that even a public limited company would have to produce and upload a registered power of attorney. Furthermore, the clause towards uploading of a registered power of attorney is an ancillary clause and the same has nothing to do with the participants’ eligibility. Such requirement is neither mandatory nor essential and as such the learned Single Judge has rightly extended the time to file the said document and direction does not in any manner prejudice the other bidders. The summary list also does not disclose any reason towards rejection of the technical bid of the said Company and in appreciation of such infirmity in the decision making process, the learned Single Judge rightly passed the order under appeal. In support of his arguments, Mr. Mitra has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation vs. M/s. Ganesh Engineering Works and others, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273 and in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and Another vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95 . 9. In reply, Mr. Sen submits from Clause 6(B)(v) it would be explicit that the notice inviting authority could seek clarification only of the documents which were submitted/uploaded in the web portal. 9. In reply, Mr. Sen submits from Clause 6(B)(v) it would be explicit that the notice inviting authority could seek clarification only of the documents which were submitted/uploaded in the web portal. Such clarification clause does not confer any right upon a participating bidder to cure the failure which occasioned due to non-submission of a mandatory document. An erring bidder cannot be granted a second opportunity to cure such defect and in the absence of any malafide or arbitrariness the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the tender process. 10. A perusal of Section-A, Clause-3 mandatorily provides for uploading of a Digital Signature Certificate and a copy of registered power of attorney. The words “registered” have been printed in bold letters so that the same is noticed by all the bidders. Such mandatory requirement was not fulfilled by the said Company. The clause towards eligibility criteria for participation in bid categorically provides that no conditional/incomplete bid will be accepted under any circumstances. The term bidder includes a person/contractor/agency/joint/venture/consortium. Clause 6(A-2) contains a chart and serial B(3) of the same reads that “registered power of attorney (for partnership firm/private limited company, if any) vide Clause-3 under Section A of page-4, instruction to bidder”. The inclusion of the words in the parenthesis does not suggest that uploading of registered power of attorney was only required in case of a partnership firm and a private limited company. A composite reading of the said clauses do not reveal that a public limited company is not required to upload a copy of the registered power of attorney and that such uploading of the said document is not mandatory. The argument of Mr. Mitra to the effect that a public limited company is not required to upload a registered power of attorney and that the said requirement is an ancillary requirement, is not acceptable to this Court. The requirement to upload the registered power of attorney was mandatory and as such the judgment in the case of M/s. Poddar Steel Corporation (Supra), as relied upon by Mr. Mitra has no manner of application in the instant case. 11. Clause 6(B)(v) of the said notice confers authority upon the notice inviting authority only to seek additional supporting documents “which are already submitted/uploaded in the web portal”. Mitra has no manner of application in the instant case. 11. Clause 6(B)(v) of the said notice confers authority upon the notice inviting authority only to seek additional supporting documents “which are already submitted/uploaded in the web portal”. The said clause does not confer any right upon the bidders to produce fresh documents which were not uploaded in the web portal and as such this Court is unable to accept the argument of Mr. Mitra to the effect that in view of the said clause, the defect which has occasioned by not uploading the registered power of attorney is curable. 12. In Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Works, the Apex Court has drawn a distinction in respect of the requirements in a tender notice and categorized them as essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary. The Court has recognized that in respect of essential conditions of eligibility, the authority issuing the tender may enforce those criteria rigidly. While in respect of the other conditions, it may be open to the authority to deviate from the same and not to insist upon strict literal compliance of the conditions in appropriate cases. Similarly, in BSN Joshi and Sons Ltd. Vs. Naresh Coal Services Ltd. reported in (2006) 11 SCC 548 , the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier observations in Poddar Steel Corporation (Supra). In Bakshi Structure and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd., after noting its earlier decisions in Poddar Steel Corporation (Supra) and BSN Joshi (Supra), the Supreme Court observed that the writ jurisdiction of a Court cannot be utilized to make a fresh bargain between the parties. This observation of the Supreme Court has been reiterated in the case of JSW Infrastructure Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Kankinara Sea Ports Ltd. and Ors. 13. We agree with the submissions of Mr. Sen that it is only the authority issuing the tender who can change the terms of the tender document or who can decide whether to “deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the conditions in appropriate cases”. The State in its wisdom has not decided to deviate from the requirement to submit registered Power of Attorney. Therefore, in our opinion, it was not open for the writ Court to consider whether the defect of non-submission of the registered power of attorney could be cured by submitting it later. The State in its wisdom has not decided to deviate from the requirement to submit registered Power of Attorney. Therefore, in our opinion, it was not open for the writ Court to consider whether the defect of non-submission of the registered power of attorney could be cured by submitting it later. As observed by the Supreme Court in JSW Infrastructures Ltd. (Supra), unless it is apparent that the decision taken by an administrative authority is totally arbitrary, perverse or malafide, the writ Courts should not interfere in contractual matters such as the terms and conditions of the notice inviting bids. 14. 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 and arbitrariness. It is also well settled that some technical/procedural evaluation would not warrant judicial interference in commercial matters. 15. Applying the above proposition of law to the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the order impugned is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. 16. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28th April, 2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No12197 (W) of 2017 is set aside and the appeals and the connected applications are allowed. 17. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 18. 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.