JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, C.J. - Although the records of the present case are very bulky, but the point involved is short. What we have to consider in the present case is as to whether a particular condition laid down in the e-tender document which, in the present case, is regarding furnishing an undertaking from the Holding Company, has been complied with or not ? 2. Brief facts of the case are that Mahanadi Coal Field Limited (for short 'MCL')-opposite party no.1 had issued a tender notice on 15.06.2015 (Annexure-1) inviting tenders for setting up of 10 MPTA Coal Washery at Jagannath area, MCL on Build Operate Maintain (BOM) concept. The last date for submission of the bids was 11.09.2015. Admittedly, on 09.09.2015 the petitioner-M/s. S.K. Samanta and Co (P) Ltd. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s. Schenck Process India Private Ltd. and M/s. MSDE Engineering Pvt. Ltd., with the petitioner being the lead partner of the consortium. The petitioner, being the Lead Member, was to comply with the requirement of financial eligibility criteria; M/s. Schenck Process India (P) Ltd. was to comply with the technical eligibility criteria regarding setting up of the Washery; and M/s. MSDE Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was to comply with the technical eligibility criteria regarding operation and maintenance of the Coal Washery. The petitioner, as Lead Member, submitted the bid through the consortium route and uploaded relevant documents on the e-procurement portal of the MCL, after furnishing requisite security deposit in the form of bank guarantee of Rs. 50.00 lakh. As per the e-tender document, the technical bids were to be opened on 16.09.2015. It is an admitted position that the petitioner as well as Global Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd. were the only two parties which were technically qualified. The financial bid was then opened on 20.09.2015, which was as per the scheduled date given in the tender document. The bid of the petitioner was the lowest, at a little over Rs. 4863 crores, i.e. Rs. 4863,31,92,735.09, whereas that of the other bidder, M/s. Global Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd. was little over Rs. 4881 crores, i.e., Rs. 4881,46,15,734.06. On the same day, i.e. on 20.09.2015, the petitioner was declared as the lowest bidder. The bid of the petitioner was the lowest, at a little over Rs. 4863 crores, i.e. Rs. 4863,31,92,735.09, whereas that of the other bidder, M/s. Global Coal and Mining Pvt. Ltd. was little over Rs. 4881 crores, i.e., Rs. 4881,46,15,734.06. On the same day, i.e. on 20.09.2015, the petitioner was declared as the lowest bidder. In terms of the tender document, the petitioner was to furnish the conformity documents by uploading the same on the e-portal of the MCL between 21.09.2015 and 21.10.2015, which, according to the petitioner, were duly uploaded. Then on 07.01.2016 the petitioner was notified by the MCL for further uploading certain documents by 17.01.2016. According to the petitioner, the required documents were uploaded on the e-portal of the MCL on 16.01.2016. At this stage, in response to the query made by MCL, the petitioner had uploaded one letter dated 26.05.2014 of M/s. Schenck Process Holding, GmbH, Germany (for short 'S.P. Holding, Germany'), wherein it was mentioned that M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany confirmed that M/s. Schenck Process India Pvt. Ltd. (for short 'M/s. S.P. India') and M/s. Schenck Process (Tianjin) Industrial Technology Co. Ltd., China (for short 'M/s. S.P. China') form part of group of companies called "Schenck Process Group", which is ultimately owned by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany. This was furnished by the petitioner, as the technical qualification for performing the part of the contract by M/s. S.P. India was to be carried out by M/s. S.P. China, which had the experience of such work and was a part of M/s. Schenck Process Group with M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany as the holding company. Thereafter there was no communication with the petitioner-company from MCL. However, after getting the aforesaid information by way of documents furnished by the petitioner on 16.01.2016, the opposite party-MCL wrote to M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany on 11.04.2016 requiring them to furnish certain details and clarifications with regard to information furnished by the petitioner. There were five queries/clarifications sought by MCL vide its letter dated 11.04.2016, which were numbered as (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e). The relevant clarification of Clause (d) is reproduced herein below : Clarification required from M/s. Schenck Process Holding GmbH, Germany. There were five queries/clarifications sought by MCL vide its letter dated 11.04.2016, which were numbered as (a), (b), (c), (d) & (e). The relevant clarification of Clause (d) is reproduced herein below : Clarification required from M/s. Schenck Process Holding GmbH, Germany. (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx (d) If para b) & c) are affirmative, then a Letter of Undertaking in the letter head of M/s. Schenck Process Holding GmbH, Germany as per CI. No. 6.1 (d) of Bid document in the format given hereafter is required: Letter of Undertaking In case of any untoward happenings towards the successful execution of the contract and / or event occurring that are distinct and different from the stipulated terms & conditions of this Bid Document as applicable and attributable to M/s. Schenck Process India Private Limited (formerly known as M/s. Schenck Process India Limited) account, its holding company, M/s. Schenck Process Holding GmbH, Germany shall be legally bound both jointly and severally to this contract for discharging all the contractual obligations on behalf of M/s. Schenck Process India Private Limited (formerly known as M/s. Schenck Process India Limited). (emphasis supplied) The said clarification was to be furnished by 30.04.2016. However, M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany sought for extension of time, which was granted and they were required to respond to the queries/clarifications by 31.5.2016. Then on 30th May, 2016, the Holding Company, i.e. M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany responded by giving replies to the other queries except Query No. (d). The MCL thereafter did not communicate with the Holding Company but instead, wrote to the petitioner on 08.06.2016 requiring them to comply with the undertaking as required under Clause 6.1(d) of the tender document, which was to be furnished by the Holding Company and also required confirmation to be obtained from the Holding Company that both M/s. S.P. India and M/s. S.P. China are subsidiaries of M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany. The said information/documents were to be furnished by the petitioner on or before 23.6.2016. As admitted in para-8 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner submitted its response to the communication dated 8.6.2016 on 23.6.2016 by appending the copy of the communication sent by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany on 30.5.2016, which was the same response that had been given by the said Holding Company directly to MCL. As admitted in para-8 of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner submitted its response to the communication dated 8.6.2016 on 23.6.2016 by appending the copy of the communication sent by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany on 30.5.2016, which was the same response that had been given by the said Holding Company directly to MCL. Then on 5.7.2016, the process was initiated by the Tender Committee for cancellation of the bid of the petitioner for non-furnishing of the information and undertaking sought from them. The recommendation made by the Tender Committee was placed before the General Manager (Washery), MCL for cancellation of the tender. The General Manager (Washery), MCL thereafter submitted a summary report before the competent authority with the recommendation of the Tender Committee to cancel the tender and forfeit the bid security of the petitioner and that further in case of re-tender, the petitioner would not be permitted to participate in terms of Clause 17 (b) of the e-tender notice. The cancellation order was passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 6.10.2016, which was communicated by the General Manager (Washery), MCL on the same day i.e. 6.10.2016. Challenging the said cancellation of the tender and rejection of the bid of the petitioner as well as forfeiture of the bid security, and not permitting the petitioner to participate in the re-tender, this writ petition has been filed. We have heard Shri S.P. Mishra, learned Advocate General along with Shri Nalini Kanta Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well as Mr. Jagannath Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri Debaraj Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite party- MCL and perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged. With the consent of parties, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. Facts as stated above are not disputed by the parties. 3. The contention of Shri S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that the required undertaking to be given by the Holding Company in terms of Clause 6.1(d) of e-tender document was not an essential requirement, and the same could not be said to be mandatory and was merely an ancillary requirement as the petitioner-company, which was a Lead Member of the consortium, had already given an undertaking to indemnify the loses, if any, and for execution of the work. It is further submitted that undertaking to be given was on Ext.5 of the e-tender document, which, according to the petitioner, was a blank page and as such, it could not be understood as to what kind of undertaking was to be given. It is further submitted that one consortium Member i.e. M/s. S.P. India, had made a communication with MCL on 25.7.2016 enclosing a draft letter of undertaking to be given by M/s S.P. Holding, Germany and MCL has not yet responded to the same. As such, according to the petitioner, the matter regarding furnishing of undertaking by the Holding Company is still alive. Although it is admitted that the draft letter of undertaking sent on 25.7.2016 was not in terms of Clause 6.1(d) of the e-tender document or clarification/query made by the communication dated 11.4.2016, yet Shri S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, on having received instruction, has made a statement that the petitioner is ready and willing to give the exact undertaking as required by the communication dated 11.4.2016 within such time as may be granted by this Court. It was lastly submitted by Shri Mishra that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 for rejecting the bid of the petitioner, and cancellation of its tender and imposing further punishment, which clearly shows non-application of mind by the competent authority. 4. Per contra, Shri Jagannath Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel for the MCL-opposite party no. 1 has contended that at the time of furnishing of the bid documents, there was no mention of M/s. S.P. China being involved in the performance of the contract and it was for the first time, that is on 16.01.2016, the petitioner had furnished documents to show that M/s. S.P. China would be performing the work on behalf of M/s. S.P. India (which was a member of the petitioner-consortium) and that the Holding Company of M/s. S.P. India and M/s. S.P. China was M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany. It is further contended that the communication dated 26.05.2014 by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany, which the petitioner contends as an undertaking, said to be sufficient in compliance of Clause 6.1(d) of the e-tender document, was brought on record for the first time on 16.01.2016, and the same can also not be construed to be an undertaking but merely a declaration given with regard to the status of the Holding Company vis-?-vis the subsidiary companies. It is further submitted that as per the e-tender notice, the petitioner had to file all the requisite documents in terms of Clause 17 of the e-tender document within a stipulated time. The petitioner had furnished certain documents between 21.9.2015 to 21.10.2015, but thereafter since certain documents were lacking, the petitioner was communicated on 7.1.2016 to furnish the remaining documents by 17.1.2016. It is contended that although certain documents had been furnished by the petitioner on 16.01.2016, but the requisite undertaking by the Holding Company, and certain clarifications, were not furnished by the petitioner. It is next contended that the communication by the MCL with M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany directly on 11.4.2016 was necessitated because of certain fresh information furnished by the petitioner on 16.01.2016 and when requisite undertaking was not furnished by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany within the time given to them, the petitioner was required by the MCL on 8.6.2016 to furnish the required undertaking and other information, which the petitioner failed to do and merely resubmitted the communication of M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany dated 30.5.2016 to MCL on 23.06.2016, in response to the query made by MCL on 8.6.2016. Thereafter, the Tender Committee of the MCL had, on 05.07.2016, initiated proceedings for cancellation of the tender, which culminated in passing of the impugned order dated 6.10.2016, which was perfectly justified in law and in terms of the e-tender notice. It is thus contented that the writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the record. 6. The question as to whether furnishing of undertaking by the Holding Company, in case of a consortium, is an essential condition or not, is to be first answered/considered. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully perused the record. 6. The question as to whether furnishing of undertaking by the Holding Company, in case of a consortium, is an essential condition or not, is to be first answered/considered. Clause 6.1 (d) of the e-tender notice reads as under: "Section -6 Price Bid 6.1 Bid Price a) xxx xxx xxx b) xxx xxx xxx c) xxx xxx xxx d) In case the Bidder Consortium Partner(s) being a Subsidiary company JV Company, submitting its Bid on the financial strength and or technical competence of its holding company JV Partner(s), it has to obtain and produce a Letter of Undertaking as Exhibit-5, to the effect that in case of any untoward happenings towards the successful execution of the contract and or event occurring that are distinct and different from the stipulated terms & conditions of the CRFQ & this Bid Document as applicable and attributable to Bidders Consortium Partner's account, its holding company JV Partner(s) shall be legally bound both jointly and severally to this contract for discharging all the contractual obligations on behalf of Bidder Consortium Partner(s)." The said clause is not under challenge in this writ petition. The question as to whether an undertaking by the Holding Company of a subsidiary company (which is a Member of the consortium) for successful execution of the contract is to be given or not, is not in dispute, as the same is clearly provided for in the aforesaid clause of the e-tender notice. Whether the same is an essential condition or a formal one, is to be considered. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the same cannot be said to be an essential condition as the petitioner company, as Lead member of the consortium, had already given an undertaking for indemnifying any losses for successful completion of the project, as such an undertaking to be given by the Holding Company of a subsidiary company-Member of the consortium, would not be essential, because the interest of MCL is safeguarded by the undertaking given by the petitioner. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Poddar Steel Corporation v. Ganesh Engineering Works and others, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited v. State of Odisha & another, reported in 2017 (I) ILR-CUT-922. 8. We have gone through the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Poddar Steel Corporation (supra), the bidders were required to submit their bids accompanied by earnest money to be deposited by cash or demand draft drawn by the State Bank of India, but the successful bidder, i.e. respondent no.1 therein, had deposited the earnest money by sending the cheque of Union Bank of India drawn on its own branch. Thus, the question as to whether submission of cheque drawn on Union Bank of India by the successful bidder towards deposit of earnest money instead of demand draft to be drawn on State Bank of India was sufficient compliance of the condition of the tender call notice, was under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Answering the said issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at paragraph-6 of the said judgment, held 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 non-compliance 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. 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. This aspect was examined by this Court in GJ Fernandez v. State of Karnataka 7 Ors., [1990] 2 SCC 488 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., [1979] 3 SCC 489 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." In the case of Nestor Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra), the question as to whether the bank guarantee furnished by the bidder was strictly in the format as prescribed in the tender notice or not. The format in which a particular bank guarantee or an undertaking is to be given, may be varied, but in the present case where an undertaking is required to be given and the same has never been furnished, in any format, the question of considering the sufficiency of furnishing the said undertaking in a particular form, would not arise at all. It is true that once the essential requirement of furnishing bank guarantee or undertaking is fulfilled, this Court can go into the question as to whether the format in which the bank guarantee or undertaking has been furnished, fulfills the requirement of the tender document or not. But where the undertaking, as required in the e-tender document, has not at all been furnished, the question of this Court deciding whether the same was in proper format or not, cannot be there. Admittedly, Clause-17 of the e-tender document required furnishing of certain papers after acceptance of the bid. Along with Clause-17, the list of documents required to be furnished by the L-1 bidder has been given. In Block-A of the list of documents, at Sl. No. 6 is the requirement of undertaking by the Holding Company as per Clause 6.1 (d) of Section 6 of the bid document in format of Ext.5. Clause 6.1(d) specifically requires the undertaking by the Holding Company in the format given therein. Ext.5, which is said to be a blank page by the petitioner, is not actually a blank page, but in the page mentioned as Ext.5, it is stated that it is for an undertaking by the Holding Company as per Clause 6.1 (d) of the bid document. As such, it is clear to us that Ext.5 is for giving an undertaking by the Holding Company as per aforesaid Clause 6.1(d). Thus, the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Ext.5 in the bid documents is a blank page, is not correct, and there cannot be any confusion with regard to the same. The order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of MCL, impugned herein, is in continuation of the consideration as to whether the Tender Committee has given a detailed report with regard to non-furnishing of undertaking, as well as certain other informations. On the basis of the detailed report of the Tender Committee, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has approved the recommendation of the Tender Committee (at pages 152-159) cancelling the tender and forfeiting the bid security of Rs. 50.00 lakh of the petitioner. On the basis of the detailed report of the Tender Committee, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has approved the recommendation of the Tender Committee (at pages 152-159) cancelling the tender and forfeiting the bid security of Rs. 50.00 lakh of the petitioner. He further approved the recommendation to the effect that re-tender is to be done, as well as the recommendation of the Tender Committee for not accepting the offer of the petitioner, in case of re-tender, as per Clause 17(b) of the notice inviting tender and also cancellation of the bid of the petitioner. 9. The principles laying down the scope of judicial review are no more res integra. The most celebrated decision in this aspect is Tata Cellular v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1996 SC 11 . The principles of scope of judicial review in contractual matters, laid down therein still holds the field and have been followed till today. Following the principles laid down in Tata Cellular (supra) and several other case laws, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the following principles in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 as follows: "19. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and malafides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not to check whether choice or decision is 'sound'. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions. 10. Sri Mishra, learned Senior Counsel further submitted that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order dated 06.10.2016 justifying rejection of the bid of the petitioner, canceling of the tender as well as imposing further punishment under Clause 17(b) of the tender notice. 11. On careful perusal of records, particularly, the Tender Committee Recommendation (TCR), it is apparent that the Tender Committee has meticulously dealt with and scrutinized all technical and factual aspects and made the recommendation, as stated above, after due application of mind. The Managing Director has only approved the recommendation and passed the impugned order. No detailed/reasoned order need be passed while approving the recommendation of the Tender Committee, otherwise, it would amount to mere repetition of reasons given by the Tender Committee. The question would have been different, had the Managing Director differed/modified the TCR. In that event, the Managing Director would be required to give his own reason to justify his action. The petitioner in this case does not dispute or find any fault or short comings in the TCR. Thus, the contention of Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel has no force. 12. It is further contended by the petitioner that in report of the Tender Committee, besides non-furnishing of undertaking on the letter-head of the Holding Company, the Tender Committee has also considered non-confirmation by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany to the effect that M/s. S.P. India and M/s. S.P. China are subsidiaries of M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany. 12. It is further contended by the petitioner that in report of the Tender Committee, besides non-furnishing of undertaking on the letter-head of the Holding Company, the Tender Committee has also considered non-confirmation by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany to the effect that M/s. S.P. India and M/s. S.P. China are subsidiaries of M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany. Such a certificate is said to have been given by M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany on 26.05.2014, with re-confirmation on 30.05.2016 in its communication in response to the query made on 11.04.2016, wherein it has been stated that M/s. S.P. India and M/s. S.P. China form part of Group of Companies called "Schenck Process Group". The same does not specify that M/s. SP Holding, Germany is the Holding Company of the two companies. Further, the certificate dated 26.05.2014 was issued prior to issuance of e-tender notice, and by communication dated 30.05.2016 also it was not clearly stated that it was subsidiary of M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany but only that it was a part of Schenck Process Group. As such, nowhere has it been stated that it is of subsidiary company of M/s. S.P. Holding, Germany, which was required to be given. 13. However, the same is a technical aspect. The main deficiency in furnishing of the documents by the petitioner is non-furnishing of undertaking as required by Clause 6.1 (d) of the e-tender notice. The said undertaking has admittedly not been furnished till date, in any format, either as prescribed in the bid document or otherwise. As such, passing of the impugned order for non-compliance of such undertaking is fully justified in law. Thus, the order dated 06.10.2016 passed under Clause-17(b) of the bid document, impugned herein is also justified and does not also call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. Final Result : Dismissed