JUDGMENT : A.K. GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Mr. B. Sarma. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the common judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos.4359/2018 and 4360/2018. 3. A Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 20.02.2018 was issued by the office of the Chief Engineer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon, for the following works: “At Kamakhya yard – Augmentation of Coach Maintenance facilities by providing additional Pit line no.3 (630m) and providing additional Sick line no.3 (250m) by extension and conversion of existing Parcel Siding (80m), extension of existing Sick line Shed by 120m, extension of Shunting Neck (Dead End) towards RNY (160m) to provide reception and dispatch facilities in Stabling line 4 and & 5, diversion of service road near Sick Shed on existing Drain and other Ancillary works in connection with NBQ-GLPT-KYQ Doubling Project.” 4. The tender value as indicated in the NIT is Rs.49,09,48,021.53. The open tenders were invited through e-Tendering system. The respondent had submitted his tender. It is not in dispute that the tender of the respondent was rejected as incomplete on the ground that the affidavit submitted by the respondent along with the tender was not as per format, namely, Annexure-C of the tender documents. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had not submitted tender as per Annexure-C, but had otherwise submitted an affidavit. The learned Single Judge compared format of Annexure-C with the affidavit filed by the respondent and opined that an analysis of the affidavits would reveal that the substance in both the affidavits is same and accordingly, held that rejection of the respondent’s tender at the technical bid stage was more of form than of substance and, accordingly, directed the appellant to open the price bid of the respondent for consideration on its own merit vis-à-vis the price of the other tenderers which had already been opened. 5. On 09.07.2018, the learned Single Judge had passed an interim order to the effect that price bid should not be opened. However, it appears that much prior to passing of the interim order, on 29.06.2018, price bid were opened. 5. On 09.07.2018, the learned Single Judge had passed an interim order to the effect that price bid should not be opened. However, it appears that much prior to passing of the interim order, on 29.06.2018, price bid were opened. It is also not in dispute that after opening of the price bid, the respondent had physically handed over an affidavit in the prescribed format Annexure-C on 02.07.2018. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Dasgupta that the “Note” of the tender, which is above the eligibility criteria as prescribed in clause 2, made it absolutely clear that the tenderers are compulsorily required to submit affidavit as per Annexure-C and without that the offer of the tenderer will be considered as incomplete and would be rejected summarily. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to “Instructions to the tenderers” and more particularly, to clause A.(ix), to contend that the “Note” was reiterated in bold letters and despite that, the respondent had chosen to submit affidavit in his own terms. He submits that when the tendering authority had made the above stipulation, the learned Single Judge was wholly unjustified in passing the impugned order. Mr. Dasgupta has further submitted that the learned Single Judge was, in any event, not justified in directing opening of price bid of the respondent, when his technical bid was not considered. Without consideration of the technical bid, no direction could have been issued for opening the price bid, he contends. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited and another Vs. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 , with particular emphasis on paragraphs 49 and 50. 7. Mr. Sahewalla has submitted that the ratio of Central Coalfields Limited (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, as submission of an affidavit is not an eligibility criteria and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge was wholly justified. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 9. 8. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 9. In Central Coalfields Limited (supra), the question for consideration, before the Supreme Court, generally, was as to whether furnishing a bank guarantee in the format prescribed in the bid documents is an essential requirement in the bidding process of Central Coalfields Limited and specifically, whether a bid not accompanied by a bank guarantee in the format prescribed in the bid documents of Central Coalfields Limited, could be treated as non-responsive, in view of Clause 15.2 of the general terms and conditions governing the bid process. The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered to the general and specific question in the affirmative. In paragraph 12, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- “12. In Para 11 of GTC, it was specifically mentioned that the bid security of earnest money was required to be deposited in the appropriate form and in Para 15.2 thereof it was specifically stated that any bid not accompanied by an acceptable bid security/earnest money deposit shall be rejected as non-responsive.” 10. It will be relevant, at this juncture, to reproduce the “Note” in the NIT dated 20.02.2018, which reads as follows:- “Note: The complete information and tender document of e-Tender will be available upto 14:30 hrs of 01/06/2018 at www.ireps.gov.in. Tenderers are required to submit their bid on this website only. Tenderers are required to register themselves with IREPS. Registration requires procurement of Class III Digital Signature Certificate and Digital Encryption Certificate. Only online payment of cost of tender document and Earnest Money Deposit will be accepted. (a) Tenders are compulsorily required to submit Affidavit as per Annexure-C of tender document without that the offer will be considered as incomplete and will be rejected summarily.” 11. It will also be apposite to extract Clause A.(ix) of the “Instructions to the tenderers”, which was put in bold letters. It reads as follows:- “A.(ix) If the Tenderer(s) fail to submit the Affidavit as prescribed above along with his/their offer, his/their offer shall be considered incomplete and will be rejected summarily.” 12. In paragraph 37, after considering a large number of decisions on the subject, the Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited (supra) observed that when a format was prescribed, there was no reason not to adhere to it. 13. In paragraph 37, after considering a large number of decisions on the subject, the Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited (supra) observed that when a format was prescribed, there was no reason not to adhere to it. 13. At paragraphs 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52, it was observed as follows:- “47. The result of this discussion is that the issue of the acceptance or rejection of a bid or a bidder should be looked at not only from the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. As held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty, the terms of the NIT cannot be ignored as being redundant or superfluous. They must be given a meaning and the necessary significance. As pointed out in Tata Cellular there must be judicial restraint in interfering with administrative action. Ordinarily, the soundness of the decision taken by the employer ought not to be questioned but the decision making process can certainly be subject to judicial review. The soundness of the decision may be questioned if it is irrational or mala fide or intended to favour someone or a decision "that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached" as held in Jagdish Mandal followed in Michigan Rubber. 48. Therefore, whether a term of the NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the term is essential, the employer has the inherent authority to deviate from it provided the deviation is made applicable to all bidders and potential bidders as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty. However, if the term is held by the employer to be ancillary or subsidiary, even that decision should be respected. The lawfulness of that decision can be questioned on very limited grounds, as mentioned in the various decisions discussed above, but the soundness of the decision cannot be questioned, otherwise this Court would be taking over the function of the tender issuing authority, which it cannot. 49. Again, looked at from the point of view of the employer if the Courts take over the decision-making function of the employer and make a distinction between essential and non-essential terms contrary to the intention of the employer and thereby re-write the arrangement, it could lead to all sorts of problems including the one that we are grappling with. 49. Again, looked at from the point of view of the employer if the Courts take over the decision-making function of the employer and make a distinction between essential and non-essential terms contrary to the intention of the employer and thereby re-write the arrangement, it could lead to all sorts of problems including the one that we are grappling with. For example, the GTC that we are concerned with specifically states in Clause 15.2 that "Any Bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security/EMD shall be rejected by the employer as non-responsive." Surely, CCL ex facie intended this term to be mandatory, yet the High Court held that the bank guarantee in a format not prescribed by it ought to be accepted since that requirement was a non-essential term of the GTC. From the point of view of CCL the GTC has been impermissibly re-written by the High Court. 50. Yet another problem could be faced by an employer (such as CCL) if the language used in the terms of the NIT or the GTC is not adhered to and its plain meaning discarded. A problem could be faced by an employer if every bidder furnishes a bank guarantee in a different format or one that it is comfortable with. In such a situation, CCL would have to scrutinize each bank guarantee to ascertain whether it meets with its requirements and the NIT and the GTC. Apart from the text of the bank guarantee, minor changes could be made by a bidder such as enforceability in a place other than Ranchi (but in Jharkhand), etc. This would place an avoidable and undue burden on the employer particularly if there are a large number of bidders. 51. Not only this, any decision taken by the employer in accepting or rejecting a particular bank guarantee in a format not prescribed by it could lead to (avoidable) litigation requiring the employer to justify the rejection or acceptance of each bank guarantee. This is hardly conducive to a smooth and hassle-free bidding process.” 14. The conclusion at paragraph 55 was as follows:- “55. This is hardly conducive to a smooth and hassle-free bidding process.” 14. The conclusion at paragraph 55 was as follows:- “55. On the basis of the available case law, we are of the view that since CCL had not relaxed or deviated from the requirement of furnishing a bank guarantee in the prescribed format, in so far as the present appeals are concerned every bidder was obliged to adhere to the prescribed format of the bank guarantee. Consequently, the failure of JVC to furnish the bank guarantee in the prescribed format was sufficient reason for CCL to reject its bid.” 15. A consideration of the observations noted above will go to show that acceptance or rejection of a bid of a bidder should be looked at not only on the point of view of the unsuccessful party but also from the point of view of the employer. The soundness of the administrative decision may be questioned if it is irrational or malafide or intended to favour someone or a decision that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law would have reached. Whether a term of NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. An employer will be confronted with difficulties if each and every tenderer furnishes documents not in the prescribed format, but in their own way, as in that event, it will involve scrutiny of documents, which, in turn, will put avoidable and undue burden. In the fact situation of the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that every bidder was obliged to adhere to the prescribed format of the bank guarantee and it was held that for failure of the bidder to furnish the bank guarantee in the prescribed format was sufficient reason for rejection of the bid. 16. In the instant case, the “Note” very clearly laid down that the tenderers are compulsorily required to submit affidavit as per Annexure-C of the tender document. It was explicitly made clear that that otherwise the offer will be considered as incomplete and would be rejected summarily. Clause A.(ix) of the “Instructions to tenderers” in bold letters invited the attention of the tenderers that if they failed to submit the affidavit(s) as prescribed along with the tender, their offer shall be considered incomplete and would be rejected summarily. 17. The contention of Mr. Clause A.(ix) of the “Instructions to tenderers” in bold letters invited the attention of the tenderers that if they failed to submit the affidavit(s) as prescribed along with the tender, their offer shall be considered incomplete and would be rejected summarily. 17. The contention of Mr. Sahewalla that the submission of affidavit was not an eligibility criteria and therefore, that ought not to have merited rejection of the tender of the respondent, in the teeth of the conditions stipulated above, is to be rejected as without any merit. Even before consideration of the technical bid, for not submitting the affidavit in the prescribed format, the tender is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it was rejected at the threshold. 18. In our considered opinion, in view of the judgment of the Central Coalfields Limited (supra), the learned Single Judge was not correct in holding that rejection of the technical bid of the respondent appeared to be more of form than of substance. Even otherwise, some of the stipulations made in the Annexure-C format were missing in the affidavit filed by the respondent. There is no material on record to indicate that but for the infirmity in the affidavit, the technical bid of the respondent was considered to be valid. In such circumstances, direction to open the price bid of the respondent, in our considered opinion, was not called for. 19. In view of the above discussions, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in law and, therefore, the same is set aside and quashed. 20. The writ appeal is allowed. No cost.