JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging a tender process initiated by a Notice Inviting Tender (in short, NIT) dated 12th December, 2017 inviting bid/offers for allotment of a plot of land/structure/property at Remount Road, on long term lease of 30 years on ‘as is where is’ basis, without renewal option, against payment of annual rent or upfront. 2. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that responding to the said NIT the petitioner duly applied and submitted his initial price offer at Rs.6,45,916/-, more than the reserve actual rate stipulated for the order and accordingly the total price as initially submitted by the petitioner in his initial price offer was Rs.61,41,811/-, as would be explicit from a printout copy of the screenshot dated 29th January, 2018. On 20th March, 2018 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner participated in the price bid portion of the e-tender process and the petitioner’s e-bid was of Rs.72,11,011/- which turned out to be the highest bid for the said electronic e-auction. Such fact would be explicit from the documents annexed at pages 81 and 82 of the writ petition, wherein it has inter alia been stated that “you are HI bidder” and under the buyer and status report, the status was shown to be “sold”. Though the petitioner was the highest bidder, he was not awarded the work order. The petitioner submitted a representation on 3rd April, 2018 requesting the respondent authorities to take steps in terms of the NIT and to issue the letter of allotment. Surprisingly thereafter by an email dated 18th May, 2018 the petitioner was intimated that he has been declared as an unsuccessful bidder. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the writ petition and an interim order was passed on 29th May, 2018 restraining the respondents from taking any further steps including handing over possession of the plot in question in favour of any third party apart from the petitioner. After the interim order was passed, an application being GA no. 1326 of 2018, was filed on behalf of IRC Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (in short, IRC) inter alia praying for addition as a party respondent and for vacating the interim order. By an order dated 18th June, 2018 this Court allowed such application for addition and IRC was impleaded as a party respondent to the present writ petition. 4. Mr. 1326 of 2018, was filed on behalf of IRC Commercial Pvt. Ltd. (in short, IRC) inter alia praying for addition as a party respondent and for vacating the interim order. By an order dated 18th June, 2018 this Court allowed such application for addition and IRC was impleaded as a party respondent to the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Bhattacharya further submits that it is manifest from the e-mail dated 18th May, 2018, that for inexplicable reasons, the petitioner despite having been found the highest bidder, has subsequently been declared as the unsuccessful bidder, which is ex-facie illegal. The authorities have thus acted in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner warranting interference of this Court. 5. Drawing the attention of this Court to clause 2 of the “important instructions to e-tender” being Annexure-II of the NIT and to the “evaluation criteria” in Annexure VII of the NIT, particularly the contents of clauses 7, 8 and 9, Mr. Mitra, learned senior Counsel appearing for Kolkata Port Trust (in short, KoPT), submits that it had been specifically indicated in the said document that Techno Commercial bid will be opened electronically on specified date and time and that the date and time of e-auction will be intimated to the Techno Commercial qualified bidder and once the e-auction amongst the qualified tenderers is over, Price bids of those bidders shall be opened electronically and thereafter the highest rate amongst all the parties received through the e-auction and the Price bids shall be accepted as a HI bid for the tender for the concerned plot. According to him, the authorities have strictly followed the terms and conditions of the NIT in conducting the tender process and after the e-auction was over, the price bids of the different bidders submitted electronically, were opened and a comparative statement was prepared to ascertain the highest bidder. In support of such contention, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the document annexed at page 23 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of KoPT. 6. As regards the documents annexed at pages 81 and 82 of the writ petition, Mr. Mitra submits that the receipt at page 81 is a copy of the screenshot obtained during the ongoing bid process and thus it could never be considered as a communication from KoPT’s end. 6. As regards the documents annexed at pages 81 and 82 of the writ petition, Mr. Mitra submits that the receipt at page 81 is a copy of the screenshot obtained during the ongoing bid process and thus it could never be considered as a communication from KoPT’s end. The said document did not create any right in favour of the petitioner to claim to be the highest bidder in the tender process. It is explicit from the said document at page 23 that after qualifying in the Techno Commercial bid and upon e-auction and Price bid, IRC was the HI bidder. In view thereof, this Court is unable to accept the argument of Mr. Bhattacharya that the petitioner emerged to be the highest bidder in the tender process. 7. In course of hearing of the present writ petition, the KoPT authorities affirmed an affidavit-in-opposition placing on record the Minutes of the meeting of the Tender Committee held on 22nd March, 2018. In the said Minutes, it was inter alia observed as follows :- “TC was also informed that as per KDS record, M/s. record, M/s. IRC Commercial Pvt. Ltd., the highest bidder, has an estate dues of Rs.17,66,935.77 as on 12.12.17 (i.e. date of NIT) as against the bidders statement of nil dues during bid submission. It was also noted by the Tender Committee that as per clause No.9 (ii) of Annexure V of the tender document, the successful bidders should not have mutually admitted estate port dues as on the date of NIT. Else, they would have to pay the Annual Rent by upfront.” 8. Though an objection was raised on behalf of by Mr. Mitra as well as by Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior Counsel appearing for IRC that on the basis of the said document Mr. Bhattacharya cannot argue any fresh issue, this Court negated such objection since on the date the writ petition was filed, the said document was neither disclosed nor it was in the possession of the petitioner. Placing reliance upon the said observations, Mr. Bhattacharya argued that on the date the NIT was issued, i.e., on 12th December, 2017, though IRC had estate dues to the tune of Rs.17,66,935.77, in the bidders statement it had stated that its dues were “Nil”. Placing reliance upon the said observations, Mr. Bhattacharya argued that on the date the NIT was issued, i.e., on 12th December, 2017, though IRC had estate dues to the tune of Rs.17,66,935.77, in the bidders statement it had stated that its dues were “Nil”. For such suppression, IRC was liable to be disqualified from participating in the tender process since on the date of issuance of the NIT it had dues of an amount of Rs.17,66,935.77 and the earnest money ought to have been forfeited in terms of clause 15(iii) all the “general information of bidders” in Annexure-V of the NIT. 9. Now, it needs to be ascertained as to whether there was a suppression on the part of IRC and as to whether it had estate dues of Rs.17,66,935.77 as on 12th December, 2017. 10. Mr. Mukherjee, learned senior counsel appearing for IRC submits that as on 12th December, 2017, no estate dues were payable by IRC to KoPT. In support of such contention he has placed reliance upon the averments made in the application being GA 1326 of 2018 and the documents annexed to the said application. 11. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the documents annexed to the supplementary affidavit filed by IRC to establish that IRC had no estate dues as on the date of issuance of the NIT. 12. In the said affidavit it has been stated in paragraph 3 that in the month of March, 2006, the KoPT Authorities floated a tender for leasing out a club, restaurant and eating house. The IRC participated and succeeded in the same. Thereafter by a letter dated 6th July, 2017 IRC was required to deposit with the KoPT authorities, rent of one year amounting to Rs.15,03,000/- and GST @ 18% amounting to Rs.2,70,540/- totaling Rs.17,73,540/- in addition to applicable municipal tax and less TDS. Upon adjustment of the said dues with the earnest money deposit, the balance amount came to be of Rs.10,06,711/-. A cheque of the said amount of Rs.10,06,711/- was drawn on 4th August, 2017 and submitted to the KoPT authorities. However, the said cheque was not encashed and a request was made to IRC to submit a fresh cheque of the said amount. Such fact would be explicit from the document annexed at page 15 of the said affidavit. A cheque of the said amount of Rs.10,06,711/- was drawn on 4th August, 2017 and submitted to the KoPT authorities. However, the said cheque was not encashed and a request was made to IRC to submit a fresh cheque of the said amount. Such fact would be explicit from the document annexed at page 15 of the said affidavit. The fresh cheque of an amount of Rs.10,06,711/- issued in favour of KoPT was dated 1st November, 2017. A receipt towards such payment was issued by KoPT on 12th December, 2017. The said cheque was encashed, as would be explicit from the account statement annexed to the said affidavit. The TDS pertaining to the said amount of Rs.1,50,31,000/- being Rs.150300/- was deducted and in support of such fact the TDS Certificate has also been annexed at pages 19 and 20 of the said affidavit. 13. Mr. Mitra has also stated that the cheque issued on 4th August, 2017 was not deposited by the KoPT authorities and IRC was asked to issue a fresh cheque and accordingly IRC issued a fresh cheque on 1st November, 2017 and the same was encashed by the KoPT Authorities and as such it was an error on the part of the KoPT authorities to record that as on 12th December, 2017 the total estate dues of the IRC were of Rs.17,66,935.77. 14. Mr. Bhattacharya has also produced a document giving the details of outstanding rent and interest as on 2nd April, 2018. The same appears to be pertaining to a bill dated 30th November, 2017. The gross amount was indicated to be Rs.10,06,711/-. Let the said receipt be kept on record. Placing reliance upon the same and drawing the attention of this Court the receipt annexed at page 17 of the supplementary affidavit, Mr. Bhattacharya, in reply, submits that the said amount was accepted as a part payment of arrear rent/licenses fee and taxes to be kept in suspense account. Thus, IRC did not make payment of the total dues. The said due of Rs.17,66,935.77 was pertaining to an earlier tender process and irrespective of the said dues, further amount was due and payable by IRC. Such argument of Mr. Bhattacharya, is however, not acceptable to this Court in view of the documents annexed to the supplementary affidavit by IRC which clearly indicate that on 12th December, 2017, no estate dues were payable by IRC. 15. Such argument of Mr. Bhattacharya, is however, not acceptable to this Court in view of the documents annexed to the supplementary affidavit by IRC which clearly indicate that on 12th December, 2017, no estate dues were payable by IRC. 15. It is well settled that the writ Court cannot be transpose itself as an appellate authority. The scope of judicial review in award of contract is very limited. It, however, needs to be ascertained as to whether the action of the authorities suffers from arbitrariness and unreasonableness. No malafide can be attributed to the action of the KoPT authorities and it cannot be said that the said authorities have acted in a manner which would benefit a private party at the cost of the authorities. The petitioner has failed to establish any arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the tender process. 16. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is unable to grant the reliefs, as prayed for, in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed and in view thereof, the application being the GA no. 1326 of 2018 stands disposed of. 17. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner prays for stay of operation of the order. Such prayer is considered and rejected.