JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. As these Writ Appeals and Writ petitions raise common issues, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. In W.A.No.598/2018, the 4th and 5th respondents in W.P. (C).No.26206/2016 viz. Sri. Ramesan P., Chairman, Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society and the Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society, represented by its Secretary, are the appellants, and they are aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.2.2018 of the learned Single Judge. The Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society [hereinafter referred to as the 'ULCC Society'] is also the appellant in the connected Writ Appeals, namely, W.A.No.807/2018 and W.A.No.898/2018, wherein, they are aggrieved by the judgment dated 8.2.2018 in W.P.(C).No.2092/2018 and judgment dated 2.3.2018 in W.P.(C).No.5692/2018 of the learned Single Judge, which followed the judgment dated 2.2.2018 in W.P.(C).No.26206/2016 that is impugned in W.A.No.598/2018. W.P. (C).No.13522/2018 and W.P.(C).No.16314/2018 are preferred by certain civil contractors who apprehend that, notwithstanding that they are the lowest tenderers in the bidding process, the work in question would be awarded to the ULCC Society which claims the benefit of price preference consequent to Government Orders that have been issued by the State Government in its favour. 3. The common issue to be considered in all these cases is with regard to the entitlement of Labour Contract Co-operative Societies in general to the benefit of the Government Order dated 13.11.1997, as amended by the Government Order dated 19.3.2004, and that of the ULCC Society, in particular, to the additional benefit of the Government Order dated 2.8.2008. By the former Government Orders, a price preference is enivisaged in favour of beneficiary Co-operative Societies in tenders floated by the Public Works Department [PWD], and by the last mentioned Government Order, a specific exemption is granted to the ULCC Society from the applicable financial restrictions, while undertaking works that can be undertaken by the Society in terms of the former Government Orders. 4. The facts in the writ petitions would indicate that the writ petitioners are all contractors, who responded to Notices Inviting Tender [hereinafter referred to as “NIT”] published by the State Government in the Public Works Department, for undertaking various works. The ULCC Society, the respondent in the writ petitions, was also a bidder in the tender proceedings. In the writ petitions from which the writ appeals arise, the petitioners were the lowest bidders in the tender process. The ULCC Society, the respondent in the writ petitions, was also a bidder in the tender proceedings. In the writ petitions from which the writ appeals arise, the petitioners were the lowest bidders in the tender process. While they were legitimately expecting the work to be awarded to them in view of their status as the 'lowest bidder', the work was awarded to the ULCC Society on the justification that it was a Society that was entitled to a price preference consequent to its quoting a price that was within 10% of the price quoted by the lowest bidder. The writ petitioners challenged the award of work to the ULCC Society on the following grounds: There was no stipulation in the NIT that a price preference would be given to ULCC Society, and hence, such a preference could not have been granted to the Society. Even if the benefit of the Government Orders granting price preference could be extended to the ULCC Society, the Society was entitled to the benefit of price preference only in respect of such works as it could undertake in terms of the said Government Orders and the work under the NIT was not one of such works. 5. The learned Single Judge, who considered the matter, held that, in the absence of a specific stipulation in the NIT, that the benefits of the Government Order dated 13.11.1997, as amended by the Government Order dated 19.3.2004, and those under the Government Order dated 2.8.2008, would be applicable to the tender process, the said Government Orders could not have been relied upon by the State Government, to confer an advantage on the ULCC Society. It was, in particular, noticed that the Government Orders in question had not been published by the State Government either in the Official Gazette or through any other means, and hence, there was no way in which the other participating bidders could have known of the benefits conferred on ULCC Society by the said Government Orders. The mere reference in the NIT's, that all conditions related to PQ tender of Kerala PWD will be applicable to the tender in question, was held to be insufficient to inform the other bidders of the benefits conferred on the ULCC Society, by the various Government Orders. 6. The mere reference in the NIT's, that all conditions related to PQ tender of Kerala PWD will be applicable to the tender in question, was held to be insufficient to inform the other bidders of the benefits conferred on the ULCC Society, by the various Government Orders. 6. In the connected writ petitions, where the tender process has not been finalised, the apprehension of the writ petitioners, who have been identified as the lowest tenderers, is that the work will be awarded to the ULCC Society, by extending the benefit of the Government Orders aforementioned, and it is therefore that they have approached this Court seeking a direction to the State Government to finalise the proceedings strictly in accordance with the terms of the respective NITs and without reference to the Government Orders in favour of the ULCC Society. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the writ petitioners in all these cases. We have also heard the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the official respondents of the State. 8. The issues that arise for consideration in these matters are as follows: Whether, in the absence of a stipulation in the NITs that a price-preference would be given to certain Societies, the benefit of the Government Order dated 13.11.1997, as amended by the Government Order dated 19.3.2004 and the Government Order dated 2.8.2008 could be extended to the ULCC Society ? Alternatively, if the benefit of the aforementioned Government Orders can be extended to ULCC Society, will the benefits contemplated therein enure to ULCC Society in respect of the works covered by the NITs ? 9. Before dealing with the issues aforementioned, it would be apposite to extract the relevant Government Orders referred above. Government Order dated 13.11.1997: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Co-operation Labour Contract Co-operative Societies – Entrustment of works on preferential term and conditions – revised – Orders issued. CO-OPERATION (C), DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms) No.135/97/Co-op. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 13-11-1997 Read: (1) G.O.(MS) No.284/74/AD dated 28-10-74 (2) G.O.(MS) No.136/78/AD dated 12-5-78 (3) G.O.(MS) No.231/84/AD dated 4-8-84 (4) G.O.(MS) No.68/92/Co-op. dated 6-8-92 (5) Correspondence resting with Lr. No.MT (1) 21469/91 dated 9-2-95 from the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Trivandrum. ORDER In the G.O. read as first paper above, orders were issued prescribing the terms and conditions for awarding Government works to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies. dated 6-8-92 (5) Correspondence resting with Lr. No.MT (1) 21469/91 dated 9-2-95 from the Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Trivandrum. ORDER In the G.O. read as first paper above, orders were issued prescribing the terms and conditions for awarding Government works to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies. The monetary limit stipulated in para (4) of the G.O. were revised as per the G.O. read as 2nd & 3rd papers above. 2. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies has pointed out that there has been a long standing demand for the revision of the limits of works that can be entrusted with Labour Contract Co-operative Societies and the limit of advance fixed by the Government due to the considerable increase in the cost of labour and materials and also in view of the revision of the schedule of Rates for works by the Public Works Department several times after issuance of G.O. (MS) 231/84/AD dated 4-8-84 prescribing the limits for each item of work and maximum value of works on hand at any time by the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies. Considering the practical difficulties experienced by the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has suggested certain amendments to the Rules issued in G.O.(MS) 284/74/AD dated 28-10-74 as amended in G.O.(MS) 241/84/AD dated 4-8-84 and G.O.(MS) 68/92/Co-op. dated 6-8-92. 3. Government have examined the proposal in detail and are pleased to issue the following orders in suppression of all existing orders. 4. Eligibility Labour Contract Co-operative Societies should satisfy the following conditions in order to become eligible for the concessions contemplated in these orders: (i) The Societies should have at let 50 (fifty) actual labourers as members and a paid up Share Capital of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only). (ii) Members should be actual labourers, but sympathisers may be admitted upto 10% of the total membership, subject to a maximum of seven members. (iii) The number of sympathiser members in the Committee of the management shall not exceed two. (iv) Membership should be confined to those residing in the area of operation of the society as provided in its Byelaws. (v) Society should undertake works only within the area of operation as provided in the Byelaws. (iii) The number of sympathiser members in the Committee of the management shall not exceed two. (iv) Membership should be confined to those residing in the area of operation of the society as provided in its Byelaws. (v) Society should undertake works only within the area of operation as provided in the Byelaws. (vi) The Society is eligible to undertake a contract work under this G.O. only where the concerned Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies certifies regarding item (i) to (v) above and also that the Society is working satisfactorily and in case of elder Societies that they have been satisfactorily discharging their liabilities to Government in respect of works entrusted earlier. 5. Classification and Limits. (a) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies will classify the Societies into A, B and C Classes as per the following guidelines. 'A' Class The Society should have a minimum paid up Share Capital of Rs.25,000/-with 200 members or more and it should have a standing of 3 years with average value of works taken up annually for the last three years more than Rs.20/-lakhs and should have carried out works satisfactorily in the past and should have a paid Secretary or Manager and a work supervisor as its employees. 'B' Class The Society should have a minimum paid up Share Capital of Rs.15,000/-with 150 members or more and it should have a standing of 2 years with average value of works taken up annually for the last two years more than Rs.10/-lakhs and should have carried out works satisfactorily in the past and should have a paid Secretary or Manager and a work Supervisor as its employees. 'C' Class The Society should have a minimum paid up Share Capital of Rs.10,000/-with 50 members or more and should have a paid Secretary or Manager as its employees. The Classification will be reviewed once in three years by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies based on the specific recommendation of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies of the District concerned recording the reasons thereafter. (5) (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (5) (a) above, in order to award work to the newly registered Labour Contract Co-operative Societies, the classification of which have not been done, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies will include them under Class 'C'. Such classification shall be revised later depending on their audit classification and experience in undertaking works. (5) (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (5) (a) above, in order to award work to the newly registered Labour Contract Co-operative Societies, the classification of which have not been done, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies will include them under Class 'C'. Such classification shall be revised later depending on their audit classification and experience in undertaking works. (6) The limits upto which a particular item of work may be entrusted to the societies and the total value of works a Society may have on hand at any time will be regulated as follows: Class of Society Limit of each item of work Maximum value of works on hand at a time Audit Classification Average number of members employed by the Society at least 200 days in one year for the last three years of last year A class Rs.10.00 lakhs Rs.50.00 lakhs A or B 150 B class Rs.5.00 lakhs Rs.25.00 lakhs A or B 100 C class Rs.2.00 lakhs Rs.10.00 lakhs B or C 25 NOTE:-(i) The estimated cost will be reckoned for purposes of assessing the maximum cost of work which a Society should furnish a certificate showing the cost of works they have on hand duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) concerned of the Co-operative Department. The certificate should also indicate that the tenders already awarded to the Society have not been sub-let. (ii) The Labour Contract Co-operative Societies will be at liberty to take up works as any other private contractor on the basis of the tenders submitted by them without availing themselves of the concessions contemplated in this G.O. The cost of works so undertaken will not be taken into account while reckoning the maximum costs of works on hand at any time for purposes of entrusting the work at concessional rates. Type of works:- (7) The following types of works may be entrusted to the Labour Contract Cooperative Societies as per this Orders. (a) Earth works at all types, simple masonry works relating to minor and medium irrigation projects and construction of roads. (b) Simple building works like construction of school buildings, hostels, etc. (c) Maintenance and minor repairs of Roads and Buildings. (d) Supply in bulk of quantities of building materials, stone blast and sand. (e) Other items of works not involving skilled labour. (b) Simple building works like construction of school buildings, hostels, etc. (c) Maintenance and minor repairs of Roads and Buildings. (d) Supply in bulk of quantities of building materials, stone blast and sand. (e) Other items of works not involving skilled labour. (f) Where skilled work and unskilled works are combined, the work will be awarded at the discretion of the work awarding authority. Procedure for and conditions of award of contract. (8) (a) There will be regular tender for the works, and the Societies should present tenders in the manner prescribed by the work awarding authority. Where a society quotes lowest rates, it will be entitled to the work at the quoted rate. (b) In cases where a private contractor has quoted the lowest rate, the Labour Contact Co-operative Society which has quoted for the work will be given preference in awarding contracts as follows. (i) When the lowest tender is from a private contractor, Labour Contract Co-operative Society will be awarded the work at 10% above the lowest tender, if the Society is willing to do the work. The work awarding Authority should ascertain the willingness of the Labour Contract Society in writing. (ii) Where the quotation of a Labour Contract Co-operative Society is below the rate quoted by a private contractor, the work will be awarded to the Labour Contract Co-operative Society at the rate quoted by it. (iii) Where two Societies quote the same rate, negotiations will be held and the Contract awarded to the Society which is willing to do the work at the lowest rate, failing which lots will be taken in the presence of the representatives of the concerned societies and the work will be awarded at the rates arrived as above. (iv) In cases where societies are unwilling to take up the work at the rates arrived at as above, the contract will be awarded to the lowest tenderor at the quoted rate. (9) Advance upto 20% of the cost of works will be given to the societies, subject to a maximum of Rs.20,000/-in respect of all works. The advance will be recovered in part bills sanctioned to the Society in such way that at no times will be outstanding advances exceed 20% of the balanced amount of work to be finished. (9) Advance upto 20% of the cost of works will be given to the societies, subject to a maximum of Rs.20,000/-in respect of all works. The advance will be recovered in part bills sanctioned to the Society in such way that at no times will be outstanding advances exceed 20% of the balanced amount of work to be finished. During each financial year interest will be charged on the advance at the bank rate prevailing as on the last day of February of the proceedings financial year. (10) The Societies will be exempted from payment of security deposit and earnest money. The usual retention of 10% of each bill will, however, be made to guard against default in the satisfactory completion work. (11) Materials like Cement, wire etc. will be sold to the societies according to the normal rules. (12) Tools and equipments will be hired out to the Societies according to rules. (13) The Societies should maintain proper accounts in respect of each item of work. (14) The Societies should maintain a Work Register. (15) The Executive Engineer will arrange for technical supervision and guidance to the Societies within their limits free of cost, but without prejudice to the interest of the Department. (16) The Societies shall not sub-let the work entrusted to them execution. (17) It shall be competent for the awarding authority to cancel the work allotted to a society on violation of any of the conditions. But, before doing so they should consult the concerned Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. (18) However, this Order will not affect the Labour Contract Co-operative Societies which are enjoying the concessions of enhanced limited by special order of Government. By order of the Governor G.RAJAMMAL Joint Secretary to Govt. To The Registrar of Co-Op. Societies, Thiruvananthapuram. The Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges)/(B&LW)/(Irrigation), Trivandrum. The Chief Engineer, Kerala Water Authority, Thiruvananthapuram. The Chief Engineer, Harbour Engineering Department. The Accountant General (A&E)/(Audit), Kerala (this issues with the concurrence of Fin. Dept.) The Finance Department (vide U.O.No.67117/AWA 1/97/Fin. dt.25-9-97) The Public Works Department (vide U.O.No.37261/H3/97/PED dated 26-10-97) P.S. to Minister for Elec. & Co-operation C.A. to Secretary (Co-op.) Stock file/O.C. Forwarded/By order Sd/- Section Officer. Government Order dated 19.03.2004: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Tender and arrangement of contracts -preferential terms and conditions to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies -Revised orders issued. PUBLIC WORKS (H) DEPARTMENT G.O(MS) No.44/04/PWD Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 19.03.2004 Read: (1) G.O.(MS) No.135/97/Co-op. & Co-operation C.A. to Secretary (Co-op.) Stock file/O.C. Forwarded/By order Sd/- Section Officer. Government Order dated 19.03.2004: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Tender and arrangement of contracts -preferential terms and conditions to Labour Contract Co-operative Societies -Revised orders issued. PUBLIC WORKS (H) DEPARTMENT G.O(MS) No.44/04/PWD Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 19.03.2004 Read: (1) G.O.(MS) No.135/97/Co-op. Dated 13.11.1997. (2) Lr.No. C8A-362108/01/Gl.Dated 27.10.2001. (3) G.O.(Ms) No.4/02/Co-op. Dated 28.1.2002. (4) Several representations received from various associations of contractors. ORDER : In the Government Order read as 1st paper above it was ordered that when the lowest tender is from a private contractor the Labour contract Co-operative Society will be awarded the work at 10% above the lowest tender if the society is willing to do the work. 2. In the letter read as third paper above Chief Engineer (Roads & Bridges) has reported that those orders have resulted in many eligible and capable contractors participating in tenders have lost their interest in giving tender offers by depositing earnest money deposit and by purchasing tender schedule and that consequently the very purpose of inviting seals and secret tendering system is being defeated. Chief Engineer has hence recommended modification of the orders. 3. Government have considered the matter in the light of the report of the chief Engineer. The procedure to be followed in the matter of execution of works through tenders and arrangement of contracts are prescribed in the Kerala Public Works Department Manual. The provisions of the manual do not generally permit negotiation, after tenders are opened. (para15.7.12 of Manual) Negotiations are permitted, if at all only with the lowest tenderer. The Manual provides that as per rule no negotiation should be carried on which will be contrary to the principles of tendering by which unfair advantage is gained by a tenderer after opening of tenders through such negotiation (para 15.7.12) 4. The orders issued in the Government orders read as 1st and 3rd papers above confer a preordained right to a Society to be awarded a work on the strength of its mere participation in a tender and its opening of tender it makes a post tender offer of 10% above that of the lowest tender. This provision is against the basic tenets of tendering process and is against natural justice. The PWD manual clearly prohibits a procedure of negotiating with anybody other than the lowest tenderer. This provision is against the basic tenets of tendering process and is against natural justice. The PWD manual clearly prohibits a procedure of negotiating with anybody other than the lowest tenderer. The only concession that can be given in terms of the provision of the Manual is that if a tender offer of a society is not more than 10% over that of the lowest tenderer, such tender could be treated as the lowest for award of contract. In other words if Co-operative Societies are participating in a tender, then if the tender amount is not more than 10% of the lowest tender then, the society will get a price preference and quality itself to be the lowest tenderer. 5. Government in the Local Self Government Department has issued orders in Circular No.34947/DPI/03 dated 04.8.03 stating that clause 8 (b)(1) and clause 10 of the Government order read as 1st paper above will not be applicable to contracts under Local Self Government institutions. 6. In the above circumstances, Government, after having examined the matter in detail are pleased to order that clause 8(b)(1) of the Government Order read as 1st paper above would not be applicable to contracts administered by the Public Works Department. Labour Contract Co-operative Societies which participate in the tenders floated by PWD would instead be eligible for a 10% price preference in the matter of tenders issued by PWD. By Order of the Governor Babu Jacob Additional Chief Secretary To All Chief Engineers of PWD, Thiruvananthapuram. Accountant General (AEE/Audit) Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram/Trissur. Finance Department Co-operation Department. Copy to: PS to M(W) PA to ACS PA to Secretary PA to Additional Secretary. Forwarded/By order Section Officer. Government Order dated 02.08.2008: GOVERNMENT OF KERALA Abstract Co-operation Department – Granting permission to the Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society to take up and execute any work without the restriction of financial limits and to restore the priority benefits provided in the G.O.(Ms.) No.135/97/Co-op. Dated 13.11.1997 – Sanctioned – Orders issued. CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms) 181/08/Co-op. dated, Thiruvananthapuram 02.08.2008 Read: (1) G.O.(Ms) No.135/97/Co-op dated 13.11.1997 (2) Letter no.MT (1) 31228/2006 dated 18.09.2006 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram. Dated 13.11.1997 – Sanctioned – Orders issued. CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT G.O.(Ms) 181/08/Co-op. dated, Thiruvananthapuram 02.08.2008 Read: (1) G.O.(Ms) No.135/97/Co-op dated 13.11.1997 (2) Letter no.MT (1) 31228/2006 dated 18.09.2006 of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram. ORDER In the circumstances, explained by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in her letter read as second paper, Government are pleased to restore the priority benefits provided in the order first cited to the Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society and to permit the society to take up and execute any work without the restriction of financial limits. By Order of the Governor, ROZARIO ELIZABETH, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT To The Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram. President, Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society, Madappally College, Vadakara, Kozhikode – 673102. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), Kozhikode. Finance Department (This issues with the approval of the Council of Ministers) Public Works Department (vide Note no.23153/H3/06/PWD dated 26.03.2008) The Accountant General (Audit), Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram. Stock File / Office copy Forwarded/ by Order, Section Officer 10. The scope of judicial review in contract matters has been enumerated in various decisions of the Supreme Court and the principles have been summed up in the decision reported in Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka –[ (2012) 8 SCC 216 ] as follows: “23. From the above decisions, the following principles emerge: (a) the basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action bythe State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. These actions are amenable to the judicial review only to the extent that the State must act validly for discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. It the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take in to consideration the national priorities; (b) fixation of value of the tender is entirely within the purview of the executive and courts hardly have any role to play in this process except for striking down such action of the executive as is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. If the Government acts in conformity with certain healthy standards and norms such as awarding of contracts by inviting tenders, in those circumstances, the interference a by courts is very limited; (c) in the matter of formulating conditions of a tender document and awarding a contract, greater latitude is required to be conceded to the State authorities unless the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious and a misuse of its statutory powers, interference by courts is not warranted; (d) certain preconditions or qualifications for tenders have to be laid down to ensure that the contractor has the capacity and there sources to successfully execute the work; and (e) if the State or its instrumentalities act reasonably, fairly and in public interest in awarding contract, here again, interference by court is very restrictive since no person can claim a fundamental right to carry on business with the Government. 20. Therefore a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review; should pose to itself the following question (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached'? and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected? If the answers to the above questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226.” 11. In the instant cases, while all the bidders participated in the tender process, the NITs in question did not contain particulars of any concession that was to be extended to ULCC Society and other like Co-operative Societies. Although there is a reference in the NITs, to the applicability of Government Orders, this can only be taken to be a reference to those Government Orders that are published consequent to a statutory requirement mandating their publication so as to give them their efficacy. In the instant cases, the Government Orders in question were manuscript Government Orders, in respect of which, there is no legal requirement of publication inasmuch as they are intended only to confer personal rights on a person or class of persons. In the instant cases, the Government Orders in question were manuscript Government Orders, in respect of which, there is no legal requirement of publication inasmuch as they are intended only to confer personal rights on a person or class of persons. In other words, the rights conferred by the Government Orders, not being in the nature of rights in rem, need not be brought to the notice of the general public, before they become effective in the matter of conferring a personal right on the said person or class of persons. As a result of non-publication of these Government Orders therefore, a situation arose in the instant cases, where the specific advantage possessed by one of the bidders was known only to that bidder, and the awarder of the contract. This put the other bidders at a disadvantage in the bidding process for, they were not aware of the circumstances whereunder they could be overlooked for the award of the work, notwithstanding their status as the lowest bidders. In our view, such non-disclosure of information, that would confer on one of the bidders an unfair advantage even before the commencement of the tender process, cannot be seen as a fair procedure that would withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The terms of the NIT had therefore to be strictly construed by referring only to the express conditions therein, and without reference to the Government Orders referred above, and the interse rights of the bidders decided based on the said express terms of the NIT. We are therefore in agreement with the finding of the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 2.2.2018 in W.P.(C).No.26206/2016 that, in the absence of a specific provision in the NITs that invited the attention of other bidders to the benefits conferred on the ULCC Society and other similarly situated Societies, the respondent awarders could not have taken into account the benefits flowing to the ULCC Society from the Government Orders referred above, for the purposes of rejecting the bid of the writ petitioners whose bids were declared as the lowest in the bidding process. We might also add that we are not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Society that the finding of the learned Single Judge was on a point that was not specifically pleaded in the writ petitions. We might also add that we are not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Society that the finding of the learned Single Judge was on a point that was not specifically pleaded in the writ petitions. A perusal of the writ petitions would clearly reveal that what was impugned was the action of the Awarder in granting a benefit to the appellant Society when such benefit was not expressly disclosed in the NIT. The judgment of the learned Single Judge indicates that the contention regarding non-publication of the GO's was urged at the time of hearing, in support of the grounds taken in the writ petition. It is also evident that the appellant's objection to the said contentions were also considered by the learned Single Judge. It cannot be said, therefore, that the finding of the learned Single Judge was on an issue that was not deliberated upon during the hearing. We therefore find against the appellants on the first issue. We are also of the view that, in the light of our finding on the first issue, we need not enter into a discussion on the second issue. W.A.No.598/2018, W.A.No.807/2018 and W.A.No.898/2018 are hence dismissed. 12. As regards W.P.(C).No.13522/2018 and W.P.(C).No.16314/2018, for the reasons already stated by us in connection with W.A.No.598/2018, W.A.No.807/2018 and W.A.No.898/2018, and in particular, our finding that the non-disclosure of the benefits conferred on ULCC Society and other like Societies through the Government Orders aforementioned, would estop the respondent awarders from relying on the said Government Orders while finalising the tender proceedings, the Writ Petitions are allowed, by directing the respondent awarders to finalise the tender proceedings strictly in accordance with the terms of the respective NITs, and without reference to the Government Orders referred above, that enure to the benefit of the ULCC Society. 13. Before parting with these cases, we might note that the State Government has since published the Government Orders dated 13.11.1997, 19.03.2004 and 02.08.2008, that confer benefits on the ULCC Society, in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary dated 25.05.2018. Whatever may have been the reasons that prompted the Government to belatedly notify the aforementioned Government Orders in the Gazette at this stage, their action of notifying it now confirms that there was no publication prior to the tender process. Whatever may have been the reasons that prompted the Government to belatedly notify the aforementioned Government Orders in the Gazette at this stage, their action of notifying it now confirms that there was no publication prior to the tender process. At any rate, the benefits that may flow from such publication can only be prospective in nature and cannot be used to justify actions taken prior to the date of publication in the gazette. The Writ Appeals are all dismissed accordingly and the Writ Petitions are allowed as above.