JUDGMENT : 1. Counter affidavit filed in Court today on behalf of respondent no. 7 is taken on record. 2. The petitioner before this Court is an unsuccessful bidder in a single bid process, where applications were invited by the Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation for providing internet services at the exit check post, while granting “e-ravanna” (exit pass). The Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation floated tender inviting application for providing internet connections and issuance of printout of “e-ravanna” for vehicles collecting minor minerals from the “Nandhaur” and “Kailash” river beds within District Nainital and Udham Singh Nagar. Admittedly, there were four participants including the present petitioner, who were declared unsuccessful bidder and respondent no. 7 was declared the successful bidder. The other two bidders were STN Infotec. Pvt. Ltd. and Euron Communication. Though their bids were much lower than either of the present petitioner or respondent no. 7, they were rejected on technical grounds, for the reason that they were not having the required experience in the field for two years. Between the petitioner and respondent no. 1, petitioner was the L-1, inasmuch as his bid was for Rs. 4,78,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Seventy Eight Thousand only) and the bid of respondent no. 7 was for Rs. 5,26,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Twenty Six Thousand only) and there was a difference of Rs. 48,000/- (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand only). However, the bid of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 14.11.2017 on ground that the earnest money of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) which was to be given by the responsive bidder by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt (i.e. F.D.R.) was not given by the petitioner but by his representative. According to the tender committee, the bid of the petitioner was not responsive inasmuch as Condition No. 10 of the tender notice clearly stipulated that the responsive bidder would be the one who has given the earnest money i.e. 10 per cent of the work being done. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 14.11.2017. 3. The contention of the petitioner would be that the only requirement under Condition No. 10 of the tender notice is that the earnest money was to be given. It was not a requirement that the earnest money was to be given by the petitioner himself. 4. 3. The contention of the petitioner would be that the only requirement under Condition No. 10 of the tender notice is that the earnest money was to be given. It was not a requirement that the earnest money was to be given by the petitioner himself. 4. The case of the Forest Corporation as well as the private respondent i.e. respondent no. 7 is that although Condition No. 10 as stipulated in tender notice though not be very happily worded, and does not specifically state that the earnest money was to be given by the bidder himself, but any other explanation of the said condition would defeat the very purpose of the bidding process. If an earnest money has to be given by a responsive bidder, it would mean that earnest money has to be given by the bidder himself and not by a third party. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Poddar Steel Corpn. V. Ganesh Engg. Works reported in (1991) 3 SCC 273 and has argued that there are certain conditions in the tender notice which are essential and others are non-essential. In which form and in which manner the earnest money was to be given is of no material use and in fact is a non-essential condition. What is essential that earnest money has to be given, and even if it was not given by the petitioner himself the bid of the petitioner was liable to be considered. 6. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents have relied upon the recent decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited and another v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) and others reported in (2016) 8 SCC 622 , wherein the case of Poddar Steel Corpn. (supra) has been discussed and it has been held that the conditions of the bid have to be strictly followed and have to be made universally applicable to all bidders. 7. Even what is essential condition and what is non-essential condition, this can be decided by the tender committee itself and not by anyone else. (supra) has been discussed and it has been held that the conditions of the bid have to be strictly followed and have to be made universally applicable to all bidders. 7. Even what is essential condition and what is non-essential condition, this can be decided by the tender committee itself and not by anyone else. In the present writ petition, the tender committee has come to the conclusion that it was mandatory for the petitioner to submit the earnest money himself and not by a third party and therefore, the bid of the petitioner is non-responsive. 8. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the matter. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.