JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 131/2019. Also heard Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 134/2019. I have also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, Zoram Medical College as well as the State respondents and Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, the learned counsel, who appears for the private respondents. 2. Since the issue involved in both the writ petitions are similar, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. Facts of the case in brief is that the respondent, Zoram Medical College (Medical College), invited a short tender notice for running of a Pharmacy Canteen at the Medical College in Falkawn in the local daily newspaper in the month of July. In the tender notice, it was provided that the tender could be submitted by the interested bidders up to 12:00 noon of 09.08.2019. However, by another short tender notice, the last date for submission of the tender was extended up to 12:00 noon of 14.08.2019. Thereafter, again vide Corrigendum dated 13.08.2019 issued by the Director of the Medical College, the last date for submission of the tender was further postponed to 12:00 noon of 23.08.2019. Both the petitioners as well as the private respondents were amongst those who submitted their tender against the short tender notice. 3. Be it stated herein that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 134/2019 was running the Pharmacy Canteen since the year, 2015. He was initially allotted to run the Pharmacy Canteen for 2 years w.e.f., 01.08.2015. Before the 2 year term expired, the term of allotment was extended for 1 year. Since the extension was to come to an end on 17.08.2019, the short tender notice as stated hereinabove was issued by the Medical College. 4. According to the petitioners, one Sh. B. Lalrohlua of Mission Vengthlang had sought for an information from the Joint Director (F&D), Controlling and Licensing Authority, Directorate of Health Services, Mizoram, Aizawl as to who were the persons having drugs license for operating the same at Falkawn by filing an application through RTI. As per the reply given by the said authority, there were 5 licensees, which included both the petitioners but not the private respondent who were having drugs license for operating the same at Falkawn. As per the reply given by the said authority, there were 5 licensees, which included both the petitioners but not the private respondent who were having drugs license for operating the same at Falkawn. Further, out of the 5 drugs license holders, only the two petitioners had participated in the tender. The tenders were opened on 23.08.2019, where it was found that there were as many as 13 bidders in all. A comparative statement was subsequently prepared where out of the 13 tenders submitted by the interested bidders, only 10 tenders were found to be valid. The tender submitted by the petitioners and the private respondent were amongst the valid tenders. Subsequently, after about a month from the date of opening of the tenders, the Director of Medical College issued the office order dated 20.09.2019, whereby the private respondent i.e., Medicare Pharmacy, Dawrpui was selected for running the Pharmacy Canteen at the Medical College, Falkawn for a period of 2 years from the date of issuance of the order. The office order dated 20.09.2019 is under challenged in both the writ petitions. 5. Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned counsel submits that the private respondent could not have been selected for running the Pharmacy Canteen at Falkawn, inasmuch as the said licensee does not have the license to sell, stock or distribute drugs at Falkawn. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director of Medical College, wherein the comparative statement of the bidders is annexed, the learned counsel submits that the private respondent does not have a drug license to operate in Falkawn but in Dawrpui, Aizawl. As such, he could not have been selected to operate the Pharmacy Canteen at Falkawn. The learned counsel further refers to Rule 62 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and submits that if drugs are sold or stocked for sale at more than one place, separate application has to be made and a separate license will be issued in respect of each of such place. The learned counsel further refers to Rule 62 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and submits that if drugs are sold or stocked for sale at more than one place, separate application has to be made and a separate license will be issued in respect of each of such place. The private respondent on the date of opening of the tender did not have a drug license to operate a drug store/pharmacy at Falkawn and the drug license produced by the private respondent subsequently only goes to show that the respondent authorities concerned were most biased in selecting the private respondent to run the Pharmacy Canteen, as they were only waiting for him to procure a drug license for operating the same at Falkawn. Under the circumstance, Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, the learned counsel submits that the impugned allotment order should be set aside and the respondents concerned be directed to consider the petitioner for being allotted the Pharmacy Canteen. 6. Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, the learned counsel adopts the argument of Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala. He submits that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 134/2019 was the allottee to run the Pharmacy Canteen for having operated for about 3 years with extension but the respondents' authorities have floated the tender notice. He submits that since the Pharmacy Canteen is situated at Falkawn and therefore, only those who possess a drug license for operating at Falkawn will be eligible to participate in the tender process. Although the same has not been specifically mentioned in the tender notice but nevertheless, the same goes without saying as the tender was floated for a specific place i.e., Pharmacy Canteen of the Medical College at Falkawn. He submits that the short tender notice and the terms and conditions provided for compliance by the interested bidders has to be read together and conjointly. In doing so, the only interpretation that can be arrived at is that the interested bidders should have drug license for operating the same at Falkawn. The comparative statement prepared by the respondent authorities clearly demonstrate that the drug license of the private respondent is for Dawrpui, Aizawl and therefore, the private respondent is clearly not eligible to participate in the tender process and much less, to be allotted the running of the Pharmacy Canteen at Falkawn. The comparative statement prepared by the respondent authorities clearly demonstrate that the drug license of the private respondent is for Dawrpui, Aizawl and therefore, the private respondent is clearly not eligible to participate in the tender process and much less, to be allotted the running of the Pharmacy Canteen at Falkawn. As such, the impugned allotment order is liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to consider the petitioner for being allotted the Pharmacy Canteen. Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei in support of his submission relies upon the following authorities:- (i) Anand Brothers Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 212 (ii) National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 252 (iii) Nawratan Mahton & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar, (1979) 3 SCC 488 . 7. Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the Medical College as well as the State respondents submits that the respondent authorities have not committed any illegality in allotting the Pharmacy Canteen to the private respondent. She submits that out of the 13 tenderers, 10 of them including the petitioners and the private respondent were found to have fulfilled the required criteria. The tender was open on 23.08.2019 and it was decided that a comparative statement should be prepared comprising of the respective bids made by the valid tenderers and fixing 28.08.2019 as the next date of meeting by the Management Committee of the Medical College. However, meeting could not be held on the said date and instead the Management Committee held its meeting on 17.09.2019, where the Management Committee after examining all the valid applications submitted by 10 different bidders, who fulfilled the terms and conditions of the advertisement unanimously decided to select the private respondent to run the Pharmacy Canteen at Falkawn. She submits that in coming to such a decision, there was no illegality, arbitrariness or favouritism commit by the respondent authorities concerned. 8. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the contention of the petitioners that the private respondent was not eligible to participate in the tender process is wholly misconceived. She submits that as per the terms and conditions, more particularly condition No. 3, the selected Pharmacy Canteen vendor is required to have a valid general Drugs License (Schedule - H). 8. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the contention of the petitioners that the private respondent was not eligible to participate in the tender process is wholly misconceived. She submits that as per the terms and conditions, more particularly condition No. 3, the selected Pharmacy Canteen vendor is required to have a valid general Drugs License (Schedule - H). She submits that there is no pre-condition for a bidder to have a Drug License for operating at Falkawn in order to participate in the tender process. The private respondent has a valid Drug License for operating at Dawrpui and that he submitted his two Drug Licenses for Falkawn area and he was selected to run the Pharmacy Canteen at Falkawn. Pursuant to his selection, an agreement in the form of undertaking has been signed with the private respondent on 23.09.2019 and the authorized representative of the Medical College. She submits that since the selection process was conducted as per the terms and conditions provided and therefore, there is nothing wrong with the selection process. She also submits that since the petitioners themselves had participated in the selection process as per the same terms and conditions, they are only estopped from questioning the terms and conditions or from interpreting the same according to their own understanding. She thus submits that since the respondent authorities have only abided by the terms and conditions of the tender process, Court may not interfere with the selection process and the writ petitions being without merit may be dismissed. The learned Government Advocate in support of her submission has relied upon the following authorities:- (i) Judgment & Order dated 09.08.2017 in WP(C) No. 976/2017 (Narayani Trading Company Vs. the State of Assam & Anr.) (ii) Siemens Public Communication Networks Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 215 . (iii) Municipal Corporation, Ujjain & Anr. Vs. BVG India Ltd. & Ors., (2018) 5 SCC 462 . 9. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, the learned counsel for the private respondent adopts the arguments of the learned Government Advocate. He submits that as per the terms and conditions of the short tender notice, the requirement that was stipulated was that the prospective bidder must have a general Drug License and that the private respondent being a licensee submitted his Drug License along with his application. He submits that as per the terms and conditions of the short tender notice, the requirement that was stipulated was that the prospective bidder must have a general Drug License and that the private respondent being a licensee submitted his Drug License along with his application. Therefore, the interpretation given by the petitioners that the Drug License should have a license for operating the same at Falkawn is only misconceived and untenable. The learned counsel further submits that the Management Committee upon carefully considering the tender submitted by the 10 valid bidders found the private respondent to be the most suitable for being allotted the Pharmacy Canteen and accordingly, selected him vide the impugned allotment order. Pursuant to the allotment, the private respondent has also signed a deed of agreement in the form of an undertaking on 23.09.2019 to operate the Pharmacy Canteen in terms of the allotment. However, it is only due to the status quo order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 131/2019 that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 134/2019 in view of the earlier extension given to him is still operating the Pharmacy Canteen. Thus, there being no illegality or arbitrariness in allotment of the Pharmacy Canteen to the private respondent, the writ petitions being without any merit, the same should be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2012) 8 SCC 216 . 10. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the record produced by the learned Government Advocate. 11. From the projection made by the petitioners, the issue to be considered is as to whether the private respondent or any other bidder, who did not have a Drug License for operation at Falkawn can be considered to be invalid bidder. From the comparative statement annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Medical College, it can be seen that there were all together 13 bidders for the Pharmacy Canteen at Falkawn. Out of the 13 bidders, 3 bids were found to be invalid leaving only 10 valid bidders. Out of the 10 valid bidders, the petitioners were the only ones to have Drug License with Falkawn as the operational area. Out of the 13 bidders, 3 bids were found to be invalid leaving only 10 valid bidders. Out of the 10 valid bidders, the petitioners were the only ones to have Drug License with Falkawn as the operational area. Further, from a perusal of the terms and conditions which is annexed to the affidavit, it can be seen that condition No. 3 provides that the selected Pharmacy Canteen vendor must have a valid general Drug License (Schedule - H) and one Xerox copy of the License must be attached. Besides this, there is no stipulation anywhere in the terms and conditions that the Drug License has to be with Falkawn as the operational area. 12. From the above, what can be seen is that if only those bidders having Drug License to be operated at Falkawn are to be considered as valid bidders, the valid bidders as per the prepared comparative statement will include only the two petitioners and no other bidders since they were the only ones to have Drug License to be operated at Falkawn. If such was the intention, the same should have been stipulated in the terms and conditions in clear terms but however, the same is not the case. 13. From a perusal of the records produced by the learned State counsel, it is seen that the Management Committee in its meeting held on 02.08.2019 decided to introduce an application form for the bidders to submit their tenders. It was further decided that certain terms and conditions were required to be amended so as to avoid unforeseen situation that may arise in the future. A perusal of the application form so prepared does not provide the area of operation of the Drug License apart from providing the information required 'General Drugs License' under paragraph No. 5 of the application. Further, the terms and conditions as prepared pursuant to the said meeting is similar to the one annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Medical College. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Supra) held that the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is fairness in action by the State, and non-arbitrariness in essence and substance is the heartbeat of fair play. 14. The Apex Court in the case of Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. (Supra) held that the basic requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is fairness in action by the 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 a discernible reason and not whimsically for any ulterior purpose. If the State acts within the bounds of reasonableness, it would be legitimate to take into consideration the national priorities. The Apex Court further held that a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters, in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself 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 that the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached and whether the public interest is affected. If the answers to these questions are in the negative, then there should be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In Municipal Corporation (Supra), the Apex Court held that the State, its corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have a public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise them only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. 16. Having come to the finding that there is no specific terms and conditions by which, the bidders were required to submit their Drug License having the operational area of Falkawn only, I am of the considered view that the stand of the petitioners that the private respondent could not be selected in the given situation cannot be tenable. The private respondent in fact is a Drug License holder and which makes him eligible as per the terms and conditions No. 3. 17. In view of above, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.134/2019 is found to be inapplicable. The private respondent in fact is a Drug License holder and which makes him eligible as per the terms and conditions No. 3. 17. In view of above, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.134/2019 is found to be inapplicable. In the result, upon considering the case in its entirety, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, they are dismissed. 18. The interim Order passed earlier stands vacated and under the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own cost.