CAV JUDGMENT : This writ application was initially preferred seeking quashing of the memo no.1068 dated 04.02.2019 issued by the Departmental Tender Committee headed by the Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department (respondent no.1) in connection with package no.25A/OPRMC-2/Chapra. By the impugned memo, the Tender Committee has disqualified the bid of the petitioner at the technical bid stage. It appears that the impugned order/decision (Annexure-5 to the writ application) was taken by the Departmental Tender Committee in its meeting held on 04.02.2019 taking note of the information received from the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), North Bihar, Patna vide his letter no.423 dated 31.01.2019 enclosing the minutes of the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee and letter no.161 dated 14.01.2019. It appears that the impugned order/decision (Annexure-5 to the writ application) was taken by the Departmental Tender Committee in its meeting held on 04.02.2019 taking note of the information received from the Chief Engineer (Mechanical), North Bihar, Patna vide his letter no.423 dated 31.01.2019 enclosing the minutes of the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee and letter no.161 dated 14.01.2019. The decision of the Departmental Tender Committee originally challenged in the writ application is extracted hereunder:- ^^4- foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr dk fu.kZ; % 4-1 eq[; vfHk;ark ¼;k0½- mÙkj fcgkj miHkkx] iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] iVuk ds i= la[;k 423 ¼vuq0½ fnukad & 31-01-2019 ls izkIr rduhdh chM ewY;kadu lfefr dh cSBd dh dk;Zokgh] vuq'kalk rFkk blds lkFk layXu tk¡p&i= esa vafdr dh xbZ lwpukvksa ds vk/kkj ij foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr dk vuqeksnu fuEuor~ gSA %& 4-2 fo"k;kafdr dk;Z ds fy, izkIr fufonk ds rduhd dh chM ewY;kadu lfefr ds mDr vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr }kjk vuqeksnu iznku djrs gq, pkj fufonkdkjksa esa ls nks fufonkdkjksa ;Fkk ¼1½ Adarsh Construction and (2) Sona Engicon Pvt. Ltd. dks iFk izeaMy] Nijk ds vUrxZr Long term Output and Performance Based Road Assets Maintenance Work for the roads under Package No. 25A/OPRMC-2/Chapra ds fufonk ds rduhd dh chM esa lQy ,o 'ks"k nks fufonkdkjksa ;Fkk ¼1½ J.K Engicon Pvt. Ltd. and (2) M/s Maa Construction dks MBD Section III C1.2.6 rgr~ rduhdh chM esa vlQy ?kksf"kr djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA lkFk gh lfefr }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd bl dk;Zokgh dks foHkkxh; osclkbZV ij j[kk tk; ,oa ;fn fnukad 09-02-2019 ds vijkg~u 4-00 cts rd fufonk ls lacaf/kr fdlh izdkj dh vkifÙk izkIr gksrh gS] rks eq[; vfHk;ark] mÙkj fcgkj miHkkxh rduhdh chM ewY;kadu lfefr dh cSBd vkgwr djsaxs ,oa iqu% fopkj@vafre fu.kZ; gsrq vxyh foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr ds le{k vuq'kalk ds lkFk izLrqr djsaxsA mDr frfFk rd fdlh izdkj dh vkifÙk izkIr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa eq[; vfHk;ark mÙkj fcgkj miHkkx lQy fufonkdkjksa dk foÙkh; chM [kksydj foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr ds le{k vuq'kalk ds lkFk izLrqr djsaxsA 4-3 foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr dh bl dk;Zokgh dks e-proe website ij fu.kZ; iznf'kZr djus ds vykos foHkkxh; osclkbZV ij Hkh Mkyh tk;A^^ 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the decision taken on 04.02.2019 was objected to, by filing an objection as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application in which the petitioner had submitted that he had attached and uploaded the documents relating to ownership of Hot Mix Plant (in short ‘HMP’) which he had acquired through financer “Narbheram Finance Company Ltd., Jamshedpur, Jharkhand”. The petitioner also represented that he had got the ‘HMP’ from the financer under contract/agreement No. NFC/C52/2008 dated 14.02.2018 and the ‘HMP’ is duly shown in his audited accounts/reports. The said plant also contains the number and the name of the petitioner’s firm is embossed on the same. The petitioner enclosed letter no.31.01.2019 issued by the financer giving term loan agreement number and further saying that the term loan agreement has expired by efflux of time as the financer had received all the installments and interest due. A copy of the statement of the receipts showing payment under the agreement was also attached with the certificate issued by the financer. 3. By filing I.A. No.1 of 2019 now the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.02.2019 issued by the Departmental Tender Committee vide memo no.1531 dated 21.02.2019. This time the Departmental Tender Committee expressed its opinion on the objection of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-6 series to the writ application. The relevant part of the decision taken on 21.02.2019 are quoted hereunder for a ready reference:- ^^leh{kk %& 5-1 fufonkdkj M/s Maa Construction ds Hot Mix Plants ds Verification ls lacaf/kr dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] iFk ize.My] Nijk ds i=kad &201 ¼vuq0½ fnukad & 18-01-2019 ds vuqyXud tks duh; vfHk;ark dk LFky Verification ls lacaf/kr gS] esa izfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd ,u0,p0&85 ds fdukjs M/s Maa Construction dk Hot Mix Plant gS] fdUrq Hot Mix Plant dk Invoice/Ownership dk isij muds uke ij ugha gSA dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] iFk ize.My Nijk ds mDr izfrosnu ds vkyksd esa fufonkdkj dks MBD Section III C1.2.6 esa fu/kkZfjr vgZÙkk iwjh ugh djus ds QyLo:i fnukad & 31-01-2019 dks lEiUu rduhdh chM ewY;kadu lfefr }kjk M/s Maa Construction dks rduhdh chM esa vlQy ?kksf"kr djus gsrq vuq'kalk dh x;hA 5-2 M/s Maa Construction ds }kjk fn;s x;s ifjokn i= ds lkFk lk{; ds :i es a Hot Mix Plant dk fnukad&31-01-2019 dks Narbheram Finance Co. Ltd. }kjk fuxZr Loan ds Hkqxrku ls lacaf/kr C;kSjk ds lkFk Unencumbered ownership dks dkxtkr layXu fd;k x;k gSA blls Li"B gS fd fufonk dh frfFk ;kfu fnukad & 04-01-2019 rd muds ikl Hot Mix Plant dks Ownership dk mDr fuxZr i= ugha Fkk vkSj uk gh e-proe ij ownership dk dkxtkr upload fd;k x;k gS] tcfd MBD Section III C1.2.6 ,oa Technical Sheet esa Qualifying Criteria gsrq vafdr gS fd “The Bidder shall own at least one Hot Mix Plant (40-60 tanne/hour capacity) not more than 20 years age.” 6- fu"d"kZ %& lfefr }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr fufondkj M/s Maa Constructions ds ifjokn dks vekU; djus gsrq vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA 7- foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr dk fu.kZ;% 7-1 eq[; vfHk;ark] mÙkj miHkkx] iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] iVuk ds i= la[;k &625¼vuq0½ fnukad & 12-02-2019 }kjk fufonk dh rduhdh chM esa izkIr ifjokn ds vkyksd esa rduhdh chM ewY;kadu lfefr dh vuq'kalk ij foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr fufonkdkj M/s Maa Construction ds vkosnu@ifjokn dks vekU; djrs gq, eq[; vfHk;ark] mÙkj miHkkx] iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] iVuk dks foHkkxh; Kkikad&1068 ¼bZ0½ fnukad&04-02-2019 }kjk lalwfpr fu.kZ; ds Øe esa fo"k;afdr dk;Z ds fufonk ds foÙkh; chM [kksYkdj 'kh?kz foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr ds vuqeksnukFkZ miLFkkfir djus dk funsZ'k fn;k x;kA 7-2 foHkkxh; fufonk lfefr dh bl dk;Zokgh dh e-pore website ij fu.kZ; djus ds vykos foHkkxh; osclkbZV ij Hkh Mkyh tk;A^^ 4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions when this Court goes through the records it appears that clause 2.6(1) under Section III of the Model Bid Document (MBD) which is applicable in the present case imposes a condition whereunder “the bidder shall own at least one Hot Mix Plant (40/60 t/hr capacity) not more than 20 years ago”. While it is the contention of the petitioner that he owned and possessed the ‘HMP’ on 04.01.2019 when he had submitted his tender documents, by the impugned decision the Departmental Tender Committee has rejected the technical bid of the petitioner saying that he did not own the ‘HMP’ on 04.01.2019. In order to reach to this conclusion the Committee has relied upon spot verification report of the junior engineer saying that in respect of the ‘HMP’ there is no invoice/ownership in the name of the petitioner. This report of the junior engineer was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, RCD, Chapra vide his letter dated 18.01.2019. 5. In order to reach to this conclusion the Committee has relied upon spot verification report of the junior engineer saying that in respect of the ‘HMP’ there is no invoice/ownership in the name of the petitioner. This report of the junior engineer was forwarded by the Executive Engineer, RCD, Chapra vide his letter dated 18.01.2019. 5. The Committee rejected the documents produced by the petitioner with respect to the ‘HMP’ in the form of the certificate of the financer issued on 31.01.2019 together with statement of accounts by taking a view that issuance of letter on 31.01.2019 shows that as on 04.01.2019 the petitioner did not possess aforesaid letter of ownership with respect to the ‘HMP’ and the same was not uploaded on e-proc website. 6. The decision taken by the Departmental Committee on 04.02.2019 is a classic example how the department has ignored its own documents in form of revised recommendation of the Technical Evaluation Committee dated 21.01.2019 based on a reasoned consideration of the documents uploaded by the petitioner with standard documents with respect to the ‘HMP’ and also based on the latest spot verification report of the ‘HMP’ submitted by the Executive Engineer. This is a case which would show that how a totally unmindful and irresponsible way of rejection of technical bid has given rise to a litigation, which has been generated by the Department and has ultimately resulted in delay in repair of roads which are in bad shapes and causing great hardships to the citizens. 7. The facts which unfold from the records would show that after submission of the tender of which the last date was 04.01.2019, the Technical Evaluation Committee headed by three members i.e. (i) Chairman- Chief Engineer (Commercial), NBW, RCD, Bihar, (ii)Member-Technical Secretary to Chief Engineer and (iii) Member-Superintending Engineer, Saran Road, Circle, Hajipur considered all the tenders on 14.01.2019 in which the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected saying as follows:- ^^fufonkdkj MS Maa Construction }kjk Hot Mix Plant ls lacaf/kr dkxtkr layXu ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% fufonkdkj MS Maa Construction MBD ds Section III, 2.6 (1) dh vgZrk iw.kZ ugha djrs gSA---^^ 8. A copy of the recommendation was sent vide Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) to the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, RCD. 9. A copy of the recommendation was sent vide Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical) to the Engineer-in-Chief-cum-Special Secretary, RCD. 9. The petitioner submitted an objection dated 17.01.2019 (Annexure-H to the supplementary counter affidavit of respondents) to the Engineer-in-Chief categorically stating that he had uploaded all the relevant documents with respect to the ‘HMP’. He specifically submitted that his ‘HMP’ is established since the year 2008 at left side to NH-85 and he had satisfactorily completed the work earlier allotted by the department of IRPQ and CMBD. He requested that the documents be verified and his technical bid be considered. Thereafter the same Technical Evaluation Committee considered the technical bid of the petitioner after getting the spot verification of the ‘HMP’ done. In the revised recommendation, the Technical Evaluation Committee acknowledged that the documents relating to ‘HMP’ was attached by the petitioner. It will be crystal clear from Annexure-R/1 attached to the reply on behalf of the petitioner to the counter affidavit of the respondents. It is important to take note of the decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 22.01.2019 as under:- ^^rduhdh chM ewY;kadu lfefr dk fu.kZ;%& mDr dk;Z ds fufonk esa pkj fufonkdkj ;Fkk (i) Adarsh Construction, (ii) J.K. Engicon Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Sona Engicon Pvt. Ltd. ,oa (iv) MS Maa Constructions }kjk Hkkx fy;k x;k gSA fufonkdkj J.K. Engicon Pvt. Ltd. }kjk lefiZr Hot Mix Plant LFky lR;kiu fufonkdkj }kjk lefiZr dkxtkr esa ewY; vad vkSj 'kCnks esa varj ik;k tkus ij djk;k x;kA dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] Nijk }kjk LFky ij Hot Mix Plant ugha ik;k x;k ls lacaf/kr lR;kiu i= izfrosfnr gSA vr% fufonkdkj J.K. Engicon Pvt. Ltd ., MBD dk MBD Section III C1.2.6 (1) dh vgZRk iw.kZ ugha djrs gSA M/s Maa Constructions ds }kjk Hot Mix Plant ds dkxtkr ds :i esa HMP ds finance ls lEcfU/kr NARBHERAM FINANCE Co. Ltd. ds }kjk fuxZr izek.k i= lefiZr fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldh ekU;rk ugha nsrs gq, mUgs rduhdh chM esa vlQy ?kksf"kr djus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ Fkh] fdUrq fufonkdkj ds }kjk vH;kosnu nsus ds mijkar HMP dk LFky lR;kiu djk;k x;k ,oa LFky ij muds HMP ik;k x;kA rnkyksd esa M/S Maa Constructions dks rduhdh chM esa lQy ?kksf"kr djus dh vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA vr% of.kZr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa J.K Engicon Pvt. Ltd dks MBD Section III C1.2.6 (1) rFkk dks MBD Section III C1.2.6 (1) ds rgr rduhdh chM esa vlQy ,oa 'ks"k rhu fufonkdkj ;Fkk (i) Adarsh Construction, Siwan (ii) Sona Engicon Pvt. Ltd., Gopalganj, ,oa (iii) M/s Maa Construction, Saran dks lQy ?kksf"kr djus gsrq vuq'kalk dh tkrh gSA^^ 10. Let it be recorded that in the second supplementary counter affidavit sworn by the Executive Engineer, RCD, Chapra a stand has been taken that in the meeting held on 22.01.2019 the Technical Evaluation Committee inadvertently overlooked the matter of ownership of ‘HMP’, therefore it was rectified in the meeting on 31.01.2019 and the petitioner was found disqualified for want of ownership document of ‘HMP’. It has been submitted that the recommendation of the Technical Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 22.01.2019 cannot be termed as final decision on the issue of the technical bid as the decision of the Departmental Tender Committee would only be final. In the supplementary counter affidavit however there is no plea that the claim of the petitioner that he had uploaded the documents in form of certificates earlier issued by the financer were not correct. In fact the Executive Engineer has brought on record Annexure-E and F which are photocopy of the certificate dated 14.02.2008 and 15.02.2008 issued by the Narbheram Finance Company Ltd. and has contended that from perusal thereof it would appear that those certificates do not confer ownership right of the petitioner rather it confers usage right under an agreement, hence it has been contended that those two certificates cannot be taken as document of ownership and the certificate dated 31.01.2019 cannot be taken into consideration to decide the technical bid of the petitioner in view of clause 5 of letter no.6159 (s) dated 09.07.2004 (Annexure-H). 11. 11. It further appears that after the impugned decision of the Departmental Tender Committee as contained in memo no.1068 dated 04.02.2019, objections were invited and the same was required to be placed before the Departmental Tender Committee with recommendations. The petitioner submitted an objection on 05.02.2019 and 07.02.2019 but the same was also rejected and recommendation was made to same effect vide Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of the respondents and based on that recommendation the impugned decision dated 21.02.2019 which is subject matter of challenge in I.A. No.1 of 2019 has been passed. Consideration 12. On consideration of the entire materials available on the record and upon going through the submissions made by the parties, this Court finds that at the very outset on 14.01.2019 the Technical Evaluation Committee wrongly recorded in the evaluation chart that the petitioner had not attached any document of ownership with respect to the ‘HMP’. When this was objected to, by the petitioner the same Technical Evaluation Committee got a spot verification of the ‘HMP’ done considered the documents (Annexure ‘E’ & ‘F’ to the supplementary counter affidavit) of financer Narbheram Finance Company Ltd. which were issued prior to 04.01.2019 and had been uploaded by the petitioner. This time the evaluation chart has been revised and in the column of the petitioner the word “attached” has been written in respect of the requirement at serial no.10 i.e. Key Plants & Equipment. It was thus a conscious decision of the Technical Evaluation Committee based on the documents uploaded and the spot verification report to declare the petitioner qualified at technical bid stage. The report of the Executive Engineer clearly records that in course of re-verification the description of the ‘HMP’ mentioned in the uploaded documents were found to be the same and one which had been found on the spot. 13. There is also a report of the Executive Engineer submitted on 02.02.2019 i.e. just two days before the decision taken by the Departmental Tender Committee on 04.02.2019. 13. There is also a report of the Executive Engineer submitted on 02.02.2019 i.e. just two days before the decision taken by the Departmental Tender Committee on 04.02.2019. The same is extracted hereunder for a ready reference:- ^^dk;kZy; dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] iFk izeaMy] NijkA i=kad &312@vuq0@Nijk fnukad 02-02-2019 izs"kd] dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark] iFk izeaMy] NijkA lsok esa] eq[; vfHk;ark] mÙkj fcgkj ¼;k0½ miHkkx iFk fuekZ.k foHkkx] iVukA fo"k; %& M/S MAA CONSTRUCTION DUMDUMA, DAUDPUR ds Hot Mix_Plant ds iquZlR;kiu ds laca/k esaA izlax (i) bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad &201 ¼vuq0½ Nijk] fnukad&18-01-2019 (ii) fnuakd %&02-02-2019 dks M/s Mas Construction }kjk lefiZr vH;kosnuA egk'k;] mijksDr fo"k;d izklafxd (i) }kjk Hkonh; ds nwjHkk"k ij funZs'k ds vkyksd esa LFky fujh{k.k izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k x;k Fkk ¼Nk;k izfr layXu½A iqu% izklafxd i= (i) M/s Maa Construction }kjk vkifr nTkZ djrs gq, iquZlR;kiu dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½A rn~vkyksd esa buds }kjk lefiZr dkxtkr tks fd OPRMC 25A ds fufonk esa Hkh Uploaded gS ftlds dafMdk (i) esa one No. Old Capious Hot Mix Plant Bearing No.-12/03-04 vafdr gSA ,u,p&85 nkmniqj cuokj ढkyk LFky ij LFkkfir Hot Mix Plant dk QksVksxzkQ fy;k x;k] ftlesa ik;k x;k fd Plant ds mij ftlesa Emboss ftlesa Bearing No. 12/03-04 vafdr gS rFkk Plant ds mij es0 ek¡ dUlVªD'ku nkmniqj fy[kk gqvk ik;k x;k ¼Nk;k izfr layXu½A M/s Maa Construction }kjk lifiZr vU; dkxtkr NARBHERAM FINANCE CO. LTD. }kjk No Dues Certificate Hkh fn;k x;k gS ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½A blds vykos buds }kjk Hot Mix Plant Contractors Association dk Hkh dkxtkr layXu fd;k x;k gS ¼Nk;kizfr layXu½A vr,o buds }kjk lefiZr vkosnu ds vkyksd esa Hot Mix Plant dks iquZlR;kiu fd;k x;kA buds }kjk OPRMC 25A fufonk esa Uploaded dkxtkr esa Old Capious Hot Mix Plant Bearing No. -12/03-04 rFkk LFky ij LFkkfir Hot Mix Plant dk Bearing No. -12/03-04 nksuksa ,d gh gSA Hkonh; ls vuqjks/k gS fd muds }kjk lefiZr dkxtkr dh tk¡p vius Lrj ls Hkh djus dh d`ik dh tk;A lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dkjZokbZ gsrq lefiZrA vuq0& ;FkksDrA fo'oklHkktu g0@& dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark iFk izeaMy] NijkA^^ 14. A reading of the aforesaid letter would show that the inspection was carried out by the Executive Engineer in view of the instruction given to him by the Chief Engineer. It also refers inspection report submitted by him earlier. A reading of the aforesaid letter would show that the inspection was carried out by the Executive Engineer in view of the instruction given to him by the Chief Engineer. It also refers inspection report submitted by him earlier. The Technical Evaluation Committee in its meeting held on 22.01.2019 got fully satisfied with the uploaded documents and description of the ‘HMP’ and the spot verification done which was in fact later on confirmed by the Executive Engineer in his letter dated 02.02.2019 (Annexure-4). 15. It is not known and not clear from the counter affidavit and several supplementary counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents that at whose instance the Technical Evaluation Committee was made to sit again on 31.01.2019 to reverse its’ decision and recommendation made under the revised recommendation dated 22.01.2019. There is no contest to the submissions of the petitioner that ‘HMP’ installed by the petitioner is lying left to NH-85 on the given spot with the name of the firm embossed on it and the number described as disclosed by the financer and the petitioner had earlier got the works from the RCD which he had completed satisfactorily. The Executive Engineer, RCD has admitted in the third supplementary counter affidavit that the report of the Executive Engineer dated 02.2.2019 is a fact finding report but then he goes on to say that it does not confirm the ownership claim of the petitioner. 16. In the opinion of this Court, the chain of facts go on to show that right from beginning the petitioner became victim of an arbitrary decision on the part of the Technical Evaluation Committee and the arbitrariness apparent on the record smacks foul play in action. The petitioner has taken a plea that the technical bid of the petitioner has been disqualified only in order to allow the tender to the contractors of their choice without any competing price keeping aside the public interest. In his written notes of argument he has disclosed that two contractors who have been qualified (1) M/s Adarsh Construction had quoted Rs.84.29 crores and (2) M/s Sona Engicon Pvt. Ltd. had quoted Rs.84.56 crores whereas the actual value of tender is Rs.73.94 crores only and the petitioner had quoted only Rs.73.2 crores which is below the tender value. In his written notes of argument he has disclosed that two contractors who have been qualified (1) M/s Adarsh Construction had quoted Rs.84.29 crores and (2) M/s Sona Engicon Pvt. Ltd. had quoted Rs.84.56 crores whereas the actual value of tender is Rs.73.94 crores only and the petitioner had quoted only Rs.73.2 crores which is below the tender value. These facts have been stated on affidavit by the petitioner in his reply to the supplementary counter affidavit and there is no denial of this fact by the respondents. This Court, therefore, finds that there is a huge gap of about Rs.11 crores in the financial bids of the petitioner on the one hand and the two who have been qualified on the other hand. This would bring in the public law element in the matter of award of contract as any attempt to oust the petitioner on flimsy grounds would scuttle the competition which would lead to award of work on a hire cost at public expense. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ‘HMP’ is a movable property and the meaning of the word “ownership” cannot be restricted to the sole consideration of availability of an invoice. He has explained that how the financer repossesses a hypothecated vehicle and then sale the same to a willing purchaser in auction or otherwise by providing financial assistance and if a person acquires a movable property for his exclusive use and under his command establishes the same on his land and property in exclusion to the rights of all others save and except the rights of the financer under the finance agreement in case of default in payment, he cannot be deprived of from participating in the tender by taking a plea that he does not own the vehicle/HMP. 18. In the present case Annexure ‘E’ & ‘F’ show that the ‘HMP’ was procured by the petitioner in the year 2008 itself. The petitioner has obtained financial assistance from Narbheram Finance Co. Ltd. to the extent of Rs.11,00,000/- which he had paid in installments with interest and liquidated the entire loan on 31.01.2012. From Venkataramaiya’s Law Lexicon with Legal Maxims it may be found that the term “ownership” has been defined in different Statute in the context thereof. It provides “The ownership of a material thing means the ownership of a jus in re propria in respect of that thing…. From Venkataramaiya’s Law Lexicon with Legal Maxims it may be found that the term “ownership” has been defined in different Statute in the context thereof. It provides “The ownership of a material thing means the ownership of a jus in re propria in respect of that thing…. The ownership of a jus in re aliena is always incorporeal, even though the object of that right is a corporeal thing …. In its full and normal compass a jus in re propria over a material object is a right to the entirety of the lawful uses of that object. It is a general right of use and disposal, all jura in re aliena being merely special and limited rights derogating from it in special respects. It is only this absolute and comprehensive right – this universum jus – that is identified with its object .. .. This compass, however, may be limited to any extent by the adverse of jura in re aliena vested in other persons. The right of the owner of a thing may be all but eaten up by the dominant rights of lessees, mortgagees, and other encumbrances. His ownership may be reduced to a mere name rather than a reality. Yet he nonetheless remains the owner of the thing, while all the others own nothing more than rights over it.” The liability to incometax is attracted by the fact that the assessee is the owner of the property and is not dependent on whether the assessee has the right to receive the income thereof.- S.B. (House and Land) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal, (1979) 119 I.T.R. 785 at pp. 808, 810 (Cal.). Again in Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Aiyar the “Owner” means any person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such a person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hirepurchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” 19. This Court accepts the submission in the context of the present case and holds that the petitioner having uploaded the documents relating to the ownership from the financer as the same was found to be in consonance with the description of ‘HMP’ mentioned in the tender document as also in course of spot verification of the ‘HMP’ by the Executive Engineer, the ‘HMP’ was found in possession of this petitioner on his land there was no reason for the Technical Evaluation Committee to again revise its recommendation on 31.01.2019. It is apparent from the decision of the Departmental Tender Committee that the said committee has taken note of the inspection report of the junior engineer and has ignored the report of the executive engineer as has been mentioned in the letter dated 02.02.2019 (Annexure 4). 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in catena of decisions that the writ court may interfere in a contract matter where the decision is found to be arbitrary and it involves a public law element and when it is required to be interfered with in larger public interest. 21. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that it would be a fit case to set aside the impugned decision of the Tender Evaluation Committee firstly taken on 04.02.2019 and then on 21.02.2019. Those are accordingly set aside. Let the financial bid of the petitioner be considered. 22. The writ application as well as I.A. No.1 of 2019 are thus allowed. 23. I.A. No.3 of 2019 has been filed by the State to vacate the interim order of status quo dated 06.03.2019. In view of the disposal of the writ application, I.A. No.3 of 2019 stands disposed off in the aforesaid terms. 24. Before this Court parts with the judgment it would record that the department is required to review and look into the various decision of the court given in the works contract matter where the action of the department has been held to be bad and arbitrary. An exercise to analyze those decisions if taken it will improve the quality of the decision making which would in turn curtail the litigation and the State would be in a better position to serve the public at large. However, all these things will be possible only when the decision making authorities act dispassionately keeping in view the public interest alone.