JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, seeking direction to evaluate the bid submitted by the petitioner with the Joint Venture partner, viz., RDS CVCC in response to Ext.P1, by opening the price bid, in the light of Ext.P3 Extension of Bank Guarantee submitted by RDS-CVCC, and for other consequential reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is a company which provides civil engineering and construction services. Petitioner along with a company called RDS Project Ltd. had formed a Joint Venture (JV) by name RDS-CVCC. The 3rd respondent issued an Invitation for Bids for 'Upgrading Punalur to Ponkunnam road (SH-8) Package 8B: Km 29+840 (Konni) to Km 60+000 (Placherry). The extended deadline for submission of bids was 18.03.2019. However, due to some technical issues in the submission of the bids, prospective bidders were granted time till 19.03.2019 to submit bids. RDS-CVCC submitted its bid on 13.03.2019 and the only other bidder was M/s. EKK Infrastructure Ltd., which also submitted its bid on 19.03.2019. 3. As per Ext.P1 Bidding Documents, all bids were to be accompanied by a bid security in the form of a Bank Guarantee for Rs.2,75,00,000/-. Clause 6 of the Invitation for Bids in Ext.P1 provided that the bid security shall have to be valid for 45 days beyond the validity of the bid. As per Clause ITB 18.1 of the 'Bid Data-sheet' in the Bidding Procedures in Ext.P1, the bid validity period was specified as 150 days. Thus, according to the petitioner, the bid security was supposed to be for a period of 150 days + 45 days. 4. However, Ext.P2 Bank Guarantee dated 07.03.2019 provided by RDS-CVCC was valid only till 06.06.2019. When the bid documents were being scrutinized, the error was detected and RDS-CVCC was informed about this discrepancy. According to the petitioner, since Ext.P2 Bank Guarantee already provided the stipulated Bank Guarantee amount of Rs.2,75,00,000/-, and since the reduced time period of the Bank Guarantee was only a technical and curable defect, RDS-CVCC's bid was accepted and was given time to rectify the technical error. Thereupon, Ext.P3 'Extension of Bank Guarantee' dated 02.04.2019 was submitted, whereby the period of the Bank Guarantee dated 07.03.2019 was extended till 07.10.2019, thus satisfying the stipulations in Ext.P1. 5. Thereupon, Ext.P3 'Extension of Bank Guarantee' dated 02.04.2019 was submitted, whereby the period of the Bank Guarantee dated 07.03.2019 was extended till 07.10.2019, thus satisfying the stipulations in Ext.P1. 5. It is also contended that, as on 17.04.2019, the website of the eTendering System of the Government of Kerala shows the status of RDS-CVCC's bid as 'Accepted'. However, petitioner received certain information that respondents would take steps to reject the bid submitted by RDS-CVCC, on the ground that it did not initially comply with the bid security requirement, which, according to the petitioner, would cause grave injustice to the petitioner, since the petitioner has already taken all requisite steps to fully rectify the inadvertent error. That apart, it is submitted that, since there is only one other bidder, rejection of the bid of the petitioner and the JV partner would necessitate a re-tender, and the guidelines of the Central Vigilance Commission provide for a re-tender in the event of there being only one valid bid, which, according to the petitioner, would amount to an unnecessary expenditure on the public exchequer. These are the basic background facts projected by the petitioner in order to secure the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 6. The 3rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit, and produced various documents, refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. That apart, it is contended that, the project in question is a prestigious project of the Government of Kerala implemented through the Kerala State Transport Project (KSTP) with the financial assistance of the World Bank, and KSTP Phase-II envisages the upgradation of 363 Km. roads and the total project cost is 445 million US Dollars (USD), out of which, 216 million USD is loan assistance from World Bank. The project loan agreement was signed on 19.06.2013 at New Delhi and the project implementation period is 2013 to 2019. As per the agreement with the World Bank, under component A2: Road Improvement Component, KSTP is undertaking upgradation of 82 kms of State Highway from Punalur-Ponkunnam under Engineering Procurement Construction mode, which is a major initiative by the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Kerala State Transport Project, with the intention of improving the traffic flow and better connectivity to the pilgrims visiting Sabarimala. It is also pointed out that, the deadline for submission of bids was 06.02.2019, which was subsequently extended up to 19.03.2019 16.00 hrs. It is also pointed out that, the deadline for submission of bids was 06.02.2019, which was subsequently extended up to 19.03.2019 16.00 hrs. upon request from the bidders.The methodology was two bid system and the technical bid was opened on 19.03.2019 at 16.30 hrs. by the bid opening committee, and in response to the tender notice, two bids were received; one from the petitioner and the Joint Venture partner and the other from M/s. EKK Infrastructure Limited. 7. The paramount contention advanced by the 3rd respondent is that, as per Clause 19.3 of the bidding document, all bids are to be accompanied by a bid security and as per Clause 19.4ofthebidding document, if any bid isnot accompanied by a substantially responsive bid security, it shall be rejected by the Authority as non-responsive. It is also specified in Clause 19.3 that the bid security shall be valid for forty five days beyond the original validity period of the bid. As per clause 18.1 of Section II - Bid Data sheet of the bidding document, it is specified that the bid validity period shall be 150 days. Thus, the bid security must be valid for a total period of 195 days, i.e., up to 30.09.2019. It is submitted that, the bid submitted by the petitioner and the JV partner was scrutinized, and it was found that the bid security submitted by the petitioner was valid only up to 06.06.2019, instead of having its validity up to 30.09.2019, as per clauses 19.3 and 19.4 of the bidding document, evident from Ext.R3(b), whereas the other bidder had submitted their bid security with validity up to 30.10.2019. 8. It is also submitted that, the bids were opened online through the Kerala e-tender portal on 19.03.2019 at 16.30 hrs. while the original copies of the bid security were obtained offline as per ITB Clause 20.1 of the bidding document. It was thereupon that the bids were accepted during the bid opening stage in the Kerala e-tender portal since the bids were received within the stipulated bid submission time. It is further submitted, mere acceptance of the bid at the bid opening stage does not technically qualify the bidder. The contents of the bids are subject to further scrutiny including verification of the bid security from the concerned Bank authorities during the technical evaluation stage for considering whether the bidder is technically qualified. It is further submitted, mere acceptance of the bid at the bid opening stage does not technically qualify the bidder. The contents of the bids are subject to further scrutiny including verification of the bid security from the concerned Bank authorities during the technical evaluation stage for considering whether the bidder is technically qualified. The other contention raised by the petitioner that the petitioner was given time to rectify the technical error is denied, and no communication was issued by the respondents to the bidder for rectifying the original bid security. 9. The 3rd respondent had entered into an agreement with M/s. L&T Infrastructure Engineering Limited and as per the same, the Consultant is to assist the 3rd respondent for evaluation purpose and report is to be submitted by them for evaluation. A committee comprising the Principal Secretary, PWD, 3rd respondent and Chief Engineer, KSTP constitute the evaluation committee. As per the agreement, M/s. L&T assisted the evaluation committee in preparing the preliminary report, and based on the same, the Evaluation Committee reviewed the bids and came up with final Technical Evaluation Report, which was shared with the World Bank for their review. Thereupon, it is found that the bid submitted by the petitioner is defective and improper and against Ext.P1 notice inviting bid. It was thereupon that the bid submitted by the petitioner along with JV partner was rejected by the respondent as non-responsive in accordance with Clause 19.4 of ITB of the bidding document. 10. Thereafter, petitioner and the JV partner submitted a revised bank security wherein the validity of the bank security was extended up to 07.10.2019. That apart, it is submitted that, as the project work comes under prior review threshold of World Bank, all decisions are subject to final approval of the World Bank, and as per Clause 2.16 of the Procurement Guidelines for Works under IBRD followed by KSTP, even when one bid is submitted, the bidding process may be considered valid, if the bid was satisfactorily advertised, the qualification criteria were not unduly restrictive, and prices are reasonable in comparison to the market values, evident from Ext.R3(c). 11. 11. It is also pointed out that, the World Bank represented by its Task Team Leader in its interim response to KSTP for evaluation of the technical proposal had commented that any revision to the bid security document after the bids are opened cannot be considered, and therefore, if the defective bid submitted by the petitioner is accepted, it amounts to giving the petitioner undue advantage, which is not fair to other bidder, and it is likely to prone to complaint by other stakeholders. A copy of the e- mail dated 09.04.2019 sent by the World Bank is produced as Ext.R3(d). It is also submitted that, Ext.P3 was not accepted or acted upon by the respondents, and therefore, the contention made by the petitioner contrary to the same cannot be sustained under law. 12. A reply affidavit to the counter affidavit and additional reply was also filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition, and also contending that, as per clause 27.1 of Ext.P1, the authority is left with the discretion to ask any bidder for a clarification of its bid, giving a reasonable time for a response. The authority's request for clarification and response shall be in writing, and by virtue of the power, the Executive Engineer sent a letter dated 06.05.2019, seeking for clarification from the petitioner regarding sufficient source of funds and also regarding the validity of the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P9. The very same day, petitioner submitted a reply furnishing sufficiency of source of fund, evident from Ext.P10 reply. 13. That apart, it is submitted that, as per Clause 29.1 of Ext.P1, if a bid is substantially responsive, the authority may waive any non-conformity in the bid. As per clause 29.2, if a bid is substantially responsive, the authority may request the bidder to submit necessary information or documentation within a reasonable period of time, to rectify non material non-conformities in the bid related to documentation requirements, and according to the petitioner, as per clause 31.2 of Ext.P1, a substantially responsive bid is one that meets the requirements of the Bidding Documents without material deviation, reservation or omission, and therefore, the clarification furnished by the petitioner by revising the Bank Guarantee would not amount to deviation, reservation or omission as mentioned in clause 28 of Ext.P1. Therefore, it is contended that, petitioner is also entitled to be considered along with the other bidder. 14. I have heard Sri. Santhosh Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.V. Manoj kumar, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 15. The discussion of facts made above would make it clear that, the subject issue revolves around Clause 19 of Ext.P1 Bidding Documents, which read thus: “19. Bid Security 19.1 The Bidder shall furnish as part of its Technical Part of the bid, a scanned copy of the bid security in the amount specified in the BDS. The original of the Bid Security shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures specified in ITB 20.1 below. 19.2 Deleted. 19.3 If a bid security is specified pursuant to ITB 19.1, the bid security shall be a demand guarantee in any of the following forms at the Bidder's option: (a) an unconditional guarantee issued by a Nationalised/Scheduled Bank located in India; (b) an irrevocable letter of credit issued by a Nationalised/Scheduled bank located in India; (c) a cashier's or certified check or demand draft issued by a Nationalised/Scheduled bank located in India; or (d) Deleted. In the case of a bank guarantee, the bid security shall be submitted using the Bid Security Form included in Section IV, Bidding Forms. The form must include the complete name of the Bidder. The bid security shall be valid for forty-five (45) days beyond the original validity period of the bid, or beyond any period of extension if requested under ITB 18.2. 19.4 If a bid security is specified pursuant to ITB 19.1, any bid not accompanied by a substantially responsive bid security shall be rejected by the Authority as non responsive. 19.5 If a bid security is specified pursuant to ITB 19.1, the bid security of unsuccessful Bidders shall be returned as promptly as possible upon the successful Bidder's signing the Contract and furnishing the performance security and the Environmental, Social, Health and Safety (ESHS) Performance Security pursuant to ITB 44. 19.6 The bid security of the successful Bidder shall be returned as promptly as possible once the successful Bidder has signed the Contract and furnished the required performance security and the Environmental, Social, Health and Safety (ESHS) Performance Security. 19.6 The bid security of the successful Bidder shall be returned as promptly as possible once the successful Bidder has signed the Contract and furnished the required performance security and the Environmental, Social, Health and Safety (ESHS) Performance Security. 19.7 The bid security may be forfeited: (a) if a Bidder withdraws/modified/substitutes its bid during the period of bid validity specified by the Bidder on the Letter of Bid -Technical Part and repeated in the Letter of Bid-Financial Part, or any extension thereto provided by the Bidder; or (b) if the Bidder does not accept the correction of its bid price pursuant to ITB 36; OR (c) if the successful bidder fails to: (i) sign the Contract in accordance with ITB 43; or (ii) furnish a Performance Security and the Environmental, Social, Health and Safety (ESHS)Performance Security in accordance with ITB 44. 19.8 The bid security of a JV shall be in the name of the JV that submits the bid. If the JV has not been legally constituted into a legally enforceable JV at the time of bidding, the bid security shall be in the names of all future members as named in the letter of intent referred to in ITB 4.1 and ITB 11.2.” 16. As pointed out above, as per Clause 18, the bids shall remain valid for the period specified in the BDS after the bid submission deadline date prescribed by the Authority in accordance with Clause 22.1, and a bid valid for a shorter period shall be rejected by the Authority as non-responsive. However, as per Clause 18.2, in exceptional circumstances, prior to the expiration of the bid validity period, the Authority may request the Bidders to extend the period of validity of their bids, and the request and the responses shall be made in writing in a manner specified in the BDS. It is stated thereunder that, if a bid security is requested in accordance with ITB 19, it shall also be extended for forty-five days beyond the deadline of the extended validity period, and the bidder may refuse the request without forfeiting its bid security. But, a Bidder granting the request shall not be required or permitted to modify its bid, except as provided in ITB 18.3. 17. But, a Bidder granting the request shall not be required or permitted to modify its bid, except as provided in ITB 18.3. 17. As per Clause 22.1, deadline for submission of bids are prescribed, which stipulates that, bids, both Technical and Financial Parts, must be submitted in the e-procurement system not later than the date and time specified in the BDS. Clause 22.2 of Ext.P1 stipulates that, the Authority may, at its discretion, extend the deadline for the submission of bids by amending the Bidding Documents in accordance with ITB 8, in which case all rights and obligations of the Authority and Bidders previously subject to the deadline shall thereafter be subject to the deadline as extended. Clause 23.1 stipulates that, the e-Procurement system would not allow any late submission of bids after due date and time as per server system. 18. On an evaluation of the fact situations and taking into account the aforesaid stipulations contained under Ext.P1 Bidding Documents, it is clear that, as per Clause 19.1, the bidder is duty bound to furnish the bid security in the amount specified in the Bidding Document and the original of the Bid Security shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures specified in ITB 20.1. Admittedly, the bid security submitted by the petitioner was only for a short period. In that context, Clause 18.1 of Ext.P1 is relevant, wherein, it is stipulated that a bid valid for a shorter period shall be rejected by the Authority as non-responsive. That apart, Clause 19.4 stipulates that if a bid security is specified pursuant to ITB 19.1, any bid not accompanied by a substantially responsive bid security shall be rejected by the Authority as non-responsive. So much so, it is clear from Clause 19.3 read with the bid data sheet accompanying Clause 18.1 that the bid must be valid for a total period of 195 days, the bid security furnished by the petitioner along with the tender was only valid up to 06.06.2019, instead of the validity up to 30.09.2019. Therefore, the bid submitted by the petitioner was liable to be rejected in accordance with Clauses 18.1 and 19.3 of the Bidding Documents, in view of the peremptory stipulation contained under Clause 19.1 therein. Any way, these are all admitted factors, by the petitioner. 19. Therefore, the bid submitted by the petitioner was liable to be rejected in accordance with Clauses 18.1 and 19.3 of the Bidding Documents, in view of the peremptory stipulation contained under Clause 19.1 therein. Any way, these are all admitted factors, by the petitioner. 19. In my considered view, the provisions discussed above are of peremptory nature, going by the phraseology used thereunder. Admittedly, the bid security submitted by the petitioner was not in terms of Ext.P1. However, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, petitioner was provided with time to provide a fresh bid security and it was accordingly that a fresh bid security was submitted by the petitioner by an extended Bank Guarantee. The said submission is made relying upon Clause 27 of Ext.P1 dealing with Clarification of Bids. Clause 27.1 stipulates that, to assist in the examination, evaluation and comparison of the bids, and qualification of the Bidders, the Authority may, at its discretion, ask any Bidder for a clarification of its bid, giving a reasonable time for response, and any clarification submitted by a bidder that is not in response to a request by the Authority shall not be considered. 20. It is also stipulated thereunder that, the Authority's request for clarification and the response shall be in writing, and no change, including any voluntary increase or decrease, in the prices or substance of the bid shall be sought, offered, or permitted, and if a bidder does not provide clarifications of its bid by the date and time set in the Authority's request for clarification, its bid may be rejected. Therefore, according to the petitioner, as per Ext.P9dated 06.05.2019,clarificationwas sought invoking the said powers. Ext.P9 reads as follows: “This has the above reference. In the process of evaluation of the subject bid, it is noticed that your firm does not have sufficient source of fund for meeting the current and obligations arising from investing in Package 8B and Package 8C. Hence, you are requested to immediately furnish the above details for completing the evaluation process. Further, the validity of the BG submitted by your firm is falling short on required duration as stipulated in 19.3 of ITB. As such, you are requested to furnish clarification in this regard. Please treat this matter as most urgent to help us to complete the evaluation process”. 21. Further, the validity of the BG submitted by your firm is falling short on required duration as stipulated in 19.3 of ITB. As such, you are requested to furnish clarification in this regard. Please treat this matter as most urgent to help us to complete the evaluation process”. 21. On a further reading of Ext.P9, it is clear that, the reference made is (1) Tender id: 2019 PWD 260634; (2) the bid proposal of the petitioner dated 26.03.2019 and (3) the letter issued by the petitioner dated 12.04.2019. In response to the said letter, petitioner has given Ext.P10 reply, wherein, certain explanations are made and also stated that the writ petition is pending before this Court. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in 'PES Installations Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Union of India and Another' [2015 SCC OnLine Del 8397 : AIR 2015 Del 108 ], and invited my attention to paragraphs 20 to 24, which read thus: “20. The Division Bench, relying upon Poddar Steel Corporation (Supra) and Kapsh Metor JV (Supra) held that object of the Bank Guarantee was to secure the Respondent against the risk of the bidder's conduct and the same was not in any way threatened or imperiled. The Division Bench found the bid to be substantially responsive and it was within the right of the respondent to waive the mere technical irregularity. 21. In the present case, 09 amendments were made by the respondent No.2 to the tender document from time to time. As per the NIT dated 03.03.2014, the validity of the BG was to be valid at least 165 days from the date of tender opening. By the amendment No.9 dated 26.12.2014 and the date of opening was amended from 29.12.2014 to 15.01.2015. Calculated from 29.12.2014 as stipulated by the NIT dated 03.03.2014, the two bank guarantees would have been valid, however the same were short by a period of seven days when calculated in terms of the amended opening date of 15.01.2015. The Petitioners on coming to know of the error, on 15.01.2015 itself got the bank guarantees extended and submitted the same to the respondent No.2 on the very next day. 22. The Petitioners on coming to know of the error, on 15.01.2015 itself got the bank guarantees extended and submitted the same to the respondent No.2 on the very next day. 22. It may be noted that there was a discrepancy in the NIT dated 03.03.2014 in as much as when the date of opening of the Bid was stipulated as 29.12.2014 the period of validity as 165 days mentioned was upto 30.06.2015 and when the date of opening was amended to 15.01.2015, by amendment No.9, the period of validity as 165 days mentioned was upto 29.06.2015. 23. Furthermore, the earnest money deposit is required to protect the purchasers against the risk of the bidder's conduct, which would warrant the forfeiture of the EMD. The EMD is to be forfeited in case the petitioner withdraws or amends its tender or impairs or derogates from the tender in any respect within the period of forfeiture of its tender or, in case, any information/document furnished in the tender is incorrect, false, misleading or forged. Further, the successful bidder's earnest money is liable to be forfeited, in case, the successful bidder fails to furnish the required performance security within the specified period. None of the stipulated eventualities have arisen. The petitioner has furnished the EMD, though the same was short by a period of 07 days but the error was rectified immediately on the bid opening and prior to the scrutiny, evaluation and consideration of the bids of the various bidders. The plea of the petitioner that the discrepancy and error had occurred on account of the amendment of the bid document by the respondents from time to time is plausible. The object of securing the respondent against the risk of the bidder's conduct was not, in any way, threatened or imperiled. No unfair advantage had been gained by the petitioner in this process. The petitioner is not stealing a march over any of its competitors by altering its bid amount. 24. The deviation, in our view, is not a material deviation of an essential condition. It is settled law, that as a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. It is settled law, that as a matter of general proposition it cannot be held that an authority inviting tenders is bound to give effect to every term mentioned in the notice in meticulous detail, and is not entitled to waive even a technical irregularity of little or no significance. The requirements in a tender notice can be classified into two categories those which lay down the essential conditions of eligibility and the others which are merely ancillary or subsidiary with the main object to be achieved by the condition. In the first case, the authority issuing the tender may be required to enforce them rigidly. In the other cases, it must be open to the authority to deviate from and not to insist upon the strict literal compliance of the condition in appropriate cases”. 23. After assimilating the fact situations available in that case, it was held that, the bid submitted by the petitioner therein cannot be held to be materially non-responsive and rejection of the bid of the petitioner would be hyper-technical and would not be in the public interest requiring wider participation of bidders to ensure healthy competition. However, in my considered opinion, on a reading of the said judgment, it is categoric and clear, nine amendments were made by respondent No.2 to the tender document from time to time, and as per the Notice Inviting Tender dated 03.03.2014, the validity of the Bank Guarantee was to be valid at least 165 days from the date of tender opening, and consequent to the amendments made, the date of opening was amended from 29.12.2014 to 15.01.2015, and calculated from 29.12.2014 as stipulated by the NIT dated 03.03.2014, the two Bank Guarantees would have been valid, however, the same were short by a period of seven days when calculated in terms of the amended opening date of 15.01.2015. 24. Therefore, on a clear appreciation of the facts and circumstances involved in that case, it is evident that they do not fit in, in order to apply the proposition of law to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. It is vivid and clear, from the stipulations in Ext.P1 discussed above that, if the Bank Guarantee is not properly submitted by the bidders, it would be treated as a non-responsive bid. It is vivid and clear, from the stipulations in Ext.P1 discussed above that, if the Bank Guarantee is not properly submitted by the bidders, it would be treated as a non-responsive bid. So, the clauses contained in Ext.P1 are specific and definite, and the petitioner, a well-experienced contracting Company, participated in the bid fully knowing well that the Bank Guarantee is to be given for the entire period as is specified in Ext.P1 Bidding Documents. It is an admitted fact that petitioner has not done so. However, petitioner has a case that it was on the basis of the permission granted by the respondents, petitioner has later provided a proper Bank Guarantee. However, no documents are produced to justify the pleadings so made in the writ petition and the additional reply affidavit. It is true, petitioner is served with Ext.P9 notice, may be, in accordance with Clause 27 of Ext.P1. However, those are seeking certain clarifications for finalizing the evaluation, but the explanation offered by the petitioner was not satisfactory to the said Authority, and the clarification sought will not in any manner bind the authority to deviate from the conditions of bidding documents, which is the rule of the game. 25. Now, let me put the whole issue in a different fashion to appreciate the situation in a more legalistic manner. If the authority accepts the bid of the petitioner overlooking the bidding stipulations, would it not provide a cause of action to the other participant in the bid, to challenge the action as arbitrary and illegal, being violative of the bidding stipulations? In my considered view, the authority has acted only in accordance with law, taking into account all the attendant circumstances including the guidelines provided by the World Bank. 26. So also, Clause 2009.2 of the PWD Manual Revised Edition 2012 is relevant, which read thus: “2009.2. Consideration and Tabulation of tenders The officer inviting tenders may condone minor defects if any and allow the tender to be included for tabulation. Such minor defects include: (a)Omission to sign or include all or any of the plans with tender. (b) Failure to produce the original chalan for remittance of E.M.D provided in its place the temporary receipt given from the treasury is produced and the original chalan is produced before the evaluation of tender is completed. (c) Omission to total the different appendices. (b) Failure to produce the original chalan for remittance of E.M.D provided in its place the temporary receipt given from the treasury is produced and the original chalan is produced before the evaluation of tender is completed. (c) Omission to total the different appendices. (d) Failure to initial all or any of the pages provided he has signed in all the pages containing the rates and in the page in which the tender offer is made. (e) Failure to write rates in figures against-one or more items of the tender, provided the rates for such items are unambiguously written in words. The discretionary power of the officer opening the tender will be utilized to protect the interest of the Government. A tabulation statement of the acceptable tender with a note on the merits of each shall be prepared by the Technical Branch of the office and scrutinized by the head of the Technical Branch. It shall also be examined by the Deputy Superintending Engineer in the case of Circle Officers, Deputy Executive Engineer in Division offices and Drawing Branch in Sub Divisions, as the case may be, before submission to the authority accepting the tender.” On a deeper analysis of the afore-quoted provisions, it is explicit, the authority, at any stretch of imagination, could not have rectified the defect in question as a minor defect too. Moreover, petitioner has no case of malafides or other perverse situations, justifying judicial review resorting to Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, I also bear in mind that the time stipulation of the World Bank is due to expire in the year 2019, and any manner of delay can cause serious repercussions than superficially seen. 27. Petitioner has also yet another contention that if the bid submitted by the petitioner is found to be technically disqualified, then, as per Ext.P6 Circular issued by the Ministry of Rural Roads Development, Government of India dated 15.01.2013, a single bid cannot be taken into account for the purpose of analysing the bid. In that context, learned Senior Government Pleader has invited my attention to Ext.R3(c), relevant portion of the World Bank Procurement Guidelines, and as per clause 2.61 in respect of Rejection of All Bids, it is stipulated that “Bidding documents usually provide that Borrowers may reject all bids. In that context, learned Senior Government Pleader has invited my attention to Ext.R3(c), relevant portion of the World Bank Procurement Guidelines, and as per clause 2.61 in respect of Rejection of All Bids, it is stipulated that “Bidding documents usually provide that Borrowers may reject all bids. Rejection of all bids is justified when there is lack of effective competition, or all bids are not substantially responsive, or no bidder meets the specified qualification criteria, or the bid price of the lowest evaluated winning bid is substantially higher than the Borrower's updated estimated cost or available budget. Lack of competition shall not be determined solely on the basis of the number of bidders. Even when only one bid is submitted, the bidding process may be considered valid, if the bid was satisfactorily advertised, the qualification criteria were not unduly restrictive, and prices are reasonable in comparison to market values”. That apart, the guidelines updated in November, 2017 and August, 2018 are made available to me at the time of hearing. Clause 5.59 is relevant, which read thus: “Lack of competition shall not be determined solely on the basis of the number of Bidders/Proposers. Even when only one Bid/Proposal is submitted, the process may be considered valid, if: (a) the procurement was satisfactorily advertised; (b) the qualification criteria were not unduly restrictive; and (c) prices are reasonable in comparison to market values”. 28. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention advanced by learned Senior Government Pleader is that, so far as the present project is concerned, it is a World Bank aided one and the bid documents issued by the World Bank are to be followed by the State Government, failing which, there is every likelihood of the World Bank interfering with the award of the bid, which is quite clear and evident from Ext.R3(d) email, conveying that the bid submitted by the petitioner and JV partner is not a responsive bid in terms of clause 19.4 of Ext.P1 and the bid shall be rejected by the authority as non-responsive. It is also worthwhile to extract the purpose in the introduction of guidelines2014,in respect of Procurement of Goods, Works, andNon-consulting Services under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits & Grants by World Bank Borrowers, made available to me at the time of hearing by learned counsel for the petitioner, which read thus: “1.1 The purpose of these Guidelines is to inform those carrying out a project that is financed in whole or in part by a loan from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), a credit or grant from the International Development Association (IDA), a project preparation advance (PPA), a grant from the Bank, or a trust fund administered by the Bank and executed by the recipient, of the policies that govern the procurement of goods, works, and non-consulting services required for the project. The Loan Agreement governs the legal relationships between the Borrower and the Bank, and the Guidelines are made applicable to procurement of goods, works, and non-consulting services for the project, as provided in the agreement. The rights and obligations of the Borrower and the providers of goods, works, and non-consulting services for the project are governed by the bidding documents, and by the contracts signed by the Borrower with the providers of goods, works, and non-consulting services, and not by these Guidelines or the Loan Agreements. No party other than the parties to the Loan Agreement shall derive any rights therefrom or have any claim to loan proceeds.” Therefore, even if single bid is available, the sole aspect to be looked into is, whether the bid is responsive to prices and are reasonable in comparison to market values. It is also pointed out that, so far the commercial bid of the qualified bidder is not opened and only on opening of the commercial bid, it can be elicited as to whether the bid is in accordance with Clause 2.61 of Ext.R3(c). 29. Even though learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in 'Suja Sunil v. Divisional Railway Manager' [2015 SCC OnLine Ker 29628], I am of the considered opinion that, therein, instead of Bank Guarantee, a Fixed Deposit receipt was provided for the entire amount and for the entire period. Therefore, the situation and circumstances considered thereunder is entirely different from the circumstances and stipulations contained in Ext.P1 Bidding Documents. Therefore, the situation and circumstances considered thereunder is entirely different from the circumstances and stipulations contained in Ext.P1 Bidding Documents. In my considered view, the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in 'Tbas Construction Supreme Infrastructure (I) Ltd. v. Union of India & Others' [ 2018 (4) KLJ 336 ] squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of this case. After having an elaborate survey of the decisions of the apex court on the point in issue, it is held as follows in paragraph 27: “27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the difference in the bid quoted by the petitioner and the 4th respondent, who were awarded the contract. But, in our considered view, this cannot be the sole basis to choose a non-responsive tenderer as in that event, the work itself may be put to jeopardy. The Employer too will be put to unnecessary risk, since the defects are fundamental in nature and cannot be ignored. The Employer having prepared the tender documents is the best authority to understand and appreciate their requirements and interpret them to meet their objectives. The court exercising the power of judicial review should normally respect the Employer's understanding and appreciation, unless the decision taken by the authority is mala fide or perverse. In the instant case, there was no ambiguity in the interpretation of the Tender Conditions made by the Port Trust nor any special consideration was shown by them for any of the participating bidders. In such circumstances, it would hardly warrant the Court to intervene in the decision of the Employer in the contractual domain”. 30. Therefore, evaluating the entire factual and legal situations, I am of the clear opinion that no grounds of malafides, arbitrariness, irrationality or bias are made out, justifying interference as sought for by the petitioner. Resultantly, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.