ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of decision of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in rejecting the technical bid of the petitioner as invalid as well as the letter dt. 24.10.2018 issued by respondent No. 3 informing the petitioner the reasons for rejection of his bid as technically invalid and threatening blacklisting. 3. Case of the petitioner is that a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) was issued on 8.9.2018 by respondent No. 3 inviting online bids for outsourcing of daily wage unskilled workers and garbage lifting vehicles for conservancy related works in the military stations at Dinjan, Panitola, Chabua, Laipuli (Tinsukia), Mohanbari and Ganeshbari. It was mentioned that estimated cost of the tender was Rs. 4,02,44,954.00. The NIT, termed as request for proposal, had several parts. Part I of the request for proposal dealt with general conditions. It was provided that online bid should be submitted in two covers, namely, first cover and second cover. First cover should contain scanned copies of various documents including scanned copy of proof of similar works undertaken, scanned copy of labour licence and scanned copy of income tax return for last 3 years. Second copy should contain filled up bills of quantities. Part IV of request for proposal contained special conditions of contract. Serial No. 1 dealt with licence for contracting labour. As per Clause (1), tenderers were required to obtain a licence from the office of the Labour Commissioner to contract labour under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (1970 Act) which was required to be submitted within 90 days of the acceptance of bid. If the contractor is refused a licence or fails to obtain licence within the aforesaid period of 90 days, the contract agreement would automatically stand terminated with the buyer, i.e., the tendering authority in which event the latter will be at liberty to recover losses, if any, from the security deposit and performance guarantee of the contractor. Clause 1 is extracted hereunder:- "1. Clause 1 is extracted hereunder:- "1. The tenderer would be required to obtain a license issued by the Office of Labour Commissioner to contract labour under the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The license should be submitted within 90 days of the acceptance of bid. If the contractor is refused a license for any reason whatsoever or fails to obtain the license within the stipulated period, this agreement shall automatically stand terminated and the buyer shall be at liberty to recover losses, if any from the security deposit and performance guarantee of the contractor." 4. Petitioner responded to the aforesaid NIT and submitted his bid. Altogether 7 tenderers had submitted bids including the petitioner. It is stated that tenders were opened on 29.09.2018 and were evaluated. Technical bids of three tenderers including the petitioner were rejected by the Tender Evaluation Board. According to the petitioner, he could come to know that his bid was rejected on the ground that labour licence submitted by him had expired. 5. Petitioner has further stated that he had quoted 4% above the approved rate and his bid was Rs. 23,79,357.00 which was L1. Bid of respondent No. 4 at Rs. 25,13,227.00 was L2. Bid details of tenderers whose tenders were found valid are mentioned in paragraph 15 of the writ petition. 6. Petitioner submitted representation requesting respondent No. 3 to intimate him about the reasons for rejection of his technical bid. Respondent No. 3 vide impugned letter dated 24.10.2018 informed the petitioner the reasons of rejection of its technical bid. Not only that, petitioner was warned to produce certain certificates of past contracts executed by him at Lekhapani and Dinjan stations which will enable blacklisting of petitioner under Ministry of Defence and banning of the petitioner from participation in any tendering activity under the Army and Air Force. Petitioner was warned to abstain from making further complaints with regard to the contract. 7. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 8. This Court by order dated 16.11.2018 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should not issue work order to respondent No. 4 pursuant to e-tender dated 08.09.2018, clarifying that during the interregnum, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may continue with the earlier arrangement. 9. 8. This Court by order dated 16.11.2018 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 should not issue work order to respondent No. 4 pursuant to e-tender dated 08.09.2018, clarifying that during the interregnum, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 may continue with the earlier arrangement. 9. Respondent No. 4 has filed an application for vacation of interim order dated 16.11.2018 which has been registered as IA(C) No. 1466/2019. Interlocutory Application was heard at length on 16.05.2019 with the observation that entire writ petition may be disposed of. During hearing of the IA, learned Central Govt. Counsel supported contention of respondent No. 4, i.e., the applicant. 10. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 11. On going through the impugned letter dated 24.10.2018, it is seen that technical bid of the petitioner was rejected during evaluation of the technical bids on two grounds mentioned therein, namely, no past experience of executing similar contract involving 188 labourers and 9 tractors and financial incapability to undertake work of such nature. Relevant portion of the letter dt. 24.10.2018 is extracted hereunder:- "3. Technical bid done by Tender Opening Board as per para 2(a)(i) of RFP Part-I vetting was done as given in Appx A. Following are the results of TOB:- (a) No past experience of executing similar contract of 188 labors & 9 tractors. The certificates are either expired or carries no details of employment of over 60 conservancy staff for more than one year. Even the certificates provided of Stn. HQ, Dinjan gives experience certificate but with no details of number of conservancy manpower provided and financial capability. Thus experience certificates shows no capability to undertake contracts of 188 labors and 9 tractors in any circumstances. (b) Financial capability. ITR of three years had been asked to work out financial capability of the companies to undertake contracts of financial value of Rs. 4,54,00,000/- (AON amount). AY 2018-19 shows the financial capability of the firm as Rs. 14,71,249/- which is not even sufficient to lodge PBG/Security Deposit at 10% of contract value (Rs. 45,40,000 as per AON amount). The supplier also has to make payment to the conservancy staff by 3rd of every month which as per AON amount works out to Rs. 37,83,333/- per month. AY 2018-19 shows the financial capability of the firm as Rs. 14,71,249/- which is not even sufficient to lodge PBG/Security Deposit at 10% of contract value (Rs. 45,40,000 as per AON amount). The supplier also has to make payment to the conservancy staff by 3rd of every month which as per AON amount works out to Rs. 37,83,333/- per month. Thus the firm is outrightly rejected and does not deserve a chance to take the contract under any circumstances." 12. From the above, what is evident is that technical bid of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that certificates submitted by the petitioner had either expired or did not carry the details of employment of more than 60 conservancy staff for a year. The certificates provided by the Station Headquarter, Dinjan only mentioned about experience without details of manpower and financial capability. Therefore, it was concluded that the certificates did not show capability of contractor involving 188 labourers and 9 tractors. The second ground of rejection of technical bid is financial incapability. It was mentioned that income tax return of last 3 years reveal financial capability of petitioner at Rs. 14,71,249.00 from which it appeared that petitioner was not solvent enough to undertake work of such magnitude. 13. It is trite that an order must be capable of withstanding legal scrutiny on the strength of reasonings given in the order itself or on the basis of contemporaneous materials available on record. Reasons cannot be supplemented by way of affidavit, neither can reasons be improved subsequently. 14. Adverting to the request for proposal as noticed above, the first cover for online submission should contain amongst others scanned copy of labour licence and scanned copy of income tax returns for last three years. It also required scanned copy of proof of similar works already undertaken. 15. As per Clause 7 of Part-I grounds of rejection of bids are mentioned. It is stated that canvassing by the bidder in any form, unsolicited letter and post-tender correction may invoke summary rejection with forfeiture of earnest money deposit. Besides conditional tenders would be rejected. Further, tenders would be rejected if price bid was not filled up as desired. 16. From a careful perusal of the letter-dated 24.10.2018, it is evident that petitioner had submitted certificates as required and also income tax returns for three years. 17. Besides conditional tenders would be rejected. Further, tenders would be rejected if price bid was not filled up as desired. 16. From a careful perusal of the letter-dated 24.10.2018, it is evident that petitioner had submitted certificates as required and also income tax returns for three years. 17. Therefore, it was not a case of summary rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner. The grounds mentioned for rejection of technical bid are basically grounds on merit which do not call for summary rejection of technical bid. It is a case where petitioner was required to be treated as having submitted technically valid tender whereafter his price bid should have been considered. 18. It is true that Clause 53 of Part-IV of the request for proposal gave liberty to the tendering authority to accept or reject any tender on technical grounds without assigning any reason and that it was not bound to accept the lowest tender or to assign reasons for such non-acceptance. However, considering the fact that it is not the case of the respondents that petitioner's first cover did not contain documents as required which would call for rejection of the tender, rejection of its tender at the stage of technical evaluation is not justified. Petitioner had submitted documents which could be subjected to evaluation at the time of award of the contract and not at a stage prior thereto. 18.1. Adverting to Clause 1 of Part-IV of the request for proposal, a tenderer was required to obtain a licence from the office of the Labour Commissioner under the 1970 Act within 90 days of the acceptance of the bid. Thus, obtaining a licence under the aforesaid Act was contingent upon the offer of bid and acceptance of the same by the tenderer. 19. Section 13 of the 1970 Act provides that an application for grant of licence shall contain the particulars regarding the location of the establishment, the nature of process, operation of work for which contract labour is to be employed and such other particulars as may be prescribed. It is evident therefrom that a licence for contract labour is relatable to the work for which it is being sought for and such a licence cannot be obtained de hors work order for the work in question. 20. It is evident therefrom that a licence for contract labour is relatable to the work for which it is being sought for and such a licence cannot be obtained de hors work order for the work in question. 20. Therefore, to say that certificate submitted by the petitioner had expired or did not carry any details of employment would hardly have any relevance. Only after being offered contract, the tenderer can obtain labour licence from the Labour Commissioner containing the details of employees to be engaged in the contract work. 21. In so far experience certificate is concerned, Station Headquarter, Dinjan had issued the experience certificate. To say that this certificate did not provide any details and financial capability of the petitioner was taking things a bit too far in so far the contract is concerned. Regarding assessment of the financial capability of the petitioner based on the income tax returns of the petitioner is concerned, an income tax return contains gross income and taxable income of an assessee. From the gross income and taxable income of an assessee, no conclusion is possible to be drawn or reached that the assessee would not be in a position to undertake work of a particular size. Income of an assessee and execution of work to be undertaken has got no correlation to warrant rejection of technical bid at the threshold. 22. Blacklisting or debarring a contractor from undertaking future contract works is a drastic step which can only be invoked for reasons, such as, fraud, collusion, repeated failure to execute contract work etc. Since blacklisting or debarment has got civil consequences, the same can be invoked only after following due process and the principles of natural justice. It is not a course of action by which a tenderer can be threatened. 23. In Utkal Galvanizers Ltd. Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2012(5) GLT 775: (2013) 3 GLR 326, a Division Bench of this Court was considering judicial interference in a matter relating to award of contract. It was held that unlike a private person, the State is not free to act whimsically as it is bound by the principles of fairness as well as protecting the interest of public revenue. While certainly it must have free play in joints in exercise of its discretion, it cannot act arbitrarily ignoring relevant considerations or causing prejudice to public interest. While certainly it must have free play in joints in exercise of its discretion, it cannot act arbitrarily ignoring relevant considerations or causing prejudice to public interest. After referring to several Supreme Court decisions, the Division Bench set aside rejection of the bid of the petitioner which was found to be L1 and directed the State to reconsider award of contract at an appropriate higher level. 24. In so far the present case is concerned, it is evident that petitioner was L1 whereas respondent No. 4 was L2. The grounds given for summarily rejecting technical bid of the petitioner in the opinion of the Court are not at all good grounds and smacks of arbitrariness. Threatening the petitioner with punitive action has only added to the highhandedness of the authority. A tenderer has a right to know on what grounds his tender was rejected. A tendering authority cannot take offence to such information being sought for by a tenderer and threaten blacklisting. 25. In the light of the above, impugned letter dated 24.10.2018 as well as rejection of technical bid of the petitioner are set aside and quashed. Matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2 to have a re-look and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible but within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 26. Writ petition is disposed of.