ORDER : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the following reliefs have been sought for:- (a) For issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the Tender Summary Report (Annexure-7) as uploaded on the website of the Jharkhand Tender in so far as it relates to the bid of the Petitioner being declared non-responsive at the scrutiny stage and the bids of the Private Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 being declared technically responsive though they did not fulfill the terms and conditions and experience/expertise as required in terms of the Bid Documents for N.I.T. No. JUIDCO/Smart City Project/Ranchi/1982/2018/191 (“the Tender”) (b) The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the decisions of the Tender Committee dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure-5), whereby and whereunder the Bid of the Petitioner has been declared as non-responsive at the scrutiny stage although the petitioner has submitted the Bid Security as required in the Tender whereas adequate opportunity was given by seeking clarifications from the rest bidders; (c) The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the decisions of the Tender Committee dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure-6) whereby and whereunder the Bids of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been declared as technically responsive although both the Respondents do not meet the technical qualification criteria as specified in the Tender; (d) The petitioner further prays for issuance of appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the decisions of the Tender Committee dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure-6), whereby the Tender Committee has recommended opening the financial bids of the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 although their technical bids ought to have been declared as technically non-responsive being not meeting the technical qualification criteria of the Tender; (e) The petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ commanding upon the respondents to declare the Bid of the Petitioner as responsive as the Petitioner has duly submitted the bid security as required in the Tender and otherwise fulfills and meets the requisite Technical Specification and Financial Resources in terms of the Tender to successfully execute the work, however, has been purposely and deliberately declared non-responsive & thereby ousted from the Tender process, so as to accommodate and Award the work to the Respondent No. 5; (f) The Petitioner further prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order of direction commanding upon the respondents and showing them cause as to how and under what circumstances the technical qualification criteria as required under “the tender” has been relaxed in violation of the doctrine of fairness and reasonableness and the Tender and the non-responsive Bids of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been declared as responsive; (g) The petitioner particularly prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction initiating an enquiry into the collusion of the Respondents no. 2 to 4 with the Respondent No. 5 & 6. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in this writ petition are that the petitioner being a lead partner i.e. M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd., which is a global Company in the business of providing all engineering and execution services in the fields of water, waste water, irrigation, rural agricultural development and solid waste management, Transmission of Oil & Gas to its customers worldwide, while the second partner of the petitioner, namely, M/s. Raj Corporation Ltd is also well-established Company in the field of electrical components of infrastructure projects and has successfully executed several works. The Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 2) has issued a Notice Inviting Tender on 31.12.2018 for the work of “Integrated Infrastructure Development Works, which include Transport & Circulation (Road), Road Side Plantation and Arboriculture, Storm Water, Drainage, Water Supply & Recycle Water System, Water System, Waste Water System, Power Infrastructure, Smart Street Lighting System and Land Development in ABD area of Ranchi Smart City in the State of Jharkhand on EPC basic, followed by performance-based O & M of the Infrastructure (excluding Power Infrastructure) component created for a period of 5 years including Defect Liability Period of 1 year. As per Clause 4.4.1 of the Instruction to Bidders (ITB) of the Tender, a joint venture of more than one contractor could also participate in the Tender. Further as per Clause 4.4.4 laid down the eligibility criteria for Joint Venture, wherein, the Joint Venture was required to collectively satisfy the technical and financial criteria, specified in the Tender. In order to participate in the Bid, a Joint Venture has been formed in between M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd. with M/s. Raj Corporation Limited by virtue of Joint Venture Agreement, dated 05.02.2019, wherein, M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd. had a share of 75 per cent and was the Lead Partner, whereas, M/s. Raj Construction Limited being the Second Partner had share of 25 per cent. The petitioner fulfilling the technical experience and the financial capabilities requirements as specified in the Tender had participated in the Bid and submitted its Bid on 08.02.2019 alongwith the Bid Security of Rs.5,14,60,000/-in the form of Fixed Deposit created in favour of JUIDCO. The FDR was valid for a period of 183 days. Alongwith the petitioner, other Bidders have participated, namely, (i) M/s Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Chennai, (ii) M/s Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata the respondent nos. 5 and 6 respectively, (iii) M/s. KMV Projects Ltd., Hyderabad and M/s. Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd., Israel and Raj Corporation Limited, U.P. (JV). The Bid of the petitioner has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground of non-fulfillment of the condition, as stipulated under clause No. 4.4.3 of the ITB, which pertains to Bid Security and performance guarantee, which will be furnished by the Lead Partner and the Joint Venture/Consortium Partners out of their accounts in proportion to their participation in Joint Ventures and accepted Bid Documents of the respondent nos. 5 and 6, therefore, the said decision of the Scrutiny Committee has been assailed by way of the instant writ petition by the petitioner. 3. The following grounds have been urged by the petitioner:- (i) The condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 of the ITB is not a mandatory condition warranting the authority to reject the Bid Document venture before the technical bid. (ii) The condition stipulated in the bid is to be adhered to strictly, but, it is to be seen as to whether the condition, basing upon which the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected, is essentially to be fulfilled or if it is curable in nature, can it be rejected on that ground. (iii) The petitioner is still ready to comply with the aforesaid condition, as stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 of the ITB. (iv) The Respondent nos. 5 and 6 has been shown premium and relaxation has been awarded, although the LOI has been issued in favour of the respondent no. 5, who has also not fulfilled the condition stipulated in the ITB. The petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:- (i) (2006) 11 SCC 548 , B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd.-Vs.-Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Others; (ii) (2013) 10 SCC 95 , Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another-Vs.-Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others and (iii) (2017) 5 Supreme Today, 184. 4. While, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that if any condition has been stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender, it is strictly to be adhered to and in case of non-fulfillment or non-compliance of the terms and conditions pertaining to Bid Security of the Notice Inviting Tender, the candidature is to be rejected in view of the specific condition, laid down under Clause 16.3 of the ITB and if the required condition, as stipulated under the Clause No. 4.4.3 will be read with the condition No. 16.3, the decision taken by the Tender Bid Committee, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. The condition stipulated under Condition No. 4.4.3 cannot be said to be directory, as because considering the nature of work, as has been stipulated with respect to Bid Security and performance guarantee to be furnished in the case of Joint Venture by the lead partner and Joint Venture/Consortium Partners out of their accounts partner, to their participation in Joint Venture and as per the Joint Venture Agreement, the parties have agreed to form the Joint Venture with M/s Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd., Israel designated as the lead partner and first partner of the joint venture with its share in JV = 75 per cent and RCL shall be second number or second number partner or its share in JV equivalent to 25 per cent and each of the 75 per cent/25 per cent respective share of a party in the JV, hereinafter to be referred as the ‘proportion’. The purpose for inserting the aforesaid condition is to assess the financial viability of the Lead Partner as also the Consortium Partner and, as such, the same cannot be said to be directory in nature, rather it is mandatory and the mandatory nature is further evident from the condition stipulated under Clause 16.3 of the ITB, which contains a deviation, any Bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security and not secured, as indicated in IT Clause 16.3 of the ITB shall be and rejected by the employer as non-responsive, meaning thereby the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.1, is having its mandatory effect. The petitioner has participated in terms of the condition of the Tender and by going through the condition stipulated therein, with naked eye and without assessing any of the condition of the NIT and once his Bid has been cancelled, he cannot come and turn around in the nature of the condition. 5. It is the submission that the judgment relied upon on behalf of the petitioner is in favour of the respondent, since in all the judgments, it has been held that if the condition is mandatory, it has to be adhered to, but as has been staken, hereinabove, the condition stipulated under Clause No. 4.4.1 cannot be said to be directory. The Respondents have relied upon the following judgments:- (i) (1990) 2 SCC 488 , G.J. Fernandez-Vs.-State of Karnataka and Ors. The Respondents have relied upon the following judgments:- (i) (1990) 2 SCC 488 , G.J. Fernandez-Vs.-State of Karnataka and Ors. (ii) (2002) 6 SCC 315 , Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal-Vs.-Union of India and Others (iii) (2005) 4 SCC 435 [: 2005(3) JLJR (SC) 21] Global Energy Ltd. and Another-Vs.-Adani Exports Ltd. and Others (iv) (2006) 11 SCC 548 , B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd.-Vs.-Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Others and (v) (2013) 10 SCC 95 , Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another-Vs.-Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others. 6. The writ petition has been heard at length. The core question raised in this case, is regarding the mandatory nature of condition, as stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 of the ITB of the Notice Inviting Tender in question. In sum and substance, the argument of the petitioner is that the condition as stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 is not mandatory and, as such, even if the petitioner has not complied with the same, the Bid cannot be rejected while, on the other hand, the respondents have taken the stand that the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.1 is mandatory, as such, being not complied with by the petitioner, the Bid has been rejected. 7. Before dealing with the issues involved in this case, it is relevant to refer herein the position of law with respect to the condition of the contract as to whether, if stipulated is to be adhered to in the Notice Inviting Tender. The law has been settled in this regard in the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 , wherein, it has been laid down that the State can fix its own terms of invitation of tenders and that it is not incumbent to judicial scrutiny and the same is strictly to be adhered to. In the case of Directorate of Education and Others v. Educomp DataMatics Ltd. and others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 19 , it has been held therein that the courts would not interfere with the terms of the tender notice unless it was shown to be either arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice. It was further held that while exercising the power of judicial review of the terms of the tender notice the court cannot order change in them. It was further held that while exercising the power of judicial review of the terms of the tender notice the court cannot order change in them. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal-Vs.-Union of India and Others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 315 , it has been held therein at paragraph 6 by taking note of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.J. Fernandez-Vs.-State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488 that when an essential condition of tender is not complied with, it is open to the person inviting tender to reject the same. Whether a condition is essential or collateral could be ascertained by reference to the consequence of non-compliance thereto. If non-fulfillment of the requirement results in rejection of the tender, then it would be an essential part of the tender otherwise it is only a collateral term. “6. It is settled law that when an essential condition of tender is not complied with, it is open to the person inviting tender to reject the same. Whether a condition is essential or collateral could be ascertained by reference to the consequence of non-compliance thereto. If non-fulfilment of the requirement results in rejection of the tender, then it would be an essential part of the tender otherwise it is only a collateral term. This legal position has been well explained in G.J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka.” Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, although has not disputed the position of law, as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment, referred hereinabove, but he has raised the issue as to whether the condition stipulated in Clause 4.4.3 of the Notice Inviting Tender, is essential or collateral. 8. This Court in order to examine the aforesaid issue, has thought it proper to reflect the condition stipulated in Clause 4.4.3 of the ITB:- “4.4.3 All the partners of Joint Ventures shall be, jointly and severally liable, during the Bidding process and for the execution of the contract in accordance with the contract terms, and a statement of this affect shall be included in the authorization. The bid shall be signed so as to legally bind all the partners, jointly and separately. The bid shall be signed so as to legally bind all the partners, jointly and separately. Bid Security and Performance Guarantee, as required, will be furnished by the Lead Partner and Joint Venture/Consortium partners out of their accounts in proportion to their participation in Joint Venture.” Clause 16.3 also needs to be referred:- “16.3 Any bid not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security and not secured as indicated in ITB Clauses 16 above shall be rejected by the Employer as non-responsive.” 9. It is also relevant to look into the nature of the work, which has been sought to be performed by the successful bidder, which pertains to Transport & Circulation (Road), Road Side Plantation and Arboriculture, Storm Water, Drainage, Water Supply & Recycle Water System, Water System, Waste Water System, Power Infrastructure, Smart Street Lighting System and Land Development in ABD area of Ranchi Smart City in the State of Jharkhand on EPC basic, followed by performance-based O & M of the Infrastructure (excluding Power Infrastructure). The scope of work include a detailed engineering design by the bidder, based upon in line like front and Engineering design, provided for Land Development, Transport & Circulation (Road), Road Side Plantation and Arboriculture, Storm Water, Drainage, Water Supply & Recycle Water System, Water System, Waste Water System, Power Infrastructure, Smart Street Lighting System and Land Development in ABD area of Ranchi Smart City in the State of Jharkhand on EPC basic, followed by performance-based O & M of the Infrastructure (excluding Power Infrastructure) including carrying out detailed survey and investigation for all works and utilizing both primary and secondary data collected in this regard. The condition stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender is that the pre-bid meeting was held on 09.01.2019 at 15.00 hours at the office of the JUIDCO Ltd. Under the condition No. 4.4, it has been stipulated under Clause 4.4.1 that Joint Venture of more than one directory, can also participate in the Bid. Joint Venture partners would be limited to 3, (including the Lead Partner), while condition No. 4.4.2, it has been stipulated that one of the partners, who is responsible for performing the key role under the contract (Lead Partner of the JV) management or is executing a major component of the proposed contract, shall be nominated as being in charge during Bidding periods and in the event of successful Bid, during contract execution. The partner in charge shall be authorized to incur liabilities and receive instructions for and on behalf of the partners of the Joint Ventures. This authorization shall be evidenced by submitting a power of attorney signed by legally authorized signatories of all partners. While condition no. 4.4.3 stipulates that all the partners of Joint Ventures shall be, jointly and severally liable, during the Bidding process and for the execution of the contract in accordance with the contract terms, and statement of this effect shall be included in the authorization. The Bid shall be signed so as to legally bind all the partners, jointly and separately. 10. It is in this context of the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3, the requirement of possessing the condition has been made to the effect that the bid security and performance guaranteed will be furnished by the Lead Partner and Joint Venture/Consortium Partners, out of their accounts in proportion to their participation in Joint Venture. 11. It is in the light of the nature of work and the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3, it is to be assessed as to whether the condition stipulated to the effect of furnishing Bid Security and performance guarantee by the Lead partner and the Joint Venture out of their accounts in proportion to their joint partners, is essential or not? 12. The aforesaid condition has been stipulated only for the reason to assess the financial viability of the partners of the Joint Venture and the financial viability of the Bidders, is an important factor, to be assessed by the Bid Committee in allotting the work, reason is that in case there is any failure on the part of the Bidders in performance/execution of the work, it may be forfeited or performance guarantee may be invoked, suppose in the Joint Venture only Lead Partner has furnished the Bid Security and performance guarantee and the Consortium Partners have not furnished it. The question would be that why such conditions have been stipulated in the Bid Documents, it is not in dispute that if a decision is being taken by the competent authority inserting a condition in the Notice Inviting Tender, the same cannot be a subject matter of judicial review, rather it is within the domain of review, unless, it is arbitrary and malicious and save and except the aforesaid ground, it cannot be looked into by a Court of law in exercise of the power of judicial review. If a bidder has got no financial viability, having not been assessed, awarding work in its favour will be said to be not proper by deviating or relaxing from the terms and conditions, stipulated in the bid document. 13. Since the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3, if read alongwith the condition No. 16.3, which has got direct bearing, since it pertains with respect to the Bid Security and in case the Bid, not accompanied by an acceptable Bid Security, the same shall be rejected by the employer, as non-responsive, the insertion of word ‘shall’ under Clause 16.3 has made the condition under Clause 4.4.3, as mandatory in nature, leaving no space to the Bidder to raise the issue that the said condition is not mandatory, therefore, the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 is held to be mandatory. 14. It is, thus, evident that the condition no. 16.3 of the Notice Inviting Tender, makes the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3, as essential in view of the law having been clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in this regard in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Agrawal-Vs.-Union of India and Others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 315 by putting reference to the judgment in the case of G.J. Fernandez (Supra), wherein, at paragraph 6, as referred above, it has been laid down that if non-fulfillment of the requirement, results in rejection of the Tender, then, it would be an essential part of the Tender, otherwise, it is only a collateral term. The condition stipulated under Condition no. 16.3 makes it clear that in case of non-compliance of the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 of the Notice Inviting Tender, which pertains to the Bid Security, the Tender shall be rejected, thus, the condition stipulated under Clause 16.3 makes the condition stipulated under Clause No. 4.4.3 an essential one. 15. The condition stipulated under Condition no. 16.3 makes it clear that in case of non-compliance of the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 of the Notice Inviting Tender, which pertains to the Bid Security, the Tender shall be rejected, thus, the condition stipulated under Clause 16.3 makes the condition stipulated under Clause No. 4.4.3 an essential one. 15. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that a condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 has not been fulfilled while as per condition stipulated in the Joint Venture Agreement, each of the partners Lead or Second Partner will have responsive share of 75 per cent and 25 per cent each to be/shall be referred to as the ‘proportion’. Admittedly, the Lead Partner has furnished the performance security in the form of term deposit of 183 days, it is entirely of its own accounts and therefore, the Tender Committee having assessed that part of the condition of the Joint Venture of proportion of their share has not been furnished by way of complying with the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 has rejected the same. 16. 16. The argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the said condition is curable in nature and still they are ready to comply with the same, but the said argument is not to be considered for the reason that when the condition has been stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender for submission of the Bid Document within a specific date and if the requirement is not being fulfilled and thereupon, the candidature has been rejected, giving premium to such candidate by the court of law will amount to relaxing the terms and conditions of the Bid Document, which does not come within the domain of the court of law, more particularly, the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reason, that if it can be relaxed to the petitioner, then why not to the others and, as such this argument of the petitioner is having no force and, is accordingly, rejected, reference in this regard be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of G.J. Fernandez-Vs.-State of Karnataka and Ors reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488 , wherein, at paragraph 15, it has been laid down that changes or relaxation in the direction would be unobjectionable, unless the benefit of those changes or relaxations were extended to some, but, denied to the others. That document was belatedly entertained from one of the applicants, will cause substantial prejudice to another party, who wanted likewise extension of time for filing a similar certificate or document, but was declined the benefit. That document was belatedly entertained from one of the applicants, will cause substantial prejudice to another party, who wanted likewise extension of time for filing a similar certificate or document, but was declined the benefit. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the aid of the judgment, rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another-Vs.-Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 95 , to substantiate his argument that in the aforesaid appeal, the requirement of Income Tax return was to be submitted, but the candidature of the Bidders was rejected, since he had not submitted the latest Income Tax return and therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to come to the conclusion that an opportunity ought to have been given to the Bidder to submit the latest Income Tax Return and in view thereof, the submission has been made that he is ready to abide by the said condition, but, question herein, is that in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another (Supra), the condition stipulated in the Notice inviting Tender is for submission of Income Tax return and there is no condition stipulated to submit the “latest” Income Tax Return and therefore, in that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to pass the aforesaid order, thus in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another (Supra), the condition stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender is for submission of Income Tax return and there is no condition stipulated to submit the “latest” Income Tax Return and therefore, in that context, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to pass the aforesaid order, but, herein, in the instant case, the specific condition has been laid down for furnishing the Bid Security and performance guarantee and therefore, since, it has not been submitted, it will not be in nature of curable defect and, as such, in the facts and circumstances, involved in this case, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another (Supra) is not applicable. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd.-Vs.-Nair Coal Services Ltd. and Others reported in (2006) 11 SCC 548 , after going across para 66 of the aforesaid judgment, wherein, it has been held that (i) if there are essential conditions, the same must be adhered to; (ii) if there is no power of general relaxation, ordinarily the same shall not be exercised and the principle of strict compliance would be applied where it is possible for all the parties to comply with all such conditions fully; (iii), if, however, a deviation is made in relation to all the parties in regard to any of such conditions, ordinarily again a power of relaxation may be held to be existing; (iv) the parties who have taken the benefit of such relaxation should not ordinarily be allowed to take a different stand in relation to compliance with another part of tender contract, particularly when he was also not in a position to comply with all the conditions of tender fully, unless the court otherwise finds relaxation of a condition which being essential in nature could not be relaxed and thus the same was wholly illegal and without jurisdiction; (v) when a decision is taken by the appropriate authority upon due consideration of the tender document submitted by all the tenderers on their own merits and if it is ultimately found that successful bidders had in fact substantially complied with the purport and object for which essential conditions were laid down, the same may not ordinarily be interfered with; (vi) the contractors cannot form a cartel. If despite the same, their bids are considered and they are given an offer to match with the rates quoted by the lowest tenderer, public interest would be given priority. As has been held hereinabove, the condition stipulated in Clause 4.4.3, is mandatory in nature and, as such, the same is to be complied with and in view thereof, the judgment rendered in the case of B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. (Supra) does not help the case of the petitioner, rather it is in favour of the respondents. 17. As has been held hereinabove, the condition stipulated in Clause 4.4.3, is mandatory in nature and, as such, the same is to be complied with and in view thereof, the judgment rendered in the case of B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. (Supra) does not help the case of the petitioner, rather it is in favour of the respondents. 17. In view of the entirety of the facts and circumstances, as discussed, hereinabove in detail and taking into consideration, the nature of condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 read with condition No. 16.3, the said condition having been held to be mandatory and as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty-Vs.-International Airport authority of India reported in (1979) 3 SCC 489 , G.J. Fernandez (Supra) as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 , wherein, it has been laid down that the condition stipulated in the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender, is strictly to be adhered to, since it is admitted case of the petitioner that the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 has not been complied with. 18. It is the further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that before opening of the Technical Bid, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected, meaning thereby, he has argued that his case has not been placed before the Tender Committee, but, as would be evident from Annexure-5 (impugned), the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the basis of the proceedings of the Tender Committee of its meeting held on 20.02.2019 and, as such, it cannot be said that it is not by the Tender Committee. 19. Further argument has been advanced that the respondent no. 19. Further argument has been advanced that the respondent no. 5 and 6 has been shown premium, since they are also not fulfilling the criteria/conditions stipulated in the ITB to the effect pertaining to experience and to that effect, statement has been relied upon, as has been made at paragraph 23 to the writ petition, but this Court after going across the document of the Tender Committee, as annexed at Annexure-5 at page 206 to 210, it is evident that the Tender Committee, which consists of 9 members of the Committee of the officials of the different departments have appreciated the documents furnished by the other 3 Bidders including the Respondent No. 5 and after being satisfied with the aforesaid documents, the decision has been taken for selection of the Respondent No. 5 by rejecting the Bid of Respondent no. 6 and one M/s KMV Projects Limited. So far as the assertion made in the writ petition as under para 23, this Court after going across the aforesaid statement, made therein, has found that a vague and bald statement has been made pertaining to condition of experience of 5 years till 31.03.2018 and save and except, no assertion has been made in support of it by placing reliance upon any document, while it is evident from the documents, as on page 206 to 210 that the Tender Committee has taken into consideration the experience part of the Respondent No. 5 by discussing it in the Tabular Chart, the said document has been annexed by the petitioner and therefore, the statement made at para 23 is in conflict with the document and, as such, is not to be considered. Accordingly, this argument is not acceptable to this Court, hence rejected. 20. Accordingly, this argument is not acceptable to this Court, hence rejected. 20. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and as per the settled position of law that a condition, if stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender strictly to be adhered to by the participants and, as has been held hereinabove that the condition stipulated under Clause 4.4.3 is mandatory, having not been complied with by the petitioner, it cannot be said that the Technical Committee has committed any illegality and therefore, there is no illegality in the process of selection and it is settled position of law that the writ Court can interfere by exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if there is any illegality/infirmity in the process of selection, but not in the matter of decision taken by the authority, as such, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for passing a positive order in its favour and therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed.