JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. 1. Both the petitions arising out of the same subject tender were ordered to be heard together vide the order dated 06.06.2019, and therefore the common order is being passed. In both the petitions, the decisions contained in the selfsame letter dated 15.05.2019 issued by the respondent Corporation have been challenged, whereby the petitioners were informed that in terms of Clause 27.8 of the BDS, Section II, Part I of the biding document, the Initial Filters cum Qualification Requirement (IFcQR) bid submitted by them were evaluated and were found to be substantially non-responsive to the Eligibility and Qualification Criteria requirements prescribed in the bidding documents. 2. As transpiring from the records, for implementing Metro Rail Project in and between Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad, the Government of Gujarat had passed the General Resolution dated 07.05.2009, pursuant to which a special purpose vehicle came to be formed under the name of "Metro Link Express from Gandhinagar to Ahmedabad (MEGA) Co. Ltd", the respondent herein. The respondent Corporation was formed by the Government of Gujarat and Government of India for implementing the said Metro Rail Project Phase-I for providing transportation services to general public at affordable rates and for reducing the traffic congestion on roads. On the basis of the exchange of notes between the Government of Japan and the Government of India dated 27.11.2015, a Japanese loan came to be extended with a view to promote economic stabilization and development of efforts of Government of India. Pursuant to the same, a loan agreement dated 04.03.2016 was signed between Japan International Cooperation Agency (hereinafter referred to as "JICA") and President of India to fund a major part of the project, whereby JICA had agreed to extend the financial assistance equivalent to Japanese Yen 82,434 Million for the implementation of the Ahmedabad Metro Rail Project- Phase-I. Under Section III of the loan agreement, multi stage references to JICA have been prescribed from initiation to finalization of the procurement process which again is subjected to Multi Stage Reviews, concurrence and final approval of JICA. 3. 3. The respondent Corporation published a tender bearing No. MEGA/UG/E&M-01 for "Design, Manufacture, Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of (A) Electrical and Mechanical (E & M) Including Hydraulics, Fire Safety Systems, UPS & DG Sets (B) Environmental Control System (ECS) and Building Management System -BMS (C) Tunnel Ventilation System (TVS) and TVS-SCADA Works, for Underground Stations, Intermediate Vent Shaft and Associated Tunnels of East- West Corridor of Ahmedabad Metro Rail Project Phase-I" (hereinafter referred to as "the subject tender") on 18.04.2018. The bidding was to be conducted in accordance with the applicable guidelines for procurement under Japanese ODA Loans and JICA's "Single Stage Three Envelope" bidding procedure. The said procedure comprised of three envelopes to be submitted simultaneously by the bidders i.e. (i) Initial Filter Cum Qualification Requirement Bid (ii) Technical Bid and (iii) Price Bid. The last date for submission of the bids was 18.07.2018, which was subsequently extended to 21.08.2018. The petitioners i.e. Voltas Limited of Special Civil Application No. 9786 of 2019 and M/s. Blue Star Limited of Special Civil Application No. 9911 of 2019 amongst other bidders had submitted their bids for the subject tender. 4. In case of the petitioner Voltas Limited, the respondent had sought certain clarifications with regard to the role played by the said petitioner in the projects successfully completed by it in the past, and specifically if the petitioner had worked upon such projects as a prime contractor. Certain correspondences had ensued between the petitioner and the respondent Corporation in that regard. The petitioner had also extended the bank guarantee period from time to time as asked for by the respondent Corporation. Ultimately, the respondent Corporation vide the impugned letter dated 15.05.2019 informed the petitioner that its bid was found to be substantially non-responsive. Similar correspondences had also ensued between the petitioner M/s. Blue Star Limited of Special Civil Application No. 9911 of 2019 and the respondent Corporation, by which the respondent Corporation had sought certain clarifications from the petitioner company and requested to extend the validity of the bank guarantee. According to the said petitioner, the necessary clarifications were given and the validity of the bank guarantee was also extended from time to time as asked for. However the respondent vide the impugned letter dated 15.05.2019 informed the petitioners that its bid was found to be substantially non-responsive to the Eligibility and qualification criteria requirements prescribed in the bidding documents. According to the said petitioner, the necessary clarifications were given and the validity of the bank guarantee was also extended from time to time as asked for. However the respondent vide the impugned letter dated 15.05.2019 informed the petitioners that its bid was found to be substantially non-responsive to the Eligibility and qualification criteria requirements prescribed in the bidding documents. 5. The respondent Corporation has filed affidavits-in-reply in both the petitions, to which the petitioners have filed their respective rejoinders. 6. So far as Special Civil Application No. 9786 of 2019 is concerned, the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi with Mr. Jay Kansara for M/s. Wadiaghandy and co. taking the Court to the documents furnished by the petitioners submitted that in order to be eligible for participating in the biding process, the bidder was required fulfill the "Eligibility cum Qualification Criteria" as specified in Clause 2.4.2 of the Section III relating to "Evaluation and Qualification Criteria -Without Prequalification" and the petitioner fulfilled the said criteria. According to him, the petitioner had successfully completed the work projects namely GMR Hyderabad International Airport, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata. Mr. Joshi further elaborated by submitting that the petitioner had submitted the documents with regard to the GMR Hyderabad International Airport project in support of its claim that the petitioner was directly acting under the respective employers without any intermediaries and the original value of the said project was INR 168.63 Crores, however after calculating the inflation as per clause 2.3.3 of the bid documents, the value was INR 274.24 Crores. According to Mr. Joshi, the said project was originally entrusted to a Chinese Company by the GMR Hyderabad International Airport, however some disputes having arisen between the said GMR Hyderabad International Airport and the said Chinese Company, the said GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project had entered into the shoes of the said Chinese Company, and though the petitioner was described as the sub contractor, it was responsible for the execution of the entire work. Hence, according to Mr. Joshi, the petitioner was required to be treated as the "Prime Contractor" for the said project and not the "Sub-contractor" more particularly when the respondent Corporation had not defined the term "Prime Contractor" in the tender document. Mr. Hence, according to Mr. Joshi, the petitioner was required to be treated as the "Prime Contractor" for the said project and not the "Sub-contractor" more particularly when the respondent Corporation had not defined the term "Prime Contractor" in the tender document. Mr. Joshi also relied upon the other project namely Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata, where the petitioner had directly worked under the employer in the project worth INR 149.99 crores and inflated value of INR 191.43 crores. Lastly Mr. Joshi relied upon the 3rd Project namely the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation to submit that the petitioner had worked as a "Prime Contractor" directly under the employer for the project worth INR 222.84 Crores. Hence, the action of the respondent-Corporation, runs the submission of Mr. Joshi, in rejecting the bid of the petitioner on the ground that it was non-responsive as the petitioner was not the Prime Contractor in the said projects, was absolutely arbitrary. Mr. Joshi further submitted that the respondent Corporation had rejected three out of four bids received in the project, and thereby had eradicated the competition. According to him, the presence of the petitioner and other bidders will enhance the competition at the bidding process which ultimately will be beneficial to the promoters. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi lastly submitted that the impugned letter did not contain the reasons as to why the bid of the petitioner was substantially non responsive and therefore also the said decision suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. 7. So far as Special Civil Application No. 9911 of 2019 is concerned, the learned Advocate Mr. Kunal Nanavati appearing for the petitioner adopting the submissions of Mr. Joshi, further submitted that the bid of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on the ground that it was substantially non-responsive at the IFcQR stage, however what is "substantially non-responsive" has not been defined in the first part of the tender document, and if the analogy of what is "Substantially Responsive Technical Bid" is drawn from Section II of the tender document which pertained to "Bid Data Sheet", as per Clause 33.2 thereof "Substantially Responsive Technical Bid" means one that meets the requirements of the Bidding Documents without material deviation, reservation or omission. According to him, the petitioner had undertaken the contract of underground station, tunnel ventilation, building and depot for Delhi Airport Metro Express Line. According to him, the petitioner had undertaken the contract of underground station, tunnel ventilation, building and depot for Delhi Airport Metro Express Line. The said contract was awarded on 21.08.2009 and completed on 28.02.2011. The certificate submitted by the petitioner along with the bid showed that the value of the completed contract was Rs. 235.10 Crores and after considering the 5% inflation on Indian Rupee and 2% on Foreign Currency, it was Rs. 317.38 Crores. Hence according to Mr. Nanavati, if the experience of the petitioner in respect of the said project of Delhi Airport Metro Express Line was considered, it substantially met with the minimum eligibility requirements, since the value of the contract was only Rs. 90,00,000/- less than Rs. 236 Crores, which should be treated as 'substantially responsive bid'. He submitted that if the short fall margin of the petitioner is considered as substantially responsive, the respondent could not have rejected the same on the ground that it was substantially non-responsive in terms of Clause 27.8 of Section II of the tender document. 8. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. K.B. Trivedi appearing for the respondent Corporation however vehemently submitted that the respondent Corporation is bound to follow the Procurement Guidelines of the JICA which inter alia include the JICA's review and concurrence of the tender document as well as the decision regarding the evaluation. The respondent Corporation in the cases of both the petitioners had taken concurrence of JICA with respect to the first stage of the IFcQR bid in terms of the said guidelines, and had taken the decision as contained in the impugned letters. Placing reliance on the various clauses contained in Section III relating to "Evaluation and Qualification Criteria" of the tender document, he submitted that both the petitioners did not meet with the specific experience criteria laid down in the same. Mr. Trivedi also elaborately submitted as to how the petitioner Voltas Ltd. was not the "Prime Contractor" so far as GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project, and other projects namely Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose International Airport, Kolkata, Kamraj Domestic Terminal Phase-2 Chennai Airport, Chennai Metro Rail Ltd., Delhi Metro Rail Corporation and Chennai Metro Project, were concerned, relying upon the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent Corporation and the documents annexed thereto. According to Mr. According to Mr. Trivedi, though the term "Prime Contractor" has not been defined in the tender document, its meaning as understood by the respondent would be determining factor, which cannot be disputed by the petitioner. He further submitted that from the documents submitted by the petitioner with regard to the contract work of GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project, it was clear that the petitioner had infact worked as a "Sub-contractor" and not as a "Prime Contractor", and even otherwise the petitioner very well understood the difference between the concept of being "Prime Contractor" and that of "Sub-Contractor", inasmuch as it had chosen to fill up the form EXP-2(b) showing its role in the contract of DMRC as "Prime Contractor" in compliance with the requirement of Clause 2.4.2 (b), whereas while filling in the form EXP-2(a) the petitioner had consciously omitted to describe itself as "Prime Contractor", and filled in the remark as "we were single entity". Mr. Trivedi further submitted that the contract work of DMRC project was completed by the petitioner as a Prime Contractor, however the details for the said project have been shown for the compliance of key activities requirements in the Form EXP-2(b) and not in EXP-2(a). Even otherwise, the value of the actual executed work for the said project was to the tune of Rs. 183 Crore only which did not fulfill the criteria of specific experience as contained in Clause 2.4.2(a). Mr. Trivedi has placed reliance upon various decisions of Supreme Court in support of his submissions that the scope of judicial review in contractual matters is very limited. 9. Mr. Trivedi has further submitted so far as Special Civil Application No. 9911 of 2019 is concerned that the petitioner M/s. Blue Star Limited did not comply with the eligibility criteria as contained in clause 2.4.2(a) with regard to specific experience, inasmuch as the petitioner had neither completed the contract which was of similar nature, nor had undergone the stipulated number of contracts with requisite value, nor the contract was performed by the petitioner as "Prime Contractor". He further submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to enhance the value of the contract undertaken by him including the amount of inflation so as to demonstrate its eligibility. There was no provision in the tender which allowed the consideration of inflation for determining the value of the contract as specified in clause 2.4.2 (a). He further submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to enhance the value of the contract undertaken by him including the amount of inflation so as to demonstrate its eligibility. There was no provision in the tender which allowed the consideration of inflation for determining the value of the contract as specified in clause 2.4.2 (a). Hence the inflated contract value of Rs. 317.38 Crores shown by the petitioner in case of Delhi Airport Metro Express Line Project, was rightly not taken into consideration and the actual contract value of the project being admittedly less than Rs. 236 Crores, the bid of the said petitioner was rightly rejected. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Trivedi pressing into service Clause 42.5 contained in Section I submitted that the unsuccessful bidders could request in writing to the respondent Corporation after the notification of award seeking explanation as to on which ground their bids were not selected, and that the petitioners were not required to be furnished the reasons before the notification of the award, when they were informed that their bids were substantially non-responsive. 10. At the outset it may be stated that the Supreme Court in catena of decisions has laid down that the evaluation of tenders and award of contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at distance. The terms of invitation to tender are also not open to judicial scrutiny because the realm of invitation to tender is in the realm of contract, of course the decision of the state authority must not be arbitrary, capricious or malafide. To cite a few judgments are in the cases of Tata Cellular vs. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 ; Air India Ltd. versus Cochin International Airport Ltd. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 617 ; Raunaq International Ltd. Versus I.V.R. Construction Ltd. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 492 ; Jagdish Mandal versus State of Orissa and Others reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 ; and M/s. Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Versus State of Karnataka and Ors. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4727. The learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners have fairly stated that the petitioners have not alleged any malafides against the respondent Corporation. Hence, let us examine as to whether the action of the respondent Corporation in rejecting the bids of the petitioners on the ground of being substantially non-responsive is arbitrary or capricious. reported in 2012 AIR SCW 4727. The learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners have fairly stated that the petitioners have not alleged any malafides against the respondent Corporation. Hence, let us examine as to whether the action of the respondent Corporation in rejecting the bids of the petitioners on the ground of being substantially non-responsive is arbitrary or capricious. 11. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce certain relevant clauses of the tender document. As transpiring from the said tender document, it was divided into three sections. Section I pertained to "Bidding Process". Section II pertained to "Bid Data Sheet" and Section III pertained to "Evaluation and Qualification Criteria (without pre-qualification)". Since the respondent Corporation has invoked the clause of 27.8 of BDS, Section II of Part 1 of the bidding document, the same is reproduced as under: "ITB 27.8 The employer will notify, in writing, Bidders who have been rejected on the grounds of their Initial Filter cum Qualification Bid being substantially non-responsive to the requirements of the Bidding Documents and return their Bid Security, Technical Bid and Price Bids unopened." 12. Since according to the respondent Corporation both the petitioners did not qualify the experience requirement as contained in the Clauses 2.4.1, 2.4.2(a) and 2.4.2(b) of Section III of the tender document pertaining to Evaluation and Qualification Criteria, the same are reproduced as under: "2.4.1 General Experience: Experience under contracts in the role of "Prime Contractor" (single entity or JV member), Subcontractor or management contractor for atleast the last 05 years starting from 1st January 2013 to 1st January 2018. 2.4.2(a) Specific Experience A minimum number of either one similar contract of INR 236 Crores or above or two similar contracts each of INR 147 Crores and above or three similar contracts each of INR 118 Crores and above that has/ have been satisfactorily and substantially completed as a prime contractor (single entity or JV member) between 1st January 2008 and the Bid Submission Deadline. For interpretation of this Clause, similar contracts would mean "A contract with Air Conditioning System of minimum capacity 1000 TR for MRTS/Metro Railways/ Airports etc. For interpretation of this Clause, similar contracts would mean "A contract with Air Conditioning System of minimum capacity 1000 TR for MRTS/Metro Railways/ Airports etc. and/ or Tunnel Ventilation System of minimum 1 KM of Twin Tunnel/ 2 Kms of Single Tunnel including the stations of MRTS/Metro." 2.4.2(b) Specific Experience: For the above or other contracts completed and under implementation as prime contractor (single entity or JV member), management contractor or subcontractor between 1st January 2008 and the Bid Submission deadline, a minimum experience in the following key activities (Key Activity-A Key Activity-B and Key Activity-C) successfully completed. Key Activity-A for T+VS System At least one (01) underground metro station and associated Tunnel (including ramp area if any) of underground metro rail project which includes Design, Manufacture, Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Tunnel Ventilation System and SCADA system including Tunnel Ventilation Fans, Dampers, PLC, MCC, associates cabling, compressors & associated piping works etc. Key Activity-B for ECS System At least one (01) underground At least one (01) underground metro station and associated Tunnel (including ramp area if any) of underground metro rail project which includes Design, Manufacture, Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Environment Control System and Building Management System (BMS) including Ducting, Ventilation Supply and Exhuat Fans, Trackway Exhaust fans, Fire Dampers, AHU, Chillers, cooling towers, MCC, PLC, BMS system, chilled water and condenser water pumps, associated piping, valves, etc. Key Activity-C Electrical & Mechanical Works At least one (01) underground At least one (01) underground metro station and associated Tunnel (including ramp area if any) of underground metro rail project which includes Design, Manufacture, Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Electrical and Mechanical system including L.T. Panels, L.T. Cable distribution, lighting. Fire fighting and hydraulics system, fire alarm & detection system, Gas Suppression System, BMS work etc." 13. From the bare reading of the aforestated clauses of the tender document it is clear that the respondent Corporation had the right to reject the bid of the bidder if its Initial Filter cum Qualification Bid was found to be substantially non-responsive to the requirements of the bidding documents, and to return its bid security, technical bid and price bids unopened, as per Clause 27.8 of Section II of the tender document. It was also made very much clear in the clause 2.4 of Section III with regard to "Evaluation and Qualification Criteria" that the compliance of the requirements as mentioned therein was a must. As per Clause 2.4.2(a) with regard to 'specific experience', a minimum number of either one similar contract of INR 236 Crores or above, or two similar contracts each of INR 147 crores and above or three similar contracts each of INR 118 Crores and above, have to be satisfactorily and substantially completed as a "Prime Contractor" (single entity or JV member) between 01.01.2008 and the bid submission deadline. Now, so far as the petitioner Voltas Limited is concerned, as transpiring from the documents submitted by them, the value of the contract with GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project was Rs. 168.36 crores. As per the details filled in by them in the prescribed form i.e. EXP-2(a) with regard to the specific experience, it has been stated against the column "Role in contract" that "we were single entity- we were contractor", meaning thereby there was no specific mention that the role of the petitioner in the said contract was that of a "Prime Contractor". From the other documents including completion certificate issued by the GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project, the petitioner was all throughout described as the "sub-contractor" and not the "Prime Contractor". Though it was sought to be submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi that the original contract entered into by GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project and the Chinese Company named M/s. China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited was novated, and GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project had entered into the contract with the petitioner company whereby the petitioner was responsible for the entire project work though described as the "sub-contract" and therefore the petitioner company was required to be treated as the "Prime Contractor" for the said project, the said submission cannot be accepted. It is needless to say that the petitioner company having accepted the terms and conditions as contained in the tender document and having participated in the bidding process by submitting all the requisite documents, cannot after rejection of its bid seek interpretation of the term "Prime Contractor" or insist to interpret the term as understood by it. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Kamal Trivedi, the petitioner knowing fully well about the difference between the "Prime Contractor" and the "sub contractor" had consciously filled in the tender document and had not shown itself as the "Prime Contractor" qua the project of the GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project inasmuch as in the other documents pertaining to DMRC, produced in terms of compliance of clause 2.4.2.(b), the petitioner had shown itself as "Prime Contractor". Under the circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the term "Prime Contractor" having not been defined in the tender documents, the work or project undertaken by the petitioner as the sub-contractor in the contract with GMR Hyderabad International Airport Project be treated as the one done by the petitioner as the "Prime Contractor" for the purpose of compliance of specific experience in terms of clause 2.4.2(a) of Section II of the tender document. 14. It is needless to say that the terms contained in the clauses which are required to be mandatorily complied with, have to be strictly interpreted and complied with. They could not be relaxed by interpreting the same in the manner suitable or favourable to one party. In the opinion of the Court, the decision of the Supreme court in case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited Versus Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2016) 16 SCC 818, clinches the issue, wherein the Supreme Court considering various earlier decisions cautioned the Constitutional Court against interfering with the decision making process or the decision unless there is malafide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. To be precise, it has been observed in para. Nos. 11 to 15 thereof as under:- "11. Recently, in Central Coalfields Ltd. v. SLL-SML (Joint Venture Consortium) it was held by this Court, relying on a host of decisions that the decision making process of the employer or owner of the project in accepting or rejecting the bid of a tenderer should not be interfered with. Interference is permissible only if the decision making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Interference is permissible only if the decision making process is mala fide or is intended to favour someone. Similarly, the decision should not be interfered with unless the decision is so arbitrary or irrational that the Court could say that the decision is one which no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with law could have reached. In other words, the decision making process or the decision should be perverse and not merely faulty or incorrect or erroneous. No such extreme case was made out by GYT-TPL JV in the High Court or before us. 12. In Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay it was held that the constitutional Courts are concerned with the decision making process. Tata Cellular v. Union of India went a step further and held that a decision if challenged (the decision having been arrived at through a valid process), the constitutional Courts can interfere if the decision is perverse. However, the constitutional Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute its view for that of the administrative authority. This was confirmed in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa as mentioned in Central Coalfields. 13. In other words, a mere disagreement with the decision making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. The threshold of mala fides, intention to favour someone or arbitrariness, irrationality or perversity must be met before the constitutional Court interferes with the decision making process or the decision. 14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous-they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word 'metro' in Clause 4.2 (a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked. 15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. 15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given." 15. The reliance placed by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi on the contract with DMRC also would not be helpful to the petitioner inasmuch as undisputedly the petitioner had relied upon the said contract for the purpose of showing compliance of Clause 2.4.2(b) with regard to the specific experience in key activities. Even otherwise, the contract amount of the said contract was 222.84 Crores and not Rs. 236 Crores as required for the purpose of compliance of Section 2.4.2(a) of Section 3 of the tender document. In that view of the matter the petitioner having not complied with the requisite experience as contained in clause 2.4.1(a) of the tender document, the bid of the petitioner has been rightly found to be substantially non-responsive to the bid documents and rightly rejected invoking clause 27.8 of the said document. 16. So far as, the other petition being Special Civil Application No. 9911 of 2019 is concerned, the only contention raised by the learned Advocate appearing for petitioner Mr. Nanavati is that the shortfall margin of the petitioner with regard to the contract undertaken by it for the Delhi Airport Metro Express Line should be treated as substantial compliance so far as Clause 2.4.2(a) of Section III of the tender document was concerned. The said contention also cannot be accepted. Admittedly the certificate submitted by the said petitioner along with the other documents showed the value of the completed contract as Rs. 235.10 Crore whereas the specific requirement under Clause 2.4.2 (a) was of INR 236 Crores or above. Therefore, it was less by 90 lakhs INR. The submission of learned Advocate Mr. The said contention also cannot be accepted. Admittedly the certificate submitted by the said petitioner along with the other documents showed the value of the completed contract as Rs. 235.10 Crore whereas the specific requirement under Clause 2.4.2 (a) was of INR 236 Crores or above. Therefore, it was less by 90 lakhs INR. The submission of learned Advocate Mr. Nanavati that the inflated vale of the said contract i.e. INR 317.38 crores was required to be taken into consideration also cannot be accepted in absence of any specific provision contained in the said tender document as regards consideration of the inflated value for the purpose of showing the compliance of the specific experience contained in clause 2.4.2(a) of Section III of tender document. The Supreme Court in a recent decision in case of Vidarba Irrigation Development Corporation Versus Anoj Kumar Garwala reported in MANU/SC/0078/2019, held that the words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous, they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In the said case, the appellant Corporation had considered the bid of the respondent though the said respondent had initially furnished the bank guarantee for six months instead of forty months as required by the terms of tender. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court observed as under: "15. The law on the subject is well settled. In Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Devkishan Computed Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 446 , this Court held: "14. The law is settled that an essential condition of a tender has to be strictly complied with. In Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works [Poddar Steel Corpn. v. Ganesh Engg. Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273 ] this Court held as under: (SCC p. 276, para 6). "6. … 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." 15. 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." 15. Similarly in B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. [B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548 ] this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 571-72, para 66) "(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;…" 16. We also agree with the contention of Shri Raval that the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilised to make a fresh bargain between parties." 16. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strongly relied upon Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, and paragraphs 14 and 15 in particular, which state: "14. We also agree with the contention of Shri Raval that the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilised to make a fresh bargain between parties." 16. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strongly relied upon Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd., (2016) 16 SCC 818, and paragraphs 14 and 15 in particular, which state: "14. We must reiterate the words of caution that this Court has stated right from the time when Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489 ] was decided almost 40 years ago, namely, that the words used in the tender documents cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous -- they must be given meaning and their necessary significance. In this context, the use of the word "metro" in Clause 4.2(a) of Section III of the bid documents and its connotation in ordinary parlance cannot be overlooked. 15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given." 17. It is clear even on a reading of this judgment that the words used in the tender document cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or superfluous-they must be given meaning and their necessary significance ...... " 17. Since both the petitioners had failed to comply with the essential conditions with regard to specific requirements of the concerned Clauses of the tender document mainly Clause 2.4.2 (a) of Section III of the tender document, it could not be said that the decision taken by the respondent Corporation that the bids of the petitioners were substantially non-responsive, was arbitrary or capricious. The learned Advocates appearing for the petitioner have fairly submitted that they have not alleged any malafides against the respondent Corporation in taking the decision in question, however according to them such elimination would lead to eradication of competition which would not be in the interest of public at large. In this regard, it may be noted that the compliance of the essential conditions is a must, especially when the respondent Corporation is bound by the guidelines issued by the JICA which is funding the majority part of the said project and when the decision regarding evaluation is also subject to the review and concurrence by the JICA. 18. In that view of the matter, there being no substance in both the petitions they are dismissed in limine. 19. The request made by the learned advocates appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions that the further process of the tender be stayed for two weeks to enable the petitioners to approach the higher forum cannot be accepted in view of the settled legal position discussed and in view of the reasons stated in the judgment.