JUDGMENT Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. - Asserting that e-Procurement Software of the respondents had declared petitioner No.1 as lowest bidder (L-1) vide a report generated on 31.01.2020, instant writ petition has been preferred seeking direction to the respondents to issue Letter of Acceptance for the tender in question in favour of petitioner No.1. 2. Facts:- 2(i). Shimla Jal Prabandhan Nigam Limited (SJPNL)- respondent No.2 issued an online global Request for Proposal (RFP) on 09.10.2019, inviting bids for Design Build Operate (DBO) Contract for Bulk Water Supply for Shimla from river Sutlej. Last date for submission of bids was 11.11.2019. 2(ii). In response to RFP, respondent No.2 received six bids in all including that of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5. 2(iii). Technical bids were opened online on 11.11.2019. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 alongwith two other bidders qualified the same. 2(iv). The financial bids were opened on 31.01.2020. E-Procurement system of the respondents generated a report on 31.01.2020, appended at Annexure P-4, showing petitioner No.1 as lowest bidder (L-1), and respondent No.5 as L-2, with following bid amount:- Sheet Name Sl. No. Bidder Name Amount Bid Rank BoQ1 1 Vishnu Prakash R Punglia Ltd 4118236207.00 L1 2 LCC Projects Private Limited 4119874558.58 L2 ---- ------- ------ ------ ---- ------- ------ ------ However, Letter of Acceptance was not awarded to petitioner No.1. Representations of petitioner No.1 dated 30.03.2020 and 30.04.2020 did not yield desired result. To these representations, response of the State, through its E-mail dated 16.04.2020, was that Annexure P-4, i.e. report generated by e-Procurement Portal relied upon by the petitioner to project him as L-1, was not Bid Evaluation Document. 2(v). The case set up in the writ petition is that Column No.53 of form Fin 1 reflecting the price quoted by parties in column No.13 with GST mentioned in column No.20 (collectively mentioned in column No.53) has total of aggregate bid price including costs of 'GEC' & 'Operations'. This, therefore, is the only basis for determining the value of the bid and accordingly, the amount in Column No.53 has been rightly considered as the value of the bid in generating the report at Annexure P-4, declaring the petitioner as L-1. The value reflected in Column No.54 of form Fin 1 after considering the Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be considered as a criteria for bid evaluation. The value reflected in Column No.54 of form Fin 1 after considering the Net Present Value (NPV) cannot be considered as a criteria for bid evaluation. Since petitioner No.1 has been declared as L-1 in terms of report generated at Annexure P-4, therefore, Letter of Acceptance has to be issued to it. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of official respondents No.1 to 4, which has been adopted by respondent No.5. The sum total of the stand reflected therein is that:- 3(i). The bids have to be evaluated in terms of Clauses 5 and 44 of the RFP document. Clause 5, laying down the bid parameters, being relevant is extracted hereinafter:- "5.1 The Bidder will be required to quote in the Bid Price Sheet for the Project Facility. The Project Facility refers to the Sutlej Bulk Water Supply Scheme. All prices should be exclusive of all taxes. The Bid Price Sheet will include: (a) For the Project Facility, (a) Design Build Price, (b) O&M Price (Fixed), (c) O&M Price (Variable), (d) GEC (b) Energy Charges will be calculated using the methodology based on GEC quoted by the Bidder as given in Fin 1 (c) Ceiling GEC, Acceptable GEC and Floor GEC has been fixed by SJPNL, for Project Facility is given in BDS. (d) Bidders are required to quote on the Bid Parameters considering the reasonableness of the Bid Parameter as per Clause 3.2. 5.2 Based on these components quoted by a Bidder, the Bid Price will be determined by the system using the formulas set out in Fin 1. 5.3 The Bidders are encouraged to attend the Pre-Bid Meeting on the date defined in the BDS. During the Pre-Bid Meeting, SJPNL/its' advisors will illustrate the calculations in the Bid Price Sheet. 5.4 The Bidders must provide a break-up of the Bid Project Cost for the components specified in the Bid Price Sheet." 3(ii). As per Clause 5.2 extracted above, the bids submitted in accordance with the above extracted parameters were to be evaluated by the system using the formula set out in form Fin 1. Using this formula, the evaluation of financial bids of two bidders in question as per components of form Fin 1 was as follows:- Bid of petitioner No.1 (Extracts from Annexure R-1):- Number # Text# Number # Text# Text# Number# Numb-er # Number # Number# Number# Text# Sl. Using this formula, the evaluation of financial bids of two bidders in question as per components of form Fin 1 was as follows:- Bid of petitioner No.1 (Extracts from Annexure R-1):- Number # Text# Number # Text# Text# Number# Numb-er # Number # Number# Number# Text# Sl. No. Item Description Quantity Units Quoted currency in INR/ Other currency Basic Rate in figures to be entered by the Bidder Rs. P GST @ 12% Multipli -cation Factor Total amount with taxes NPV of total amount with taxes NPV of total amount with taxes (In words) 1 2 4 5 12 13 20 50 53 54 55 ------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Total in Figures 4118236 207.00 4011984 627.97 INR Four Hundred One Crore Nineteen Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred & Twenty Seven and Paise Ninety Seven Only Quoted Rate in Figures Select 0.00 0.00 Zero Only Quoted Rate in Words INR Four Hundred One Crore Nineteen Lakh Eighty Four Thousand Six Hundred & Twenty Seven and Paise Ninety Seven Only. Bid of respondent No.5 (Extracts from Annexure R-2):- Number # Text# Number # Text# Text# Number# Numb-er # Number # Number# Number# Text# Sl. No. Item Description Quantity Units Quoted currency in INR/ Other currency Basic Rate in figures to be entered by the Bidder Rs. P GST @ 12% Multipli -cation Factor Total amount with taxes NPV of total amount with taxes NPV of total amount with taxes (In words) 1 2 4 5 12 13 20 50 53 54 55 ------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ------- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- Total in Figures 41198745 58.60 39525933 40.17 INR Three Hundred Ninety Five Crore Twenty Five Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred & Forty and Paise Seventeen Only Quoted Rate in Figures Select 0.00 0.00 Zero Only Quoted Rate in Words INR Three Hundred Ninety Five Crore Twenty Five Lakh Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred & Forty and Paise Seventeen Only. In the above evaluation of bids, respondent No.5 emerged as the 'preferred bidder', i.e. the bidder, who as per glossary of RFP (a) meets the Eligibility Criteria; (b) meets the Qualification Criteria; (c) whose Bid is not declared as an Unreasonable Bid and (d) who is declared by the Authority as having the lowest Bid Price. The petitioner emerged as second preferred bidder. Since petitioner No.1 was not the preferred bidder, therefore, it was neither declared as such nor there arises any question of issuing Letter of Acceptance in its favour. 3(iii). The report at Annexure P-4 was based on quoted price of the bidder instead of evaluation of the bid price in form Fin 1 in accordance with the applicable provisions of RFP. Petitioner No.1 had neither been declared as L-1 by respondent No.2 nor any communication had been issued in this regard to it. Therefore, no right much less any vested right accrued in favour of the petitioners to claim Letter of Acceptance on the basis of the report at Annexure P-4. Bid had to be evaluated as per Clauses 5 and 44 of RFP. Column Nos.54 and 55 of form Fin 1 of online system of Bid Evaluation will reflect the actual value of the bid. Bid price calculation by the system reflected in Column Nos.54 and 55 of form Fin 1/Bid Price Sheet is to be considered as final evaluated bid. Since the report at Annexure P-4 does not reflect the bid evaluated in column Nos.54 and 55 of form Fin 1, therefore, reliance upon this report by the petitioners is misplaced. 4. Contentions:- We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the appended record. 4(i). The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the bid of petitioner No.1 was the lowest in CEPAX and OPEX [(i) O&M + (ii) GEC] combined, i.e. 4,118,236,207.00, as against the bid of respondent No.5 of 4,119,874,558.60. This was so reflected in Column No.53 of form Fin 1 and was the evaluation by the system as such, which led to generation of the report at Annexure P-4, declaring the petitioner No.1 as L-1. This was so reflected in Column No.53 of form Fin 1 and was the evaluation by the system as such, which led to generation of the report at Annexure P-4, declaring the petitioner No.1 as L-1. After declaration of petitioner No.1 as L-1 in the report at Annexure P-4, generated on 31.01.2020, it was not open thereafter for the respondents to take into consideration the Net Present Value (NPV) on quoted Operation and Maintenance Cost and thereby making the bid of petitioner No.1 as L-2, i.e. 2nd preferred bidder, and respondent No.5 as L-1, i.e. preferred bidder. In considering NPV while evaluating the bids, the respondents have travelled beyond the evaluation criteria envisaged in RFP document. In pre-bid meeting held on 20.09.2019, the respondents had not stated that bids will be evaluated after considering NPV. 4(ii). Learned Advocate General as well as learned Senior Counsel representing respondent No.5 contended that bids had to be submitted and evaluated in accordance with Clauses 5 and 44 of the RFP document. Bidders were required to quote for the project facility in Bid Price Sheet/form Fin 1. The bid price was to be calculated and determined not as per the quote of the bidders confined till Column No.53 of form Fin 1, but by the system using the formula set out in form Fin 1 by taking into consideration all the columns including Column Nos.50, 54 and 55. It has accordingly been determined and evaluated as under:- (Extracts from tabulation at Annexure R-3) Name of Bidders Rates as per Bid Price Sheet (Quoted Rates) G. Total Sr. No. Bid evaluation as per Clause 5.2 of the RFP considering the  NPV on O&M cost G. Total Lowest Bidder CEPAX OPEX CEPAX OPEX (i) O&M (ii) GEC (i) O&M (ii) GEC LCC Projects Private Limited 3,307,538, 529.12 409,927, 269 .86 402,408, 759. 62 4,119,874, 558.60 1 3,307,838, 529.12 242,646, 051. 45 402,408, 759. 60 3,952,593, 340.17 L-1 Vishnu Prakash R Punglia Ltd 3,458,772, 8 00.00 257,233, 480 .00 402,229, 927. 00 4,118,236, 207.00 2 3,458,772, 800.00 150,981, 900. 97 402,229, 927. 62 4,119,874, 558.60 1 3,307,838, 529.12 242,646, 051. 45 402,408, 759. 60 3,952,593, 340.17 L-1 Vishnu Prakash R Punglia Ltd 3,458,772, 8 00.00 257,233, 480 .00 402,229, 927. 00 4,118,236, 207.00 2 3,458,772, 800.00 150,981, 900. 97 402,229, 927. 00 4,011,984, 627.97 L-2 --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - --- --- --- --- --- After evaluation in Column No.54 of form Fin 1, taking into account the NPV, the ultimate evaluated bid amount of petitioner No.1 came out as Rs.4,011,984,627.97 as against Rs.3,952,593,340.17 of respondent No.5. The same amount has been reflected in Column Nos.54 and 55 of form Fin 1 of respective bidders, which matches the Bid Evaluation Report prepared by respondents No.1 to 4 at Annexure R-3 (extracted above). After evaluation, there was difference of six crores on the basis of NPV in the bids of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5. The evaluation had been carried out in accordance with applicable provisions of RFP. According to evaluated bids, petitioner No.1 did not emerge as L-1, therefore, Letter of Acceptance could not be issued in its favour. 4(iii). In respect of the report generated by e-procurement system at Annexure P-4, it was argued that L-1, i.e. the preferred bidder, was to be declared by respondent No.2 in accordance with the provisions of RFP. The e-Procurement Portal report generated at Annexure P-4 only reflects the price quoted by the bidder. It is not the bid price evaluated under the RFP document. Evaluation had to be carried out in Column Nos.54 and 55 of form Fin 1 after considering the Net Present Value for thirteen years of project life including three years of Designing & Building and ten years of Operation/Maintenance. Petitioner No.1 had not been declared as L-1 by respondent No.2, therefore, reliance upon report at Annexure P-4 is misplaced. 5. Observations:- 5(i). The bidders were required to quote and submit their bids for the project facility in Bid Price Sheet/form Fin 1. As per the Glossary in RFP, the 'Bid Price Sheet' and 'Bid Price' mean as 'set out in the form Fin 1'. 'Fin' means the format of financial form as stipulated in Section 6- Bidding Forms of the RFP. The bidders were required to quote and submit their bids for the project facility in Bid Price Sheet/form Fin 1. As per the Glossary in RFP, the 'Bid Price Sheet' and 'Bid Price' mean as 'set out in the form Fin 1'. 'Fin' means the format of financial form as stipulated in Section 6- Bidding Forms of the RFP. Clause 5.2 of RFP says that based on the components quoted by a bidder, the bid price will be determined by the system using the formulas set out in form Fin 1. Form Fin 1 filled by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5, which have been extracted earlier, clearly reveals that petitioner No.1 had quoted bid amount of Rs.4,118,236,207.00. However, after considering NPV on quoted O&M cost, this bid amount was evaluated at Rs.4,011,984,627.97, whereas bid amount of Rs.4,119,874,558.60 quoted by respondent No.5 after considering NPV on quoted O&M Cost was evaluated at Rs.3,952,593,340.17. The calculations are not in dispute. Clearly, petitioner No.1 emerged not as preferred bidder or L-1, but as the second preferred bidder, i.e. L-2, after evaluation of bids in terms of RFP. 5(ii). Annexure P-4 relied upon by the petitioners to show petitioner no.1 as L-1, actually only reflects the rates quoted by the parties in Column No.13 of form Fin 1/BPS combined with amount of GST reflected in column No.20. This amount has been collectively reflected in Column No.53 (Column No.13+20) and is inclusive of 'GEC' & 'Operation' costs. Thus, Annexure P-4 only quotes the figure by taking the sum total arrived at in Column No.53. Whereas figures in Column Nos.50, 54 and 55 of form Fin 1 determine and evaluate the bid by taking into consideration the Net Present Value, which is arrived on application of a formula on O&M cost quoted by the bidders. The figures in Column Nos.54 and 55 are final figures arrived at after evaluation of bid as per provisions of RFP and not the figures in Column No.53. The report at Annexure P-4 does not account for figures in Column Nos.54 and 55. All the columns of form Fin 1 had to be read as a whole. Evaluation of bids could not be confined only till Column No.53 of form Fin 1. The report at Annexure P-4 does not account for figures in Column Nos.54 and 55. All the columns of form Fin 1 had to be read as a whole. Evaluation of bids could not be confined only till Column No.53 of form Fin 1. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was the preferred bidder by relying upon Annexure P-4, which is only a comparative statement of bids quoted by different bidders and takes into consideration only the amount quoted by the bidder in Column No.53 of form Fin 1 is not acceptable and is rejected. 5(iii). Annexure P-4 is the comparative bid document, but only of the price quoted by the bidders. Comparative Statement of the price quoted by the bidders is not the mode of evaluation of the bids as per the RFP document. According to Clause 5.2 of RFP, quoted bid had to be evaluated as per form Fin 1/BPS. For evaluating the bids, all the columns including Column No.54 of Bid Price Sheet/form Fin 1 were to be considered and not just Column No.53, which takes into consideration figure quoted by the bidders. Therefore, Annexure P-4, which does not take into consideration the amount arrived at in Column No.54 after accounting for NPV, cannot be considered as evaluation of the bid. In form Fin 1, it is only Column No.13, which could be filled by the bidder. Other columns, specifically Column Nos.54 and 55 were to be generated by the software using the formula for considering the Net Present Value to evaluate the bids for entire life of the project spanning thirteen years. Therefore, the evaluation of bids by taking into consideration the Net Present Value on the O&M cost quoted by the bidders has been justified by the respondents. 5(iv). Petitioner No.1 had participated in the bidding process fully aware of the components of the Bid Price Sheet/form Fin 1 and the fact that consideration of NPV was a component in the Bid Price Sheet for evaluation of the bids. Petitioner was aware of the methodology of bid evaluation. Petitioner had not challenged the bid evaluation process before participation in the bidding process. Petitioner was aware of the methodology of bid evaluation. Petitioner had not challenged the bid evaluation process before participation in the bidding process. We may also take note of the fact that accounting for Net Present Value (NPV) has been recognized as a prudent method by which future costs and benefits are levelized in order to account for the time value of money specially in a project of public importance with long life span. Hon'ble Apex Court in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (87*) Versus Union of India and others, (2006) 1 SCC 1 , paras 24 to 26 and 37 whereof are extracted below, held as under:- "24. First, we may consider the meaning of NPV and determine what is NPV. 25. The NPV is the present value (PV) of net cash flow from a project, discounted by the cost of capital. 26. Forestry is a public project. It is important to bear in mind that a benefit received today is worth more than that received later. The benefit received today is in fact "cost-incurred" today. Time value of the cash inflow/outflow is important in investment appraisal. NPV is a method by which future expenditures (costs) and benefit are levelised in order to account for the time value of money. The object behind NPV is to levelise costs. What is the value of rupee today would not be the value of rupee say 50 years later. For example, let us have the starting point of value of rupee in India in the year 2005 and analyse it with the value of rupee that may be in the year 2050. Costs incurred or to be incurred in 2050 have to be discounted by using appropriate parameters like rate of discount, gestation period, ratio of deflators to GDP. Therefore, expenses incurred in each year between say 2005 and 2050 have to be brought down to their present values by using appropriate discount rate in the NPV. 37. The above discussion shows that NPV helps levelising the costs of public projects like forestry. It is an important tool of SBCA. Under SBCA, benefits from each of the above environmental outputs are identifiable. Hence, applying NPV, one can allocate levelised costs according to the contribution of each product in the total revenue. 37. The above discussion shows that NPV helps levelising the costs of public projects like forestry. It is an important tool of SBCA. Under SBCA, benefits from each of the above environmental outputs are identifiable. Hence, applying NPV, one can allocate levelised costs according to the contribution of each product in the total revenue. It is important to bear in mind that a benefit or cost received or incurred now is worth more than that received or incurred latter. Therefore, using the appropriate discount rate helps to aggregate marginal benefits and costs. The choice of interest rate depends upon time preference. For public project, such as forestry, a social discount rate, which indicates time preference of the society, should be used." The Pre-Bid Meeting held on 20.09.2019 only clarified specific queries put forward by the bidders. There was no specific query as to whether NPV was not to be considered while evaluating the bid amount. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that it has been misled by the answers to the queries raised during the pre-bid meeting is not tenable. Petitioner was well aware of bidding format and provisions for bid evaluation prescribed in RFP. 5(v). The contention of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 was declared as L-1 in terms of the report generated at Annexure P-4 by the e-Procurement Portal is also not correct. Under Clause 44.6 of the RFP document, it is respondent No.2, who is to declare the 'preferred bidder'. Petitioner No.1 has not been declared 'preferred bidder' by respondent No.2. No communication in this regard sent by respondent No.2 to the petitioners has been brought on record. There is no question for the petitioners to assume that petitioner No.1 has been declared as 'preferred bidder'. The report at Annexure P-4 is only a comparative statement of combined bid amounts quoted by bidders under different heads. It is actually a reflection of amount arrived at in Column No.53 of form Fin 1. But it does not reflect evaluation of the bid amount, which is actually carried out in Column Nos.54 & 55 of form Fin 1 after taking into consideration the NPV on O&M cost quoted by the bidders. 5(vi). No allegations of mala fide or bias have been alleged against the respondents. But it does not reflect evaluation of the bid amount, which is actually carried out in Column Nos.54 & 55 of form Fin 1 after taking into consideration the NPV on O&M cost quoted by the bidders. 5(vi). No allegations of mala fide or bias have been alleged against the respondents. In the Bid Evaluation Sheet, there is difference of six crores in the bids of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.5 on the Net Present Value of the bids. In a contract of public importance, this much difference in the amount becomes significant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Silppi Constructions Contractors Vs Union of India and anr. etc. etc., (2019) 11 Scale 592 , after considering the plethora of law on the subject held that the authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. Courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable. The court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority. Courts will not normally interfere in contractual matters unless a clear cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. The discretionary power must be exercised with restraint and caution. Paras 19 and 20 of the judgment, being relevant, are reproduced below:- "19. This Court being the guardian of fundamental rights is duty bound to interfere when there is arbitrariness, irrationality, mala fides and bias. However, this Court in all the aforesaid decisions has cautioned time and again that courts should exercise a lot of restraint while exercising their powers of judicial review in contractual or commercial matters. This Court is normally loathe to interfere in contractual matters unless a clear-cut case of arbitrariness or mala fides or bias or irrationality is made out. One must remember that today many public sector undertakings compete with the private industry. The contracts entered into between private parties are not subject to scrutiny under writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. No doubt, the bodies which are State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution are bound to act fairly and are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of superior courts but this discretionary power must be exercised with a great deal of restraint and caution. The Courts must realise their limitations and the havoc which needless interference in commercial matters can cause. In contracts involving technical issues the courts should be even more reluctant because most of us in judges' robes do not have the necessary expertise to adjudicate upon technical issues beyond our domain. As laid down in the judgments cited above the courts should not use a magnifying glass while scanning the tenders and make every small mistake appear like a big blunder. In fact, the courts must give "fair play in the joints" to the government and public sector undertakings in matters of contract. Courts must also not interfere where such interference will cause unnecessary loss to the public exchequer. 20. The essence of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above is the exercise or restraint and caution; the need for overwhelming public interest to justify judicial intervention in matters of contract involving the state instrumentalities; the courts should give way to the opinion of the experts unless the decision is totally arbitrary or unreasonable; the court does not sit like a court of appeal over the appropriate authority; the court must realise that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the court's interference should be minimal. The authority which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the tender documents is the best judge as to how the documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are possible then the interpretation or the author must be accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case." The report generated on 31.01.2020 by the e-Procurement portal was only a comparative statement of the bid amounts quoted by the bidders, arrived at in Column No.53 of form Fin 1. The courts will only interfere to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity. With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present case." The report generated on 31.01.2020 by the e-Procurement portal was only a comparative statement of the bid amounts quoted by the bidders, arrived at in Column No.53 of form Fin 1. This report did not take into account the figures under Column Nos.54 and 55 of form Fin 1, where the quoted bids were actually evaluated in accordance with Clauses 5 & 44 of RFP document after considering the Net Present Value on O&M cost quoted by the bidders for the entire project life spanning thirteen years. For evaluating the bids, as per RFP document, all the components of form Fin 1 were to be considered. After evaluation of bids in form Fin 1, petitioner No.1 did not emerge as preferred bidder (L-1) in Column Nos.54 and 55. Therefore, respondent No.2, justifiably did not issue Letter of Acceptance to it. In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.