ORDER : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: “I. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue of writ of mandamus or certiorari or a writ in the nature of mandamus or certiorari or any other writ, order or direction thereby quashing and setting aside the action of Respondent in disqualifying the petitioner during technical evaluation of the bid. II. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue of writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as qualified in the technical bid evaluated on 30.03.2020 and may further be pleased to direct the respondent to evaluate the financial bid of the petitioner. III. Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further process of Tender Notice Vehicle online Notice No.1/2019-2020.” 2. The following facts emerge from the record of the petition: 2.1. That the respondent Municipal Corporation issued a tender notice for executing the contract of “door to door garbage collection”. The said tender notice was an online process and it was provided inter alia that same can be downloaded and submitted online between 09.03.2020 to 19.03.2020. As per the tender notice, pre-bid meeting was scheduled on 16.3.2020. The representative of the petitioner along with other 7 bidders participated in the pre-bid meeting held on 16.03.2020 and after said meeting, the bids so received were scrutinized by the tender committee constituted by the respondent corporation and it was found that the petitioner was not selected in the technical stage of the evaluation of the tender. The record indicates that the petitioner was informed by email dated 30.03.2020 which was sent at 1.14 pm. The same was replied by the petitioner on the same day (as per counsel of the petitioner it was sent at 4 p.m.). 2.2. At this stage, it is worth to note that petitioner was awarded contract pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 2015 for the very purpose for ward nos. 1 to 20 of the respondent Corporation and the said period was extended lastly till 31.5.2020. 2.3. 2.2. At this stage, it is worth to note that petitioner was awarded contract pursuant to the advertisement published in the year 2015 for the very purpose for ward nos. 1 to 20 of the respondent Corporation and the said period was extended lastly till 31.5.2020. 2.3. The record indicates that the technical bid was not accepted as the tender of the petitioner did not pass through the technical evaluation test, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition on 1.4.2020. It is matter of record that because of corona pandemic, respondent corporation could not proceed further and accordingly the term of the earlier contract of the petitioner was extended lastly till 31.5.2020 as it was an important work relating to the health and hygiene of the citizens of the Junagadh City as matter of necessity. As the record indicates that by an order dated 7.4.2020 this Court was pleased to issue notice returnable on 23.04.2020. On that date, the petitioner through its Trustee & Secretary Shri Dr. Vivek Agrawal filed additional affidavit, based upon which, this Court passed the following order. “Heard learned advocate Mr.Biniwale for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Hemant Munshaw for the respondent-Corporation who appeared through vedio conferencing. 2. The petitioner was awarded contract by the respondent- Corporation on 9.4.2015 for door to door collection and transportation of solid waste in the Junagadh city. After expiry of the original term of the contract, the same was extended from time to time till 14.4.2020. Thereafter, the Corporation invited on-line bid. The petitioner participated therein, however, came to be disqualified in the technical bid. Challenging the disqualification, the present petition came to be filed. 3. Notice in the petition was issued by Division Bench of this Court on 7.4.2020 making it returnable on 23.4.2020 4. When the matter comes up today for consideration, the papers of the petition contained additional affidavit filed by one Dr. Vivek Agarwal, Trustee Secretary of the Petitioner Trust stating on oath as under: “1. I have served the Copy of the Petition, Annexures as well as Order Passed by this Hon’ble Court on 07/04/2020 to the respondent corporation on its official email address municipalcorporationjund@yahoo.co.in. Copy of Screen Shots of the E-mails wherein the Petition as well as Annexure were attach are Annex here to and Marked as Annexure I (Colly). 2. I have served the Copy of the Petition, Annexures as well as Order Passed by this Hon’ble Court on 07/04/2020 to the respondent corporation on its official email address municipalcorporationjund@yahoo.co.in. Copy of Screen Shots of the E-mails wherein the Petition as well as Annexure were attach are Annex here to and Marked as Annexure I (Colly). 2. I further state that I have received a communication dated 13/04/2020 from the Respondent Corporation wherein I have been intimated that the Contract of Petitioner Trust for door to door collection and transportation of solid waste, which was lastly extended till 14.04.2020 has been further extended till 31/05/2020. Copy of the said extension is Annex here to and marked as Annexure II.” 4.1. The extension of contract is also reflected from communication dated 13.4.2020 issued by the respondent- Corporation and addressed to the petitioner. 4.2. Therefore, it transpires that presently the petitioner’s contract has been extended till 31.5.2020. 5. While we could have disposed of the petition, since evidently, as on date, the cause of action does not survive since the contract is extended, learned advocate for the petitioner insisted that if the Corporation continues with the present bid, he will have to file a fresh petition. When we asked learned advocate for the Corporation about the fate of the ongoing process, he submitted that the Standing Committee would take final decision, which has not been able to met due to current lockdown and the corona crisis. 6. Learned advocate for the respondent-Corporation wanted that the petition may be kept on 19.5.2020, to which learned advocate for the petitioner has no objection. 7. Stand over to 19.5.2020. 2.4. The respondent Corporation has filed detailed affidavit denying the contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the same and the contentions raised in the rejoinder have been further denied by the respondent Corporation by filing sur-rejoinder. 2.5. By a further affidavit dated 30.05.2020, respondent Corporation has specifically dealt with clause 8.20 of the tender. By a further affidavit dated 6.6.2020 which is brought on record by respondent Corporation that the offer received was considered by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 5.6.2020 and the Standing Committee has accepted the offer of M/s. Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited at a price of Rs.1591/- per MT. By a further affidavit dated 6.6.2020 which is brought on record by respondent Corporation that the offer received was considered by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 5.6.2020 and the Standing Committee has accepted the offer of M/s. Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited at a price of Rs.1591/- per MT. As the said was awarded contract, by an order dated 15.6.2020 M/s. Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited was permitted to be added as party respondent no.4 in the petition. 3. Heard Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Kedar B Biniwale, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent no.4.- newly added respondent-M/s. Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited. 4. Over and above the oral submissions, the learned advocates for the respective parties were permitted to file their written submissions, which are taken on record and have been also heard by the Court on 23.06.2020. During the course of argument, Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would like to file further written submission, which was permitted and accordingly the petitioner has filed further written submission on 24.6.2020, which is also taken on record. The written submissions on record are made the basis of this judgment and order. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the same may be made basis of their argument. 5. Mr. R.S. Sanjanwala, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has mainly contended as under : 5.1. It was contended that main question which arises in this petition for consideration is, whether clause 8.20 is essential condition or not and whether such condition is essential for the purpose of determining the eligibility criteria of bid. 5.2. Mr. Sanjanwala also referred to the chronology of events and contended that the petitioner was totally ignorant about the reasons which weighed with the Corporation for not accepting the petitioner's tender. Referring to the Email letter dated 30.03.2020 addressed by the petitioner to the Corporation, it was contended by Mr. Sanjanwala that the petitioner has totally ignorant about the reasons for rejecting the petitioner's tender. It was further contended by Mr. Referring to the Email letter dated 30.03.2020 addressed by the petitioner to the Corporation, it was contended by Mr. Sanjanwala that the petitioner has totally ignorant about the reasons for rejecting the petitioner's tender. It was further contended by Mr. Sanjanwala that person who had purportedly attended the meeting was not authorized representative of the petitioner and it was further contended that the said person did not convey the reasons for rejection of petitioner's tender to the higher authority. It was contended that no advantage has accrued to the petitioner and that there is no logical reasons for the petitioner to make deliberate false statement as alleged by the respondent Corporation as regard representative. Mr. Sanjanwala contended that the petitioner has conducted itself in bona fide manner. 5.3. It was further contended that the condition no. 8.20 is ancillary condition and it is not in dispute that the requirement to clause 5.3(d) have been met with by the petitioner. Mr. Sanjanwala contended that relevant challan/ECR issued under the Employees State Insurance Act clearly show that requisite payments were made under the said enactment for such, one year and same have been brought on record by way of filing affidavit in this petition. 5.4. It was also contended by Mr. Sanjanwala that the petitioner is working as a contractor for the very work with the respondent Corporation since last five years and it is not alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner has not made the requisite payments/contributions under the two enactments. It is also not in dispute that information regarding payment and contribution under the two enactment is in public domain and can be obtained by making necessary application to the concerned authorities under the two enactments and on the aforesaid grounds, it is contended as under: (I). That the requirement to produce Challan under Clause 8.20 was not relevant or germane for the purpose of determining the petitioner's eligibility and hence it was place under the heading “General Instructions” at clause 8. (II). That the said requirement falls under the General Instructions and cannot be termed as a condition. (III). That Clause 8.20 is merely on instruction at the most can be termed as a non essential condition for the purpose of determining the eligibility/competency of the petitioner. (IV). That non production of Challan/ECR was inadvertent. (V). (II). That the said requirement falls under the General Instructions and cannot be termed as a condition. (III). That Clause 8.20 is merely on instruction at the most can be termed as a non essential condition for the purpose of determining the eligibility/competency of the petitioner. (IV). That non production of Challan/ECR was inadvertent. (V). That it is indisputable that the petitioner has otherwise complied with the said requirement. 5.5. It was contended that for the non compliance with ancillary or a non essential condition technical bid cannot be rejected and thus the rejection of the technical bid of the petitioner is not justified. Mr. Sanjanwala has relied upon the following judgment to buttress his argument. (1). G.J. Fernandez vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1990) 2 SCC 488 . (2). Poddar Steel Corporation vs. Ganesh Engineering Work reported in (1991) 3 SCC 271, (3). R.J. Holding Vs. MTNL reported in 2005 AIR (Delhi) 134. 5.6. It was also contended by Mr. Sanjanwala that the rate offered by the lowest tenderer – respondent no.4 herein is higher and the same would result into financial loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.6 to 7 crores. In the further submission, it is contended by Mr. Sanjanwala that tender document itself bifurcates essential condition of the tender and general conditions which are non essential conditions. It is the case of the petitioner that the conditions enshrined in clause 5 of the tender which are essential conditions only needs to be complied by the bidder and clause 8 is termed as general instruction, which itself is self explanatory. Referring to the clause 5.5 and clause 8, it is contended by the petitioner that the respondent Corporation has itself very categorically bifurcated the tender notice in two parts, out of which, clause 5 contains conditions and clause 8 contains instructions. On the aforesaid grounds, it was therefore, contended by Mr. Sanjanwala that the petition deserves consideration and the prayers prayed for be granted. 6. Per contra, Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 have opposed the present petition. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation and its authority has taken to this Court to the factual matrix arising out of this petition – more particularly, tender notice in question. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 have opposed the present petition. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent Corporation and its authority has taken to this Court to the factual matrix arising out of this petition – more particularly, tender notice in question. Mr. Munshaw contended that the contract awarded to the petitioner based upon the advertisement of 2015 was to come to end on 14.4.2020. Mr. Munshaw referred to the tender notice dated 1.3.2020 and submitted that fresh advertisement was published in newspaper dated 1.3.2020 inviting tenders online for Ward No. 1 to 15 on new conditions. Referring to the record, it was contended by Mr. Munshaw that as per the tender pre-bid meeting was held on 16.3.202. Referring to the Rojkam of the said meeting, it was contended by Mr. Munshaw that objections and suggestions of bidders who attended the meeting including petitioner’s representative as well as Email address by the petitioner were dealt with. Mr. Munshaw further referring to the record contended that the petitioner submitted tender online on 21.3.2020 and technical bid meeting was held on 23.3.2020 wherein representative of the petitioner was present. However, on administrative ground it was required to be adjourned to 24.3.3020, more particularly, because of Corona Virus. Mr. Munshaw submitted that in all four bidders were in the fray and ultimately technical bids were opened on 24.3.2020 wherein representative of the petitioner was present and he has signed the Rojkam for the petitioner. It was submitted that the technical bid of all the bidders were scrutinized and examined by the Tender Committee and technical bid of the petitioner as well as another parties were rejected by the Tender Committee. Mr. Munshaw referring to the affidavit in reply contended that ultimately price bids of remaining two tenderers were opened on 30.03.2020 and Municipal Commissioner forwarded proposal on 1.4.2020 to Secretary of Junagadh Municipal Corporation for acceptance of tender of Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited – respondent no.4 as respondent no.4 has quoted price of Rs.1672 per MT being lowest. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act the Standing Committee is competent authority to take decision. Mr. It is submitted that as per the provisions of Gujarat Municipal Corporation Act the Standing Committee is competent authority to take decision. Mr. Munshaw pointed out that because of corona virus meeting of the Standing Committee could not be convened and ultimately contract of the petitioner was further extended lastly till 15.6.2020 even during the pendency of this petition. Mr. Munshaw further referred to the letter dated 6.5.2020 addressed by the Municipal Commissioner to the respondent no.4 for reduction of the rates quoted and the respondent no.4 by its further letter dated 8.5.2020 reduced the rate from Rs.1672/- per MT to Rs.1622/- per MT. Mr. Munshaw further submitted that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chairman of Standing Committee instructed the representative of Global Waste Management Cell Private Limited – respondent no.4 telephonically to attend the meeting for negotiation on 3.6.2020 wherein the lowest price agreed by the respondent no.4 was Rs.1591/- per MT. Mr. Munshaw further contended that the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 5.6.2020 passed resolution no. 28 accepting tender of respondent no.4 as it was lowest one offering Rs.1591/- per MT and accordingly Municipal Commissioner passed an order on 5.6.2020. Mr. Munshaw submitted that as the petition was pending earlier contract of the petitioner came to be extended till 22.6.2020. Mr. Munshaw contended that the petitioner is not entitled to relief as prayed for. It was contended that the petition was filed at a belated stage. Mr. Munshaw contended that though technical bids were opened in presence of the representative of the petitioner on 24.3.2020 and technical bid of the petitioner was rejected by the Tender Committee and the representative of the petitioner has signed the Rojkam also the petition is filed after the price bids were opened on 30.03.2020. It is contended by Mr. Munshaw that petition is filed with ulterior motive and deliberately to delay the proceedings. Mr. Munshaw contended that clause 8.20 of the tender is relevant and vitally important considering the nature of work to be executed through a huge manpower and the petitioner being experienced contractor in solid waste management has deliberately not provided required document as per clause 8.20 of tender. Mr. Munshaw contended that the contention of the petitioner that it was a general condition and not a relevant and directly connected with the nature of contract, is without any bearing. Mr. Munshaw contended that the contention of the petitioner that it was a general condition and not a relevant and directly connected with the nature of contract, is without any bearing. Referring to the nature of work and function as well as liability of the successful bidder as laid down at length in a tender form, it was contended by Mr. Munshaw that it is crystal clear that large number of manpower is required for execution of work at different level and as human beings are involved there are various conditions and expectations from successful bidder in implementation of various legal requirements. It was therefore, contended that clause 8.20 relating to Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employee State Insurance Corporation Act is vitally important and it cannot be termed as non essential or general condition. Mr. Munshaw contended that contention raised by petitioner that as the petitioner was contractor of the respondent Corporation and he has supplied relevant document to the respondent no.1 or the Corporation was within the knowledge thereof and therefore, non submission of relevant document relating to clause 8.20 should not be ground for rejecting technical bid, is contrary to the requirement of document under different conditions of the tender. It was contended that each and every bidder is required to submit all the documents and details as asked for in the tender. Mr. Munshaw contended that the petitioner has admittedly not submitted those documents as provided under clause 8.20 for the reasons best known to it and it cannot be said that because of inadvertence, the same was left out. Mr. Munshaw contended that placing on these documents as provided under clause 8.20 before this Court for the first time is of no consequence and the said lacuna cannot be resolved at this juncture. Mr. Munshaw contended that respondent Corporation being statutory body and public authority cannot overlook such vital lapse at the end of the petitioner and proceed further. Mr. Munshaw further contended that Mr. Amit Singh has represented the petitioner right from 2015 onwards in day to day administrative and financial matters relating to the contract and was also present on 23.3.2020 as well as 24.3.2020 when the technical bid was opened and when tender committee took decision to reject technical bid of the petitioner. Referring to the Rojkam, it was contended by Mr. Munshaw that Mr. Referring to the Rojkam, it was contended by Mr. Munshaw that Mr. Amit Singh has signed the Rojkam as representative of the petitioner. Mr. Munshaw further contended that Dr. Vivek Agrawal has never informed in writing that he would represent the petitioner. Mr. Munshaw contended that price offered by the respondent no.4 is Rs.1591/- per MT and petitioner is being paid Rs.1565/- per MT at present as per the Tender of 2015. Referring to the terms and conditions of the present tender, Mr. Munshaw contended that vital conditions are provided whereunder successful bidder has to arrange 33 more vehicles at its cost and also to employee one Supervisor per Ward and collect containers of garbage twice in a day i.e. before 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. It was also contended that successful bidder has to act in accordance with provisions of all the Labour Laws and therefore, submission of all the documents were essential. Referring to Clause 8.3, it was contended that incomplete tender should not be accepted. Referring to clause 8.7, it was contended by Mr. Munshaw that all the terms and conditions be carefully gone through by the bidder. It was also pointed out by Mr. Munshaw that respondent no.4 has submitted its affidavit/undertaking declaring that it has not been black listed by any authority. Mr. Munshaw contended that earlier contract awarded to the petitioner has expired but is being extended from time to time due to pendency of the present petition and the petitioner has also reduced the manpower at site and there are number of complaints from citizens as non performance of contractual obligations by the petitioner is causing health hazard. Mr. Munshaw relied upon the following judgments to buttress his argument. 1. (2011) 5 SCC 103 . 2. (2009) 6 SCC 171 . 3. (2009) 11 SCC 9 . 4. (2016) 8 SCC 622 . 6.1. Mr. Munshaw therefore, submitted that the petition is misconceived and is attempted to delay the process undertaken by the respondent Corporation and submitted that petition be dismissed with cost. 7. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Munshaw learned advocate for the respondent Corporation and has also further submitted as under: 7.1. Mr. 7. Mr. S.P. Majmudar, learned advocate for the respondent no.4 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. Munshaw learned advocate for the respondent Corporation and has also further submitted as under: 7.1. Mr. Majmudar referring to the written submission submitted that the petitioner has made incorrect statement and has suppressed the material facts and therefore, as a rule of equity as well as of law, on that ground petition deserves to be dismissed with costs. It was further contended that respondent no.4 is successful bidder with lowest bid and the present petition is filed only with a view to stall the process of Corporation thereby causing delay in issuance of Work Order to the respondent No. 4. Mr. Majmudar contended that incorrect and false statement has been made to the effect that respondent No.4 was blacklisted by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Mr. Majmudar contended that respondent No.4 was not blacklisted but its tender was merely rejected/disqualified on the ground that its related companies i.e. M/s. Vishwashakti Construction and M/s.Kaviraj Infratech Private Limited were blacklisted. It was further submitted by Mr. Majmuar that Directors/Partners of M/s. Vishwashakti Construction and M/s.Kaviraj Infratech Private Limited are also not common. 7.2. Mr. Mujmdar further contended that petitioner has also made a misstatement in the present petition that it was not aware of the rejection of its technical bid. Mr. Majmudar contended that petitioner has not come with clean hands and petitioner did not fulfill the condition no.8.20 of the tender. It is submitted that at the time when the technical bid of the petitioner, admittedly, did not comply condition No.8.20 and therefore, technical bid of the petitioner is rightly rejected by the respondent Corporation. Mr. Majmudar also contended that the petitioner cannot contend that said was not essential condition of the tender. It was also contended that the petitioner was already an existing contractor and has fulfilled all other conditions of tender and, therefore, the petitioner cannot now be permitted to say that Condition No.8.20 was not essential. It was also further contended that bidder cannot say that one condition of the tender is not essential and even otherwise in the present case the said condition is an essential condition in the contract. Mr. It was also further contended that bidder cannot say that one condition of the tender is not essential and even otherwise in the present case the said condition is an essential condition in the contract. Mr. Majmuar has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (1990)2 SCC 486 , (2016) 8 SCC 622 and (2009) 11 SCC 9 to buttress his argument. It was also submitted by Mr. Majmudar that petition is misconceived and same deserves to be dismissed with costs. It was contended that petition is filed only with a view to continue with its earlier contract which has already expired and the present petition is nothing but gross abuse of process of law. 8. No further and other submissions/contentions/grounds have been raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 9. Considering the contentions raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is a matter of record that the respondent Corporation floated online tender in question for “door to door garbage collection”. The tender document contains various conditions from 1 to 8.21. The respondent Corporation as an author of the tender has right to provide appropriate conditions in the tender and persons making an offer is therefore, required to fulfill the said conditions. Considering the factual background, it is matter of record that condition no.8.20 clearly provides for “The company must possess the Certificate approved under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act as well as Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 and Challan for the last year or Electronic Challan -cum- Return (ECR) shall have to be produced”. Examining the contentions raised by the petitioner to the effect that clause 8.20 was an essential conditions or not, considering the tender notice as a whole, the persons filling up the tender is duty bound to fulfill each and every condition. As rightly contended by the respondent Corporation, the tender work in question entails employment of huge manpower, lifting of garbage and management of solid waste requires ample manpower and therefore, the respondent corporation as author of the tender has thought it proper and essential to provide under clause 8.20 for submission of one year challan of ECR under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act as well as Employees State Insurance Act, 1948. The said condition is self explanatory and clear. The said condition is self explanatory and clear. Therefore, the submission of those documents including certificate and one year challan or ECR is sine qua non. Only because condition no.8.20 falls under general instructions, it cannot be said that there is automatic exemption from the same and it cannot be gainsaid that persons submitting tender in his discretion may or may not submit the required documents. The conditions mentioned in the tender as a whole are required to be fulfilled and this Court in very limited jurisdiction and judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute the decision of corporation and such conditions. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation vs. M/s. Anoj Kumar Garwala rendered in Civil Appeal No. 1049 of 2019 (para 15), which reads thus: “15. 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. Given the fact that in the present case, an essential tender condition which had to be strictly complied with was not so complied with, the appellant would have not power to condone lack of such strict compliance. Any such condonation, as has been done in the present case, would amount to perversity in the understanding or appreciation of the terms of the tender conditions, which must be interfered with by a constitutional court. 10. The petitioner having admitted that condition no.8.20 is not complied with, cannot be permitted to say that it is not an essential condition. Condition no. 8.20 cannot be termed as non essential or ancillary requirement. The issue arising in this petition, therefore, cannot be said that there was minor technical irregularity which can be waived. 11. The contention raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner that condition no.8.20 falls in the part of general instructions and therefore, compliance of such condition is not mandatory, cannot be accepted. A tender document/notice is to be read as a whole and all conditions provided under the tender, more particularly, such condition as provided under clause 8.20 cannot be termed as non essential requirement. A tender document/notice is to be read as a whole and all conditions provided under the tender, more particularly, such condition as provided under clause 8.20 cannot be termed as non essential requirement. The petitioner having admitted that due to inadvertent it was not complied with, cannot be now permitted to say before this Court that the condition no. 8.20 is non essential condition. The submission of document as required under condition no.8.20 of the tender in question for the first time before this Court is of no avail. In a tender process each stage is vital and important and compliance of the condition as provided in the tender notice has to be there. 12. Even the contention that the petitioner being old contractor of the respondent Corporation and therefore, the respondent Corporation was aware whether the payment is made or not and the contention that the details required to be filed by the petitioner under clause 8.20 is of public domain and therefore, same was available to the respondent corporation, deserves to be rejected outright. The challan is not limited to the payment made by the petitioner as an old contractor in relation to the work only at Junagadh Municipal Corporation, however it is challan based on the total liability of the petitioner as an organization. Moreover, respondent corporation cannot be expected to make a search in public domain and obtain the information whether the petitioner has complied with condition no. 8.20 or not i.e. whether payment under Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act as well as Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 has been made by the petitioner or not. 13. In light of the aforesaid, therefore, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of G.J. Fernandez (supra), Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) and R.J. Holding (supra) will have no application to the facts of the present case. The conditions provided in the tender are therefore, to be strictly adhered to and having admitted the fact that the same was not submitted due to inadvertence, the same cannot be condoned by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present petition. 14. The conditions provided in the tender are therefore, to be strictly adhered to and having admitted the fact that the same was not submitted due to inadvertence, the same cannot be condoned by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present petition. 14. The Rojkam dated 16.3.2020 produced by the respondent Corporation which shows that representative of the petitioner attended the meeting on 16.3.2020 i.e. pre-bid meeting and as stated in the affidavit, he also attended technical bid meeting on 23.3.2020 as representative of the petitioner. The record also indicates that the representative of the petitioner was present on 24.3.2020 when technical bid was open and the tender committee which consists of almost five members found non fulfillment of condition no.8.20 and rejected the technical bid. That when the very person attended the pre bid meeting on 16.3.2020 along with 7 other persons, the petitioner does not say that the said person was not his representative. The communication on record clearly borne out the fact that representative of the petitioner remained present before five members of the tender committee wherein non compliance of clause 8.20 was pointed out. Therefore, the contention which is taken by the petitioner that the said representative was not authorized is not believable and is nothing but an afterthought. 15. From the record which is produced by the respondent Corporation in its affidavit, on the contrary it appears that respondent Corporation has threadbare, examined and scrutinized the offer received at every stage and more particularly, technical bid stage and even while considering the offer made by the other bidders. The petitioner being earlier contractor is being represented throughout before respondent Corporation as representative of the petitioner and the petitioner now cannot be permitted to contend that he was not authorized for the first time before this Court. It is not the case of the petitioner that on 16.3.2020 when some person represented the petitioner, he was not authorized. Therefore, on that ground also contention raised by the petitioner deserves no consideration. It is not the case of the petitioner that on 16.3.2020 when some person represented the petitioner, he was not authorized. Therefore, on that ground also contention raised by the petitioner deserves no consideration. It clearly appears from the record that offer given by the respondent no.4 which is accepted by the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 5.6.2020, the rate of offer is Rs.1591/- per MT and therefore, contention raised by the petitioner that there is likelihood of the loss to the public exchequer to the tune of Rs.6 to 7 crores is also incorrect. As pointed by the respondent Corporation, present tender provides for requirement of additional condition of 33 more vehicles looking to the magnitude of the work in the city of Junagadh and appointment of one Supervisor per Ward, Standing Committee within its jurisdiction has, therefore, rightly accepted the offer of respondent no.4. Therefore, on that ground also the contention raised by the petitioner deserves to be rejected. 16. An unsuccessful bidder after tender process is over having admitted the fact that the condition no. 8.20 is not complied with cannot now be permitted to say that such condition was not essential and such condition cannot be waived or exempted by this Court in its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As discussed hereinafter, respondent Corporation has scrupulously followed the procedure in legal manner, the contention raised by the petitioner deserves to be negatived. 17. It appears from the record that as the earlier contract given to the petitioner was to expire on 14.4.2020, the respondent Corporation in right earnest gave a tender notice on 1.3.2020 inviting tenders online for ward no. 1 to 15 and pre-bid meeting was held on 16.3.2020 and objections and suggestions of six agencies who attended the meeting, more particularly from the petitioner were dealt with and not accepted. The petitioner submitted its tender on 21.3.2020 and the technical bids was to be held on 23.3.2020 and same was opened on 24.3.2020 and price bids were opened on 30.03.2020 and because of Corona-19 pandemic, the decision of the standing committee was awaited and ultimately after improvement of situation in the city of Junagadh, Standing Committee met on 5.6.2020 and has taken a conscious decision to accept the offer of respondent no.4. 18. 18. In totality of facts, therefore, the process adopted by the respondent Corporation and the decision made by the authority is in accordance with law and does not require to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and no interference is called for. In view of the aforesaid, the judgments relied upon by the respondents are not required to be dealt with in detailed. Thus,, all the contentions raised by the petitioner fail and petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.