ORDER/JUDGMENT – Mr. Piyush Mathur, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. M. S. Dwivedi, Advocate, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Swati Ukhale, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 – Food Corporation of India. Mr. Umesh Gajankush, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 – Shah Transport Company. The petitioner before this Court, a partnership firm, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by the order dated 25/26-4-2020 passed by the General Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Madhya Pradesh. 2. Facts of the case reveal that a tender was floated by the Food Corporation of India inviting bids for appointment of regular road transport contractor for a period of 2 years, from Dewas to Godhra (Gujarat) on 29-1-2020. As per the tender notice and model tender form, the tender form and supporting document were required to be submitted online. Last date for submitting online submission was 18-2-2020 and tenders were to be opened on 19-2-2020. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner firm submitted all the requisite documents for technical bids and also quoted rates in respect of the financial bid. The respondent - Food Corporation of India, after receiving the tender, forwarded the bids to a Committee for technical evaluation and the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 3 along with others, were found eligible in the technical evaluation process. The contention of the petitioner is that there were lots of discrepancies in respect of the bid submitted by respondent No. 3; the experience certificate was not in the prescribed format, the balance sheet and the profit and loss account for the year 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 were also not having signature of the firm and it was also not in accordance with CAA and Audit Manual. It was also stated that the undertaking submitted by the respondent was not on proper stamp paper, it should have been executed on Rs. 500/- stamp paper, however, it was executed on Rs. 100/- stamp paper. In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a representation / objection on 2-4-2020 as the technical bid was opened on 1-4-2020. However, nothing was done, as stated by the petitioner, and the petitioner on 25-4-2020 again protested in the matter by submitting representation / email. 500/- stamp paper, however, it was executed on Rs. 100/- stamp paper. In the light of the aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a representation / objection on 2-4-2020 as the technical bid was opened on 1-4-2020. However, nothing was done, as stated by the petitioner, and the petitioner on 25-4-2020 again protested in the matter by submitting representation / email. Petitioner has further stated that inspite of there being objections raised by the petitioner, the tender evaluation committee has declared respondent No. 3 as eligible because respondent No. 3 has quoted lowest rates. Petitioner has further stated that in similar circumstances in respect of appointment of regular transport contractor from Ujjain to Banswara, the Food Corporation of India has rejected bids of some of the participants on technical grounds. However, in the present case, they have allowed technical bid of respondent No. 3 and his financial bid has also been opened. The petitioner has also stated that earlier in the past also, the petitioner has worked with the Food Corporation of India, however, by accepting bid of a person who was not technically qualified, the order passed by the respondents deserves to be quashed. The petitioner has raised various grounds before this Court and it has been argued that respondents being State Authorities and Creation of the State are required to adhere to the long established and recognized procedure, in the field of Tenders and they should not indulge in any manner whatsoever for either acting arbitrarily or maliciously. It is stated that the authorities cannot act highhandedly and arbitrarily in the Tendering Process by choosing different methods while scrutinizing the Tender documents, as has been done in the present case. It is stated that as per the prescribed conditions the Tender documents without any ambiguity gives the understanding that only after founding successful in Technical Evaluation the rates of the Bidders can be opened and accepted. 4. The petitioner has also stated that in the present case from the documents it can be gathered that Respondent No. 3 does not fulfill the conditions for Technical Bids as provided in Clause (V) and (VII) of the NIT Dt. 4. The petitioner has also stated that in the present case from the documents it can be gathered that Respondent No. 3 does not fulfill the conditions for Technical Bids as provided in Clause (V) and (VII) of the NIT Dt. 29-1-2020 and his tender was liable to be rejected in Technical Evaluation stage, but despite that he was allowed to participate and his rates were opened and accepted which is a clear violation of fair play and opportunity and vitiates the whole tender proceedings. 5. It is further stated that the Respondent No. 3 does not fulfills the Technical Bid criteria, as the requisite documents were not submitted by Respondent No. 3 in accordance to the conditions precedents of the NIT, though the Petitioner Firm submitted complete detail and proper document as per the tender conditions, therefore the Respondent No. 3 could not have been held to be qualified and his Financial Bids shall not have been opened and assessed and his Tender should have been rejected in Technical Bid stage itself. It is further stated the definition of Successful Bidder as per NIT and its condition is the one who scores Highest in the addition Total of Technical Score + Financial Score, but in the present case Tender of Respondent No. 3 should have been rejected on account of not fulfilling the Technical Bid criteria, as has been done in similar matter, therefore his declaration of successful bidder is wrong, illegal and arbitrary. 6. It has been further stated that the respondent / FCI has violated the terms and conditions of NIT and the same ought to have been followed by the Respondent Corporation while assessing Technical Bids of the participants. It has been further contended that soon after getting the knowledge of the lapses, the Petitioner Firm has informed to the authorities who were required to act promptly and to take corrective measures by cancelling the Bid of the Respondent No. 3 but nothing has been done in the matter, which has caused great prejudiced to the Petitioner and the matter warranted judicial scrutiny by the kind hands of this Court under its extraordinary powers provided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 25-26-4-2020 as void and opposed to law and a further prayer has been made to declare the petitioner as successful bidder. 7. The petitioner has prayed for quashment of order dated 25-26-4-2020 as void and opposed to law and a further prayer has been made to declare the petitioner as successful bidder. The petitioner has also prayed that the work in question be allotted to the petitioner. 8. The matter was listed for the first time before this Court on 29-5-2020 and the petitioner was permitted to serve the respondents by hamdust mode / email / fax. The respondents have been served and reply has been filed on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. The respondents have stated that the tender was floated on 29-1-2020 along with corrigendum dated 12-2-2020 for appointment of regular transport contractor at RTC Dewas to Godhra (Gujarat) and technical bid was opened on 19-2-2020. The technical evaluation committee has declared 3 bidders as technically qualified and one bidder was declared as disqualified. The respondents have stated that the whole process carried out by them is a transparent process and the scrutiny of the documents was carried out by the independent committee. The procedure adopted by the technical committee has been uniformly applied to all the bidders keeping in view the terms and conditions of the tender document. The respondents have also stated that after the technical bids were opened, the respondent No. 2 has received a representation dated 2-4-2020 from the petitioner M/s. K. D. Transport Company and other representation was received on 2-4-2020 from Shri Mahalaxmi Roadlines requesting to disqualify M/s. Shah Transport Company on the ground of alleged technical errors in the bid document submitted by respondent No. 3 M/s. Shah Transport Company. The respondents have also stated that the representations were examined and there were minor discrepancies in the tender document and as the bid submitted by the respondent No. 3 was the lowest bid (L1) and keeping in view the Headquarter Circular No. 01.2017 read with 31-10-2017, as rejection of bid on hyper-technical ground was detrimental to the interest of Corporation, the representation has not been accepted. It has also been stated that in the State of Madhya Pradesh an affidavit is required to be executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 50/- and the tenderer M/s. Shah Transport Company has executed on a stamp paper of more than required stamp duty. It has also been stated that the tender submission undertaking does not require any stamp. 50/- and the tenderer M/s. Shah Transport Company has executed on a stamp paper of more than required stamp duty. It has also been stated that the tender submission undertaking does not require any stamp. The respondents have further stated that the complaint submitted by the petitioner was forwarded to the Food Corporation of India, Zonal Headquarter, Mumbai and all the points raised by the petitioner have been examined. It is nobody’s case that respondent No. 3 does not have the required experience. It is nobody’s case that respondent No. 3 has quoted higher amount than the petitioner. The bid was opened on 8-4-2020 and the details of the particulars quoted by all the three bidders are as under : – S. No. Name of Party EMD Details Status in the Technical Bid Rate quoted by technically qualified bidders 1/4 Shree Madhupuri Transport Contractor MSME Unsuccessful -- 2/4 Shree Mahalaxmi Road Lines MSME Successful Rs. 1128/MT (L-2) 3/4 Shah Transport Company MSME Successful Rs. 1111/MT (L-1) 4/4 K.D. Transport MSME Successful Rs. 1295/MT (L-3) 9. Ms. Swati Ukhale, learned counsel for the respondent - Food Corporation of India has categorically stated that keeping in view the tender value, the difference between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 will be about 2.5 crores and the work of transportation is being done, the Letter of Intent has been issued in favour of respondent No. 3. It has been further argued that the petitioner’s rates are the highest and he is not even L2 and L2 is M/s. Mahalaxmi Roadlines and M/s. Mahalaxmi Roadlines has not filed any petition. It has also been stated that the Food Corporation of India being Public Sector Undertaking is fully owned and controlled by the Government of India and working in the national interest, the foodgrain is lying in open and the same is to be transported immediately and is to be distributed by public distribution system as well as to various organisations of the Government of India including the Ministry of Defence. It has also been stated that the rainy season is approaching fast and the food grains are lying in open and, therefore, as the work has been allotted to a person who is having experience and has quoted lowest rates, the question of interference by this Court does not arise. She has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 10. Mr. She has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 10. Mr. Umesh Gajankush, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has categorically stated before this Court that respondent No. 3 was having the experience, as required under the terms and conditions of the tender and merely because some minor discrepancies are being alleged against respondent No. 3, the question of interference by this Court does not raise. He has stated that the work has already been allotted to respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 25-4-2020 as respondent No. 3 has quoted lowest rates and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 12. Facts of the case reveal that the NIT was issued on 29-1-2020 and a corrigendum was also issued on 12-2-2020. For the purpose of transportation from Dewas to Godhra (Gujarat) four bidders participated in the process and the rates quoted by all the four bidders are as under : S. No. Name of Party EMD Details Status in the Technical Bid Rate quoted by technically qualified bidders 1/4 Shree Madhupuri Transport Contractor MSME Unsuccessful -- 2/4 Shree Mahalaxmi Road Lines MSME Successful Rs. 1128/MT (L-2) 3/4 Shah Transport Company MSME Successful Rs. 1111/MT (L-1) 4/4 K.D. Transport MSME Successful Rs. 1295/MT (L-3) The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No. 3 has wrongly been held eligible by the tender evaluation committee though they were lot of discrepancies in the tender form submitted by respondent No. 3. The representation submitted by the petitioner have been looked into by the High Power Committee and it is nobody’s case that respondent No. 3 does not have the experience, as required under the NIT. The respondent No. 2 has clarified the issue in respect of non-judicial stamp paper of Rs. 500 /50 and it has been stated that in the State of Madhya Pradesh the stamp paper required is Rs. 50/- only and the affidavit submitted by the respondent No. 3 is having more than required stamp duty. Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered opinion that such type of discrepancies / omission / error, if any, on the part of respondent No. 3 will not affect the valuation done by the tender evaluation committee. 50/- only and the affidavit submitted by the respondent No. 3 is having more than required stamp duty. Otherwise also, this Court is of the considered opinion that such type of discrepancies / omission / error, if any, on the part of respondent No. 3 will not affect the valuation done by the tender evaluation committee. The difference of amount to be paid by the Food Corporation of India is approximately 2.5 Crores in case the tender of the present petitioner is accepted and respondent No. 3 is thrown out on technicalities. 13. It has been argued by Mr. Piyush Mathur, learned senior counsel that in similar circumstances for transportation from Ujjain to Banswara, the respondents have rejected the bids of some of the participants on some technical grounds and, therefore, it is a case of selectively rejecting tenders and selectively accepting the tender. Annexure P/8 has been filed in support of the averment. 14. Ms. Swati Karasgir, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has argued before this Court that so far Annexure P/8 is concerned, the technical bid was rejected in respect of M/s. Suncity Transport Company, as it was blacklisted and the same information was provided by the Company itself in respect of some other tender and in addition, the experience certificate was not in format. 15. This Court is of the considered opinion that the example as quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner in any manner. For minor discrepancies, if any, which the Food Corporation of India does have the power to ignore, the State Exchequer cannot be subjected to suffer the loss of Rs. 2.5 crores. 16. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Bakshi Security and Personnel Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Devkishan Computed Private Limited and others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 446 and his contention is that the essential conditions of tender are required to be strictly complied with and there is no power to relax such conditions. 17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the essential conditions of the tender are certainly required to be strictly complied with. 17. This Court is of the considered opinion that the essential conditions of the tender are certainly required to be strictly complied with. In the aforesaid case, it was one of the tender conditions that salary paid to the manpower should not be less than the minimum wage and if salary quoted is less than the minimum wage, then such bid is liable to be rejected. In the aforesaid case, the wages quoted were much below than the revised minimum wage prescribed by the Labour Department and in those circumstances, the Supreme Court has set aside the judgment delivered by the High Court and has held that a person who has quoted less than the minimum wage, was rightly excluded by the Department therein. Paragraphs 14 to 20 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under : 14. The law is settled that an essential condition of a tender has to be strictly complied with. In Poddar Steel Corpn. vs. Ganesh Engineering Works, (1991) 3 SCC 273 , this Court held as under : – “… 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….” [para 6] 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….” [para 6] 15. Similarly in B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd., (2006) 11 SCC 548 , this Court held as under : – “…(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 the 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; …” [para 66] 16. We also agree with the contention of Shri Raval that the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized to make a fresh bargain between parties. 17. We also agree with the contention of Shri Raval that the writ jurisdiction cannot be utilized to make a fresh bargain between parties. 17. In General Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandmull Jain, (1996) 3 SCR 500 , this Court, in a slightly different context, stated : “In other respects there is no difference between a contract of insurance and any other contract except that in a contract of insurance there is a requirement of uberrima fides i.e. good faith on the part of the assured and the contract is likely to be construed contra proferentem that is against the company in case of ambiguity or doubt. A contract is formed when there is an unqualified acceptance of the proposal. Acceptance may be expressed in writing or it may even be implied if the insurer accepts the premium and retains it. In the case of the assured, a positive act on his part by which he recognises or seeks to enforce the policy amounts to an affirmation of it. This position was clearly recognised by the assured himself, because he wrote, close upon the expiry of the time of the cover notes that either a policy should be issued to him before that period had expired or the cover note extended in time. In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. Looking at the proposal, the letter of acceptance and the cover notes, it is clear that a contract of insurance under the standard policy for fire and extended to cover flood, cyclone etc. had come into being.” 18. In the light of the aforesaid judgment, the High Court was not correct in treating Respondent No. 1’s offer as matching with the revised minimum wage calculation, as that would make a new contract between the parties that the parties have not made themselves. 19. It is also well to remember the admonition given by this Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2012) 8 SCC 216 in cases like the present, as under : – “In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 , the following conclusion is relevant : “22. 19. It is also well to remember the admonition given by this Court in Michigan Rubber (India) Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others, (2012) 8 SCC 216 in cases like the present, as under : – “In Jagdish Mandal vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 517 , the following conclusion is relevant : “22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made ‘lawfully’ and not to check whether choice or decision is ‘sound’. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: ‘the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached’; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/ contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.”[Para 21] 20. We have seen that the present tender has not gotten off the ground since May, 2015, and one year’s precious time has been wasted due to litigation between the parties. We must hasten to add that the Government of Gujarat is partly to blame for this inasmuch as it arrived at a minimum wage figure and did not disclose the same to the tendering parties twice. Even in the second round of litigation, the Government did not disclose the newly arrived at minimum wage figure of Rs. 2,91,00,000/- to the two persons in the fray before us. Ordinarily, therefore, we would have asked the Government to disclose the second figure of minimum wage and restart the tendering process. However, we do not think that the justice of the case requires us to do so, for two reasons. First and foremost, Respondent No. 1 before us has clearly violated the strict terms of the tender condition on every occasion and hence cannot be given relief. And, secondly, we already find that due to litigation the present tender has not taken off for over one year. In the absence of mala fides, and indeed the High Court judgment has found that mala fides did not vitiate the calculation of minimum wage by the Labour Department, we cannot accept Shri Divan’s submission that the figure of Rs. 2,91,00,000/- was tailor made to suit the bid offered by the Appellant herein. We, therefore, set aside the decision of the Gujarat High Court and allow the Government to proceed further in finalizing the tender in favour of the Appellant herein. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs. 18. The aforesaid paragraphs makes it very clear that the essential conditions are required to be adhered to and in the present case also the essential conditions have been adhered to and, therefore, the question of interference by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. 19. 18. The aforesaid paragraphs makes it very clear that the essential conditions are required to be adhered to and in the present case also the essential conditions have been adhered to and, therefore, the question of interference by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. 19. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Vidharbh Irrigation Development Corporation vs. Anoj Kumar Garwala, reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 89. Paragraph 15 of the aforesaid judgment reads as under : 15. Similarly in B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. [B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. vs. 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;…” 20. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case the respondent No. 3 does have the requisite qualifications and experience as per the NIT and he was rightly found eligible by the tender evaluation committee. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case the respondent No. 3 does have the requisite qualifications and experience as per the NIT and he was rightly found eligible by the tender evaluation committee. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the process, as work has been awarded to a person who is L1 and the petitioner is the person who has offered highest rate. 21. Ms. Swati Ukhale, learned counsel for the respondent - Food Corporation of India has argued before this Court that as per Circular dated 5-2-2020, the right to raise grievance is restricted only to disqualified bidder and the petitioner who has been found technically qualified, has got no locus to raise a grievance. The Clause 1(c) of the circular dated 5-2-2020 reads as under : (c) The results of technical evaluation will be uploaded on the CPP Portal. In case there are technically disqualified bidders, the reason for disqualification will be uploaded and price bid shall be opened only after three working days. If any of the bidders is disqualified, he may submit grievance (if any), to General Manager (Region) within three working days from the date of disqualification. However, no new documents will be accepted. In case of receipt of grievance, General Manager (Region) will redress the grievance by passing Speaking Order within seven (7) working days. In case of receipt of grievance from any disqualified bidder, the validity period of the tender shall get automatically extended by 15 working days, which shall be binding on all the bidders. 22. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid clause in Circular dated 5-2-2020. It is true that the aforesaid circular provides that a disqualified person who has been disqualified by a tender evaluation committee can raise the grievance to the General Manager and the same shall be decided by passing a speaking order. The aforesaid circular nowhere debars any person to challenge the decision taken by the technical evaluation committee in respect of the other bidders. If such an interpretation is given, as argued by the learned counsel, it will give unfettered powers to the Food Corporation of India and they will be rejecting all the representations of all those persons who have been found technically fit, in respect of their grievance in respect of other bidders by taking shelter of the aforesaid clause. If such an interpretation is given, as argued by the learned counsel, it will give unfettered powers to the Food Corporation of India and they will be rejecting all the representations of all those persons who have been found technically fit, in respect of their grievance in respect of other bidders by taking shelter of the aforesaid clause. The other participants who attended the process does have a right, as guaranteed under the Constitution of India to approach this Court for ventilating their grievance. Any Circular / Executive Instructions cannot stop people from approaching the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Otherwise also, the Circular nowhere says that a person aggrieved in the matter cannot approach the High Court and, therefore, the argument to the extent the interpretation of the Circular dated 5-2-2020 has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent - Food Corporation of India is repelled. The petitioner has rightly approached this Court being aggrieved by acceptance of tender in favour of respondent No. 3 though this Court has arrived at a conclusion that there is no irregularity in the matter of allotment of work to respondent No. 3. 23. This Court does not find any reason to set aside the Letter of Intent already issued in favour of respondent No. 3 and as no case is made out on merits, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.