ORDER 1. The petitioner is a proprietorship firm run by its proprietor Smt. Varsha w/o Shri Pushpendra Jain, a citizen of India and a permanent resident of Indore. The respondent No. 1 is the Mahtama Gandhi Memorial Medical College, Indore, established and run by the Government of Madhya Pradesh is being represented by its Dean, while the respondent No. 2 is the Superintendent of respondent no. 1 Medical College. 2. Respondents M.G.M. Medical College issued an NIT on 26.6.2020 for purchase and supply of kits, chemicals, and other items for the use in laboratory and pathology of the hospital associated with the college for a period of one year. As per clause-4 of the NIT, the bidder has to submit the earnest money (EMD) to the tune of Rs.50,000/- in the form of FDR of any nationalized bank with a validity period of one year. 3. In pursuant to the aforesaid NIT, the petitioner also submitted its bid along with a bankers cheque of Rs.50,000/- as EMD. The tender scrutiny committee after examining clause-4 of the NIT has found that the petitioner did not comply with the condition of deposit of EMD by way of FDR and accordingly declared the petitioner ineligible vide impugned letter dated 14.7.2020, hence the present petition before this Court. 4. Shri A.K.Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the NIT specifically provides for submission of EMD by way of FDR but the said condition is not mandatory because the said EMD is liable to be returned to the unsuccessful bidder after opening the financial bid. The banker's cheque is valid for three months and the same is liable to be returned if the tender is rejected. He submits that every tender contains two types of conditions, some of them are mandatory, some are directory in nature. Looking to the nature of the tender clause-4 of the NIT is not a mandatory condition because the earnest money is secured even if given by way of banker's cheque. The submission of a banker’s cheque by the petitioner was a substantial compliance of the terms of the tender and that the respondents were not entitled to disqualify the petitioner from participating in the tender process in the absence of any disqualification clause in the tender document. The submission of a banker’s cheque by the petitioner was a substantial compliance of the terms of the tender and that the respondents were not entitled to disqualify the petitioner from participating in the tender process in the absence of any disqualification clause in the tender document. He further submits that the respondents have issued the impugned communication without even considering that a banker’s cheque furnishes a higher level of security vis-a-vis FDR and that in such circumstances the submission of a banker's cheque by the petitioner could not have entailed in disqualification of the petitioner for participating in the tender process. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of M/s Poddar Steel Corporation v. M/s Ganesh Engineering Works and others reported in AIR 1991 SC 1579 . Shri Sethi learned Senior counsel further submits that as per the tender document the technical bid opening date was 10.7.2020 and the financial bid opening date was 13.7.2020 however, on 15.7.2020 the petitioner was served by a communication No. 12624/kray-vibhag/2020 dated 14.7.2020 informing that the petitioner has been declared ineligible for participating in the tender process on the ground of submission of a banker’s cheque instead of fixed deposit receipt (FDR) towards the earnest money/EMD. 5. Shri Pushyamitra Bhargava, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submits that there is no ambiguity in clause-4 of the NIT which specifically provides that EMD is liable to be submitted by way of FDR with a validity period of one year because the tender is for one year. The EMD is liable to be forfeited if the successful bidder commits any default during the contract period. The condition is mandatory in nature and since the petitioner admittedly has not submitted the EMD by way of FDR with one-year validity, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned action of the respondents. He further submits that in pursuant to the NIT the respondents received 12 bids and except the petitioner, all have submitted the EMD by way of FDR, therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to give its own interpretation to a tender condition, hence the respondents have not committed any error while declaring the petitioner as ineligible. The petition is devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed. 6. The petition is devoid of substance and is liable to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and substance. Clause-4 of the NIT is reproduced below: ^^4- lhfer fufonk gsrq vusZLV euh dh jkf'k :i;s 50]000@& ¼:i;s ipkl gtkj ek=½ ,d o"kZ rd dh vof/k ds fy;s ,QŒMhŒvkjŒ@bZŒ,eŒMhŒ jk"Vªh;d`r cSad dh gksuk pkfg;sA tks fd vf/k"Bkrk] egkRek xkaèkh Le`fr fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] bankSj vdkm.V vkQ fufonkdrkZ QeZ vafdr gksA ftu fufonkdkjksa dh fufonk Lohd`r ugha gksxh mUgsa rqajr vusZLV euh ykSVk nh tkosxhA** 7. It is unequivocal from the aforesaid condition that every bidder is liable to submit the EMD by way of FDR with a validity of one year. Except for the petitioner, all the bidders understood the clause 4 of NIT correctly and submitted the EMD by way of FDR. It is also not in dispute that the banker's cheque is valid only for three months. The EMD is liable to remain valid during the tender period prescribed in the tender i.e. one year. In the present case, the tender is issued for the supply of material for one year period, therefore, the respondents have demanded EMD by way of FDR with the validity for one year period. Hence, in our considered opinion, this condition is mandatory and the petitioner has rightly been disqualified to participate in the tender. The condition cannot be relaxed in the case of the petitioner alone after the submission of the bids. The Supreme Court of India in case of Municipal Corpn., Ujjain v. BVG India Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 462 , has held as under : 45. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial transactions/contracts. If the decision relating to award of contract is in public interest, the Courts will not, in exercise of the power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in awarding the contract is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest by ignoring public interest. Attempts by unsuccessful bidders with an artificial grievance and to get the purpose defeated by approaching the Court on some technical and procedural lapses, should be handled by Courts with firmness. The exercise of the power of judicial review should be avoided if there is no irrationality or arbitrariness. Attempts by unsuccessful bidders with an artificial grievance and to get the purpose defeated by approaching the Court on some technical and procedural lapses, should be handled by Courts with firmness. The exercise of the power of judicial review should be avoided if there is no irrationality or arbitrariness. In the matter on hand, we do not find any illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality or unreasonableness on the part of the expert body while in action. So also, we do not find any bias or mala fides either on the part of the corporation or on the part of the technical expert while taking the decision. Moreover, the decision is taken keeping in mind the public interest and the work experience of the successful bidder. The well-settled principle of judicial review of the administrative action is that the Court examines the decisionmaking process and not the ultimate decision. Since the impugned action of the respondents is based upon the correct interpretation of clause 4 of the NIT, therefore, the decision to reject the bid of the petitioner cannot be said to be so arbitrary or irrational which may warrant interference in exercise of power of judicial review. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any substance in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.